Intruder probability more, less, or same?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Holdontoyourhat, Mar 8, 2010.

?

Did probability of intruder change with DNA evidence?

  1. Probability went way up.

    17 vote(s)
    28.3%
  2. Probability went up somewhat.

    9 vote(s)
    15.0%
  3. Probability went down.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Probability was unchanged.

    34 vote(s)
    56.7%
  1. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    DNA Timeline

    1996: DNA is not mentioned.

    1997-2003: DNA sample is discovered but is referred to as degraded and unusable.

    December 2003: DNA from a spot of blood in JBR's panties was entered into FBI national database (CODIS) .

    July 2008: New technology was used to analyze the scant DNA left behind when someone grasped JonBenet's long johns. Prosecutors said that evidence matched the DNA earlier found in JonBenet's underwear.

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Did the probability that an intruder killed JBR go way up in July 2008? Did it go up somewhat? Did it go down? Or, did it simply stay the same?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Becky319

    Becky319 New Member

    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One thing I would like to know: Was the unidentified DNA the only DNA found during this testing? Shouldn't they have found Patsy's DNA since she stated she put the long johns on JB? I voted my probability went up somewhat because it does make you stop and pause when unidentified DNA comes in to the picture. This got me studying the case again if nothing else. I think RDI, I just wish it could be IDI so the face of her killer wasn't someone she loved and trusted.
     
  4. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm very curious about that myself.

    Amen.
     
  5. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've mentioned this before, too. Of course they should have found Patsy's DNA there- Patsy admitted putting the longjohns on JB that night.
    That unknown DNA could have come from any male at the party that night, including children. All that "unknown" male would have to do is shake hands with Patsy, who admitted she put the longjohns on JB. Or that "unknown" male could have been at the party and touched a doorknob, toilet handle, anything.
     
  6. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Unless she was wearing gloves at the time she was in contact with the long johns, her DNA profile would be found.
     
  7. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why is PR's DNA significant? Was it PR's DNA in the blood spot on the underwear?
     
  8. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A more accurate description is this: Unless she was wearing clean gloves at the time she was in contact...

    A person wearing gloves for hours, simply for the purpose of not leaving fingerprints, would tend to start spreading their own DNA around.

    Although I still don't know why PR DNA is signficant.
     
  9. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    She would not leave her DNA behind while wearing gloves, unless she made contact with her own skin and then touched other items.
    PR's DNA should have been found because she would have have pulled JBR's long johns on as she put her to bed.
    Razor scraping for skin cells should find her profile from that contact. No mention of her profile was ever made.
     
  10. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Theoretically it went up somewhat.
    But it didn't seem to change anything,except allowing a stoopid DA to accomplish her mission which we all know was to kiss the R's #$% one more time and this time GOOD.


    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."

    —Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut

     
  11. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We all know? No WE don't. Got proof that the DA was on any kind of mission?
     
  12. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    She was wrong in exonerating them solely based on that DNA which could be NOT related to the crime or the killer and you know it.
    It's like exonerating them just because JMK "confessed".It's not enough,not in this case.
     
  13. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why didn't she exonerate everybody on the suspect list?Why didn't she send an apology letter to C.Wolf,Santa or F.White?
    They still are ALL on the suspect list as far as I am concerned.Eliminating them from it because their DNA doesn't match is WRONG.Maybe it's one of them and they had an accomplice and they get away just because we rely too much on DNA.She didn't drop the charges against JMK because his DNA didn't match,it happened because it was proven he wasn't even around.Do you think she would have let him go if he could have been placed in Boulder (even without a dna match?) I think NOT.
     
  14. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Patsy's DNA may not have been in the blood spot, but it SHOUD have been on those longjohns. She admitted putting them on JB, and if she put them on a LIVE JB, she shouldn't have been wearing gloves.
     
  15. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How much time have you got?
     
  16. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No way! If they had had anything else, DNA match or not, they would have still tried to hang it on him. I'm convinced of it.
     
  17. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There was already a valid argument to exhonerate the R's, based on the DNA in the blood spot. This DNA provided bona-fide evidence of another person at the crime scene. It could be claimed that this person did it.

    The subsequent find of additional DNA at the crime scene from the same person corroborated the claim.

    Its like having two eye-witnesses with consistent testimony.

    Besides, this DNA being found on JBR's underpants and longjohns rather than her shoulders or bottom of her feet tells one and only one story.
     
  18. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I think a more analogous story would have the eye witnesses with Seeing Eye dogs.
     
  19. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think they have high confidence now that the DNA owner is the intruder.

    Maybe at some point they decided to go into some sort of damage control to avoid litigation, once they had knowledge an intruder did it.
     
  20. BOESP

    BOESP Active Member

    Messages:
    2,746
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    How do you know there was an Intruder and how is it you know that the DNA owner is the Intruder?
     
  21. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You asked if we had any proof that the DA was on a mission on the Rs' behalf. That's as good a jumping-off point as I can find!
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice