New Advanced DNA testing

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Roy23, Dec 14, 2016.

  1. Roy23

    Roy23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,307
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    48
    BOULDER, Colo. — Boulder police and prosecutors are looking at new DNA testing technology that they hope will further the investigation of the unsolved 1996 murder of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey.

    The move comes after an investigation by the Boulder Daily Camera (https://goo.gl/5a8tLv ) and KUSA-TV in Denver that the news organizations say uncovered flaws in the interpretation of previous DNA testing.
     


  2. Tricia

    Tricia Owner Websleuths.com Staff Member Administrator Moderator

    Messages:
    27,737
    Likes Received:
    37,392
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey Everyone,

    When you start a thread in the JonBenet forum it does not appear immediately. It remains invisible to everyone until I approve it.

    We had to do this because of all the trolls.

    The problem is it's sometimes hard for me to remember to keep checking back.

    If you do start a thread here please send me a PM or an email at triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com and let me know.

    Thank you,

    Tricia
     
  3. BBB167893

    BBB167893 Former Member

    Messages:
    13,259
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Howdy, Roy! You may well have to change that signature of yours in the near future.

    BTW, I hope I got you the right size. (Evil laughter)
     
  4. TeaTime

    TeaTime Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,664
    Likes Received:
    14,952
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, and again tonight we heard that new DNA testing will be conducted in 2017. The whole 'exoneration' stuff has been rejected as it was based on an incorrect interpretation of the evidence.

    The skin cell tDNA is not the free pass it has been made out to be. It never was, except to the DA who last I knew, wasn't a scientist.
     
  5. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,973
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I wasn't sure until I heard the latest from Stan Garnett. He says he knows who killed her. And that he can't prosecute YET. But they are planning on re-testing. He can't prosecute dead Patsy. Nor Burke who was under 10. I'd be concerned if I were JR. That's all cause I know the forum turned BDI.

    Happy hollidays all.
    Justice for Jonbenet.
     
  6. SweetCaramels

    SweetCaramels New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, if he said he is waiting for further testing to confirm his suspicions and then prosecute, that would seem to indicate JDI.
    Though I suppose it is still possible Burke bashed her head and John did the strangling.
     
  7. singularity

    singularity New Member

    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not all of us have turned Madeleine and yeah I also noticed the wording of that quote from Garnett.

    John is as nervous as a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

    I said a few months ago that John was likely laughing when the BDI storm hit. I think he may have finally stopped laughing. Now he realizes one more serious attempt is possibly coming down the pike and he is going to be in deep doo doo.

    Its good to see you again. You don't seem to post as often as you used to.
     
  8. andreww

    andreww Former Member

    Messages:
    5,710
    Likes Received:
    4,035
    Trophy Points:
    113
    John could be prosecuted for many obstruction offences, which would be the most any of us could hope for.
     
  9. Tortoise

    Tortoise Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    19,095
    Likes Received:
    85,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Could he? Has time not run out by statute of limitations for this?
     
  10. kanzz

    kanzz kanzz=kansas

    Messages:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    48
    RE: Statute of Limitatations.. Not so sure. The accessory can be charged as the principal if I understand correctly. Maybe (hopefully) this is what Garnett is pursuing?

    Insofar as complicity, it is never the subject of a separate count in Colorado The grand jury would have been instructed, “A person is legally accountable as principal for the behavior of another constituting a criminal offense if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, he or she aids, abets, advises, or encourages the other person in planning or committing the offense.”
    source: http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2013/10/28/jonbenet-grand-jury-indictment-could-re-ignite-case/

    There appears to be case law that sets precedent. Here are some:

    The acts of the principal are the acts of the accessory, and the accessory may be charged and punished accordingly as a principal. Oaks v. People, 161 Colo. 561, 424 P.2d 115 (1967).

    An accessory charged as a principal for an accessory is deemed and considered a principal, punishable as a principal, and plainly shall be charged as a principal. Fernandez v. People, 176 Colo. 346, 490 P.2d 690 (1971).

    A person who aids, abets, or assists in the perpetration of a criminal offense becomes an accessory to that offense and is chargeable and punishable as a principal. Reed v. People, 171 Colo. 421, 467 P.2d 809 (1970).
     
