IDI's turn to RDI's and vice versa

[coloradokares]

Sorry UK guy, I have to side with Credence.

None of us have enough info to make any decision RDI or IDI. We can only talk about what we THINK we know.

Patsy's fibers could have been transferred to the basement (and into the garrot) via JonBenet's clothing, her blanket, etc. JB's abducter was probably covered with it.

I had also heard that the way in which the foreign dna mingled with JB's dna was more indicative of them being left at the same time.

Alexi how can artifact and highly degraded DNA be from the same time as the fresh blood DNA from JonBenet? Thats just not possible. And JB's abductor was covered in Patsy's fibers. How were they doing the Texase Two Step? WHAT? I mean Patsy did NOT go downstairs by her own words. She tries to explain by saying she'd layed out across JonBenet's body. Ok But by John's own admission he covered her with a blanket.....Now I may not be the brightest crayon in the box.......nor the sharpest knife in the drawer and all this is pretty elementary to even me. However there are none so blind as those who will not see ......

 

[Nuisanceposter]

The foreign DNA was fragmented and degraded, whereas JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete. The logical conclusion here is that the foreign DNA was not deposited at the same time as JonBenet's DNA, or both samples would be fresh and complete. It's not possible for one sample to degrade while the other doesn't - they'd either both be fresh and complete, or they'd both be fragmented and degraded.

The underwear JonBenet was found in were brand new and unwashed, straight out of the package.

Dr Henry Lee obtained a package of underwear identical to the one JonBenet was found in, day-of-the-week Bloomies, and when he tested them fresh and unwashed out of the package, he discovered they had DNA on them. Obviously this DNA was deposited on the underwear at the time of manufacture. If that happened with the underwear Dr Lee tested, it's logical that that's what happened with the underwear on JonBenet. In fact, I don't see another conclusion, given the differences in completeness of both samples.

Mary Lacy even said the DNA in this case may be artifact and completely unrelated to the murder. I really think the foreign DNA was already on the underwear when JonBenet was dressed in them.

Patsy's fibers were tied into the ligature knot, on the sticky side of the tape over JonBenet's mouth, and in the paint tray where the paintbrush used to construct the ligature came from. Patsy said she hadn't painted in that jacket, hadn't been near the paint tray in it, and hadn't been down in the basement in it. Transfer explains fibers on JonBenet, but falls short of explaining why Patsy's fibers would be trapped in the knot, tape and tray - unless that jacket was present when the paintbrush was obtained, when the tape was put on JB's face, and when the knot was tied.

When you compare these things to the amount of inconsistent stories and outright lies the Rs have been telling, and the complete lack of forensic evidence indicating anyone other than a Ramsey was in the house that night, RDI is a logical place to end up.

 

[Credence]

The foreign DNA was fragmented and degraded, whereas JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete. The logical conclusion here is that the foreign DNA was not deposited at the same time as JonBenet's DNA, or both samples would be fresh and complete. It's not possible for one sample to degrade while the other doesn't - they'd either both be fresh and complete, or they'd both be fragmented and degraded.

The underwear JonBenet was found in were brand new and unwashed, straight out of the package.

Dr Henry Lee obtained a package of underwear identical to the one JonBenet was found in, day-of-the-week Bloomies, and when he tested them fresh and unwashed out of the package, he discovered they had DNA on them. Obviously this DNA was deposited on the underwear at the time of manufacture. If that happened with the underwear Dr Lee tested, it's logical that that's what happened with the underwear on JonBenet. In fact, I don't see another conclusion, given the differences in completeness of both samples.

Mary Lacy even said the DNA in this case may be artifact and completely unrelated to the murder. I really think the foreign DNA was already on the underwear when JonBenet was dressed in them.

Patsy's fibers were tied into the ligature knot, on the sticky side of the tape over JonBenet's mouth, and in the paint tray where the paintbrush used to construct the ligature came from. Patsy said she hadn't painted in that jacket, hadn't been near the paint tray in it, and hadn't been down in the basement in it. Transfer explains fibers on JonBenet, but falls short of explaining why Patsy's fibers would be trapped in the knot, tape and tray - unless that jacket was present when the paintbrush was obtained, when the tape was put on JB's face, and when the knot was tied.

When you compare these things to the amount of inconsistent stories and outright lies the Rs have been telling, and the complete lack of forensic evidence indicating anyone other than a Ramsey was in the house that night, RDI is a logical place to end up.

I agree with most of your post except the DNA you are referring to has since been isolated and it seems you are quoting old news re: the DNA

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Has been isolated? What do you mean by that? They found nine and half of thirteen markers?

Yes, what I said in my post has been stated before, by myself and others and is not new news, but the fact remains that you can't have two samples of DNA deposited at the same time and have one be fragmented and degraded and the other fresh and complete. The two samples of DNA were not deposited at the same time - the foreign DNA was not from the killer, unless he had access to the underwear before they were opened and put on JonBenet. That's the only way the foreign DNA could have been from the killer, since it had to have been on the underwear for some time prior to being put on JB in order for it to be degraded and fragmented while hers was fresh and complete.

It's pretty basic. That DNA wasn't left on the underwear when JonBenet's DNA was or they'd both be fresh and complete.

 

[Jayelles]

Has been isolated? What do you mean by that? They found nine and half of thirteen markers?

Yes, what I said in my post has been stated before, by myself and others and is not new news, but the fact remains that you can't have two samples of DNA deposited at the same time and have one be fragmented and degraded and the other fresh and complete. The two samples of DNA were not deposited at the same time - the foreign DNA was not from the killer, unless he had access to the underwear before they were opened and put on JonBenet. That's the only way the foreign DNA could have been from the killer, since it had to have been on the underwear for some time prior to being put on JB in order for it to be degraded and fragmented while hers was fresh and complete.

It's pretty basic. That DNA wasn't left on the underwear when JonBenet's DNA was or they'd both be fresh and complete.

I certainly think there are issues of probability here. One of the most abused and misleading words in the case is "co-mingled". Some people cannot understand how two DNA samples can be deposited at different times and still co-mingle.

Why_Nut gave a great analogy. You have two small containers of water. Add salt to one and sugar to the other. Now pour the salt solution onto a piece of fabric and allow it to dry. Now pour the sugar sample onto the fabric and allow it to dry.

Along comes a lab technician to takes the fabric and tests it. He finds a stain with salt and sugar "co-mingled" - does he automatically ASSume that they were deposited at the same time? If he did, he should lose his job!

 

[Ames]

Alexi how can artifact and highly degraded DNA be from the same time as the fresh blood DNA from JonBenet? Thats just not possible. And JB's abductor was covered in Patsy's fibers. How were they doing the Texase Two Step? WHAT? I mean Patsy did NOT go downstairs by her own words. She tries to explain by saying she'd layed out across JonBenet's body. Ok But by John's own admission he covered her with a blanket.....Now I may not be the brightest crayon in the box.......nor the sharpest knife in the drawer and all this is pretty elementary to even me. However there are none so blind as those who will not see ......

Nor am I the sharpest tool in the shed....BUT....when Patsy flung herself across JB's dead body...which I believe was planned...along with her "Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead".. speech....and JB's body was covered in a blanket.....there is no way that those fibers could have transfered to JB. ALSO..how does flinging herself across JB's body account for her clothing fibers found ENTWINED in the garotte, on the tape that was on JB's mouth....AND in the paint tray? The ONLY way that those fibers could have been entwined in the garotte, is if they shed from her clothes....WHILE she or someone else in the basement was MAKING the garotte. Clothing fibers would not just find a way to squeeze itself into the rope material, after the garotte was made. They would have had to have shed from Patsy clothes while she was in the room, and NEAR the garotte, AS IT WAS BEING MADE. Same thing goes for the tape on JB's mouth...and the paint tray. I don't think that those fibers could have floated off her and down into the basement where JB was found. That's an awful long way for a fiber to travel....those two sets of fibers...the ones on the tape, and inside of the paint tray COULD be explained away by saying that JB had Patsy's fibers on her body, because Patsy had tucked her in....which I DO NOT BELIEVE. BUT...how do you explain fibers that are ENTWINED in the rope of a garotte??

 

[Ames]

The foreign DNA was fragmented and degraded, whereas JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete. The logical conclusion here is that the foreign DNA was not deposited at the same time as JonBenet's DNA, or both samples would be fresh and complete. It's not possible for one sample to degrade while the other doesn't - they'd either both be fresh and complete, or they'd both be fragmented and degraded.

The underwear JonBenet was found in were brand new and unwashed, straight out of the package.

