Like it or not, JBR murder a DNA case.

New Posts

Holdontoyourhat said:
Taken separately, the leggings DNA, the underwear DNA, and yes the fingernail DNA may not be significant due to their degraded state. Taken together, where each sample of DNA matches the other, is HUGELY significant. It no longer matters if the DNA is degraded, as long as it matches.

We no longer care if its degraded, because we're told by labs, not politicians, that it matches.

It really turns the whole case around.

Thats why the latest thing we've got out of an official body and the media is the 'intruder DNA' and how 'the Ramseys should be treated as victims and not suspects.'

Its time to get with the times if anyone is really, truely interested in a solution. The evidence tells us that the solution is with an intruder scenario.
Click to expand...


I think this post really sums up where this case stands. If A Ramsey were involved, it centers around an unknown person. I, too, think the "SFF" is kind of ridiculous but more of a crazy nut like Brian David Mitchell.
 
Trying to rule out every way this male DNA could had gotten transfer can we honestly rule out the LE or someone in the morgue..Cause IDI keep reminding everyone how the LE messed up this case...
 
Ravyn said:
Trying to rule out every way this male DNA could had gotten transfer can we honestly rule out the LE or someone in the morgue..Cause IDI keep reminding everyone how the LE messed up this case...
Click to expand...

IDI or RDI, if you can't admit that LE messed up, then Wow. It is certainly not a LE official or morgue. This was collected and bagged at the scene.
 
Thank you Roy,I was coming back because I forgot RDI.. But the leggings was not bagged up at the scene the remained on JB..
 
I suggest going to google, and typing in Jonbenet fingernail DNA, and you may note that CBS, CNN, Denver Post and many others are freely referring to this DNA and how it was matched to other DNA on JBR's clothing. Unless JBR, while dead, managed to 'scratch' with both hands, a morgue worker or an investigator who was involved with the investigation AND was not subsequently DNA tested, its really not possible the DNA is post-mortem innocent transfer. Note: I was offered fifty bucks by RDI to not mention fingernail DNA.
 
Did as you said I looked at the links..One said the fingernails DNA has been comtaminated,and the Denver really just said the had to be enough and the police was looking at Jb could had someone else underpants on..
 
Ravyn said:
Trying to rule out every way this male DNA could had gotten transfer can we honestly rule out the LE or someone in the morgue..Cause IDI keep reminding everyone how the LE messed up this case...
Click to expand...

I'm afraid we can't, Ravyn. Not yet, anyway. Think about the issues you have with this. You have massive contamination of the crime scene, gods know how much at-the-time undetectable DNA was there to start with, how it got moved about, how the coroner didn't use separate clippers for each nail, how the scraper was contaminated, how since Touch DNA didn't exist at the time no one probably thought about touch contamination at the morgue when JB's clothing was removed...I get a headache just thinking about it.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
I suggest going to google, and typing in Jonbenet fingernail DNA, and you may note that CBS, CNN, Denver Post and many others are freely referring to this DNA and how it was matched to other DNA on JBR's clothing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and we all know how trustworthy the media is in this case.:rolleyes: Not to mention the Rs' campaign of legal terrorism to cow the media into reporting their side uncritically.

Unless JBR, while dead, managed to 'scratch' with both hands, a morgue worker or an investigator who was involved with the investigation AND was not subsequently DNA tested, its really not possible the DNA is post-mortem innocent transfer.
Click to expand...

A flat-out mischaracterization. JB did not, emphasize NOT, have the massive quantities of skin under her nails that would HAVE to be there if she HAD fought someone. The way I heard it was there were only a few cells under SOME, not all, of the nails of her hands. In fact, I believe one one hand it was only under a single nail.

Isn't it fascinating how something comes out when you include all of the surrounding information?

Note: I was offered fifty bucks by RDI to not mention fingernail DNA.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was one-hundred, and only if you didn't keep referring to it as a fact.

I have something for you folks to google. It gets some pretty iinteresting results, too!
 
Not to mention that nobody in that house heard that poor child being slaugtered, or heard the "intruder" escaping on invisible footprints into the night.
 
the coroner didn't even use a different pair of clean, sterile nail clippers for each nail,like he was supposed to.no telling what was on the ones he did use!
 
It reminds me of that Joan Baez song, "Crack in the Mirror:"

No one in her daddy's house
heard her make a sound
now there's blood on everybody's hands
blood on everybody's hands
blood on everybody's hands
gonna come around again
 
JMO8778 said:
the coroner didn't even use a different pair of clean, sterile nail clippers for each nail,like he was supposed to.no telling what was on the ones he did use!
Click to expand...

The contaminated nail clippers theory implies that DNA went from the clippers to the clippings, and the clippings were tested to show unknown male DNA.

Thats all well and good, right up until it was discovered that DNA matches DNA on her leggings, and in her underwear.

I hope you're not asking me to believe that DNA supposedly already on clippers went to multiple fingernails, to blood in her underwear, and to multiple places on her longjohns. Because thats just ridiculous. Its ridiculous when a realist considers the relationship between these places and a sexual assault. IOW a realist could predict DNA in JBR's underwear having only known about the DNA in her fingernails and longjohns.

In reality, the DNA can be deposited in all three places only by a sexual assault.

Or, have we found ANY of this so-called transcient DNA in a spot thats NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO A SEXUAL ASSAULT??

Hello??
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
I suggest going to google, and typing in Jonbenet fingernail DNA, and you may note that CBS, CNN, Denver Post and many others are freely referring to this DNA and how it was matched to other DNA on JBR's clothing. Unless JBR, while dead, managed to 'scratch' with both hands, a morgue worker or an investigator who was involved with the investigation AND was not subsequently DNA tested, its really not possible the DNA is post-mortem innocent transfer. Note: I was offered fifty bucks by RDI to not mention fingernail DNA.
Click to expand...

Your loss. And it was $100. (matching funds)
And they were wrong- no useful fingernail DNA was obtained. Look at the source. This is what happens when falsehoods are perpetuated by the media and not retracted when found to be untrue.

And that offer wasn't because we fear you are right- it's because we are so tired of hearing the lie perpetuated. IDI doesn't help their case when they do this. The fingernail DNA matches NOTHING. The touch DNA is found in 2 places- underwear and longjohns.
 
DeeDee249 said:
Your loss. And it was $100. (matching funds)
And they were wrong- no useful fingernail DNA was obtained. Look at the source. This is what happens when falsehoods are perpetuated by the media and not retracted when found to be untrue.

And that offer wasn't because we fear you are right- it's because we are so tired of hearing the lie perpetuated. IDI doesn't help their case when they do this. The fingernail DNA matches NOTHING. The touch DNA is found in 2 places- underwear and longjohns.
Click to expand...

Do you have ANYTHING from 2008-2009 to support your claim, or is this just mere RDI propaganda. That is, I've got several media sources talking about fingernail DNA in a 'matching' context, and you've got what??
 
DeeDee249 said:
The truth.
Click to expand...

None of us has the truth. Lets see the source for 'your' truth. C'mon, I know you have something?

Folks, when we say stuff here, its not asking too much for a source. Especially if its an outlandish claim that goes against all the reporting. Without a source, its just rhetoric.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
None of us has the truth. Lets see the source for 'your' truth. C'mon, I know you have something?

Folks, when we say stuff here, its not asking too much for a source. Especially if its an outlandish claim that goes against all the reporting. Without a source, its just rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I do. More than you know.
All my sources are in cyberspace. Be my guest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 155 more.
Total: 3,725 (members: 156, guests: 3,569)

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
3,569
Total visitors
3,725
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,271
Messages
17,966,499
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top