Dr Henry Lee obtained a package of underwear identical to the one JonBenet was found in, day-of-the-week Bloomies, and when he tested them fresh and unwashed out of the package, he discovered they had DNA on them. Obviously this DNA was deposited on the underwear at the time of manufacture. If that happened with the underwear Dr Lee tested, it's logical that that's what happened with the underwear on JonBenet. In fact, I don't see another conclusion, given the differences in completeness of both samples.

Mary Lacy even said the DNA in this case may be artifact and completely unrelated to the murder. I really think the foreign DNA was already on the underwear when JonBenet was dressed in them.

Patsy's fibers were tied into the ligature knot, on the sticky side of the tape over JonBenet's mouth, and in the paint tray where the paintbrush used to construct the ligature came from. Patsy said she hadn't painted in that jacket, hadn't been near the paint tray in it, and hadn't been down in the basement in it. Transfer explains fibers on JonBenet, but falls short of explaining why Patsy's fibers would be trapped in the knot, tape and tray - unless that jacket was present when the paintbrush was obtained, when the tape was put on JB's face, and when the knot was tied.

When you compare these things to the amount of inconsistent stories and outright lies the Rs have been telling, and the complete lack of forensic evidence indicating anyone other than a Ramsey was in the house that night, RDI is a logical place to end up.

Exactly...I just posted basically the same thing....before I read your post. Sorry.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Exactly...I just posted basically the same thing....before I read your post. Sorry.

Lol, Ames, you know how it is...great minds think alike.

 

[coloradokares]

Lol, Ames, you know how it is...great minds think alike.

And i'd said almost word for word nearly the same thing when I said how do you explain fibers in the knot of the garotte etc when Patsy hadn't been downstairs and a blanket over her body. Great minds......yezzzzzzzz

 

[Nuisanceposter]

And i'd said almost word for word nearly the same thing when I said how do you explain fibers in the knot of the garotte etc when Patsy hadn't been downstairs and a blanket over her body. Great minds......yezzzzzzzz

I'm so glad you guys came over here from the other place.

 

[BBB167893]

I had also heard that the way in which the foreign dna mingled with JB's dna was more indicative of them being left at the same time.

You heard wrong.

 

[Ames]

I'm so glad you guys came over here from the other place.

The "other place"....LOL...Yes, I think that I can speak for CK too, when I say THANK YOU...we are glad that we came over here from the other place too. I just LOVE IT HERE....its just like family!!!

 

[coloradokares]

I'm so glad you guys came over here from the other place.

From darkness into the light. Let the sunshine .........

 

[Ames]

From darkness into the light. Let the sunshine .........

LOL...truer words have never been spoken...except for maybe the first person that ever said..."The Ramsey's are GUILTY!".

 

[JoanRanger]

Hi...

I rarely post here, but I do love to read everybody's thoughts. Many of you know so much about this case! I'm impressed.

I probably have what would seem like a strange reason for changing my mind and believing that the Ramseys harmed their daughter: the fall of Ted Haggard, megachurch pastor and president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

For me, it always came down to, no matter what the physical evidence was or was not, I simply could not believe that John or Patsy would have done the staging. They also came across rather sympathetically in their Barbara Walters interview, to the point where she even commented on how she didn't think they were lying.

I just couldn't imagine that "seemingly normal" parents could do that (the sick staging) to their child.

But after I watched Ted Haggard look directly into a TV camera and so utterly believably deny the allegations against him, and then when those allegations turned out to be true, I began to realize that anyone is capable of anything, no matter what they seem to be on the outside. And apparently, when darkness lurks, anybody will cover up anything. So sad...

 

[Toltec]

The DNA is degraded...old, as in JonBenet's dirty fingernails. Look at the autopsy photos of JonBenet's hands....dirt under the nails!

Her last bath could have occured Christmas Eve. JonBenet did dress up, in a beautiful PURPLE dress. She went to church and to dinner at Pasta Jays.
Then on to see the star on the hill and a quick trip to the Whites.

She woke up early Christmas Day, put on her play clothes and played outside. She came back inside and played. She got dressed to go have Christmas dinner with the Whites. She came home....

No bath on Christmas day. Judging from the soiled pants on her bathroom floor, my belief is that Patsy wiped her bottom after-the-fact.

 

[UKGuy]

The DNA is degraded...old, as in JonBenet's dirty fingernails. Look at the autopsy photos of JonBenet's hands....dirt under the nails!

Her last bath could have occured Christmas Eve. JonBenet did dress up, in a beautiful PURPLE dress. She went to church and to dinner at Pasta Jays.
Then on to see the star on the hill and a quick trip to the Whites.

She woke up early Christmas Day, put on her play clothes and played outside. She came back inside and played. She got dressed to go have Christmas dinner with the Whites. She came home....

No bath on Christmas day. Judging from the soiled pants on her bathroom floor, my belief is that Patsy wiped her bottom after-the-fact.

Toltec,

Yes but was she wearing any underwear prior to the fact, and just when was JonBenet's bottom wiped?


.

 

[Toltec]

Toltec,

Yes but was she wearing any underwear prior to the fact, and just when was JonBenet's bottom wiped?


.

The missing soiled size 6 panties....replaced by size 12 parachute.

Okay...told this story so many times...so listen carefully!

Christmas day....Patsy tells JonBenet to get dressed for the trip to the Whites. JonBenet goes into her bathroom, where she proceeds to undress...turning her soiled pants inside out and leaving them right where she takes them off. She does not change her soiled underwear...instead she proceeds to put her black velvet pants on. Then the dispute with the shirt occurs. JonBenet is dressed and ready to go.

Christmas night...Patsy wakes JonBenet at her usual time (midnight) to use the toilet. Patsy discovers JonBenet is wearing soiled panties. Somethings and/or some discussion/argument takes place. JonBenet is hit over the head with the flashlight Patsy had brought in.

As the staging takes place...JonBenet is wiped down by Patsy and put in pretty "Wednesday" panties. Wednesday is Christmas so Patsy assumes that nobody would question the panties...as in she had worn them all day.

JonBenet did not wear the size 12 panties to the whites...no skid marks on them....JonBenet did not bathe Christmas day.

 

[UKGuy]

The missing soiled size 6 panties....replaced by size 12 parachute.

Okay...told this story so many times...so listen carefully!

Christmas day....Patsy tells JonBenet to get dressed for the trip to the Whites. JonBenet goes into her bathroom, where she proceeds to undress...turning her soiled pants inside out and leaving them right where she takes them off. She does not change her soiled underwear...instead she proceeds to put her black velvet pants on. Then the dispute with the shirt occurs. JonBenet is dressed and ready to go.

Christmas night...Patsy wakes JonBenet at her usual time (midnight) to use the toilet. Patsy discovers JonBenet is wearing soiled panties. Somethings and/or some discussion/argument takes place. JonBenet is hit over the head with the flashlight Patsy had brought in.

As the staging takes place...JonBenet is wiped down by Patsy and put in pretty "Wednesday" panties. Wednesday is Christmas so Patsy assumes that nobody would question the panties...as in she had worn them all day.

JonBenet did not wear the size 12 panties to the whites...no skid marks on them....JonBenet did not bathe Christmas day.

Toltec,

Yes could be, but has a little inconsistency similar to Steve Thomas' version, e.g. why bother with all the staging, wiping down, clean underwear etc just to leave the soiled pants lying on the bathroom floor screaming out , hey look at this?

added: Also it would make more sense if JonBenet never wore any underwear at all Xmas Day, e.g. just the pants found lying on the bathroom floor, it would also explain why the size-6 pair are missing?

Now the above assumptions can be tested since if JonBenet wore no underwear to the White's but had soiled herself, then there should be evidence left on her velvet pants, if she did wear underwear to the Whites then there should be fiber evidence left on the velvet pants, this does not discount the possibility that fecal matter as well as size-6 underwear fibers may have been left on her velvet pants?

To date I have never discovered if JonBenet habitually wore underwear to bed?


.

 

[JMO8778]

The DNA is degraded...old, as in JonBenet's dirty fingernails. Look at the autopsy photos of JonBenet's hands....dirt under the nails!

Her last bath could have occured Christmas Eve. JonBenet did dress up, in a beautiful PURPLE dress. She went to church and to dinner at Pasta Jays.
Then on to see the star on the hill and a quick trip to the Whites.

She woke up early Christmas Day, put on her play clothes and played outside. She came back inside and played. She got dressed to go have Christmas dinner with the Whites. She came home....

No bath on Christmas day. Judging from the soiled pants on her bathroom floor, my belief is that Patsy wiped her bottom after-the-fact.

I noticed you emphasized 'purple'.So you think perhaps her death was planned,as per PR putting purple on the xmas tree,and then saying she wove death into her tree accidently??