  11. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    All of what you stated is correct, kanzz, as I understand the statutes. However, I think you're doing the same thing I did until I corresponded with a lawyer about it (in a separate thread somewhere around here). The difference is between accessory after the fact (which is what John and Patsy were TB'd for) and accessory before the fact (referred to in statutes as an "accomplice"). As an accomplice, a person is accountable for the acts of the principal, and the SoL (and punishment) is the same as it is for the principal. An accessory is not responsible for the act itself, only aiding the principal to avoid prosecution, and is therefore only accountable to a lesser degree. The SoL is three years for an accessory, which can be "tolled" (extended) for up to five additional years if the person is out-of-state.
     
    8paws likes this.
  12. kanzz

    kanzz kanzz=kansas

    Messages:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Thanks for that clarification, otg. :sigh:
     
  13. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I know it's confusing, but it's important to be clear about the differences because it has a bearing on the SoL imposed. (Maybe it's just me being "pedantic" again :blushing:. Sorry, I should have just let it go.)
     
  14. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    12,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. DrollForeignFaction

    DrollForeignFaction Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    63
    In case anyone is wondering what John Mark Karr thinks of this new DNA testing...(no? nobody? too bad.)

    He told the National Enquirer that he's excited about the new testing because he's sure it will prove he was involved once and for all. And I thought Mary Lacy was delusional!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  16. andreww

    andreww Former Member

    Messages:
    5,710
    Likes Received:
    4,035
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All this talk of statutes of limitations. Lets just say that Burke whacked her over the head. If Patsy pulled the cord, and her and John manipulated or destroyed evidence, and lied to police, surely they are every bit as culpable for the death of that little girl? I find it to be sickening that the kinds of crimes John & Patsy have committed would have any SoL.
     
  17. chlban

    chlban Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    In CA, and most states, the statutes for "accessory" are the same as they are for the underlying crime. So, in the case of murder where there is no statute of limitation, there would be none for the accessory to murder.

    I don't know, specifically, for CO.

    However, it seems to me he is saying he knows who killed her, not who assisted the killer.

    The problem remains the same, IMO, whether it's Garrett, Hunter or any other DA. The State may very well be able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone in that house killed JB. It's proving which one actually killed her that is the tricky part and you have one suspect already dead, another that cannot be charged due to his age at the time. You have the misinformation that the Ramsey team has put out over the years, aided quite well by that lunatic Lacey "clearing" the Ramsey's completely.

    I just don't see a conviction on the horizon. I don't think there will ever even be a trial. That ship sailed when Hunter refused to indict, IMO.
     
    8paws likes this.
  18. andreww

    andreww Former Member

    Messages:
    5,710
    Likes Received:
    4,035
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The thing is that the case seems to be at least slightly active again. New DNA testing, a new DA, and lawsuits that will force the Ramsey's to give depositions. Every time these people open their mouths, more inconsistencies are revealed. For instance, Burkes' DP interview now confirms that Burke was the only one of the surviving three that left his room. So much for an intruder waiting outside JBs door right? When asked about the flashlight, he doesn't say "what flashlight" which to me is confirmation that yes, that was their flashlight and that Burke may well have used it (he didn't deny it). Recently we've had confirmation that the DNA evidence that Lacy uncovered is likely bogus. That has been the thorn in the side of RDI's for years.

    Finally things seem to be happening which is a step in the right direction. And I think if John were to be arrested for covering up the crime, I think he would quickly crack with some decent interrogation.
     
    8paws likes this.
  19. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    12,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/4484678


    "More information from challenging casework samples
    Y-STR analysis is useful for processing of complex casework samples with trace quantities of male DNA in presence of high level of female DNA. These samples may include rape kit samples, body fluid with few or no sperm present, and fingernail scrapings from female victims of violent assaults. These samples often show DNA degradation and contain inhibitors that can make the analysis difficult and lead to inconclusive results. The Yfiler® Plus kit harnesses the latest developments in PCR amplification technology to help provide cleaner baseline and improved recovery of alleles with mixtures and highly inhibited samples."
     
    8paws likes this.
  20. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,760
    Likes Received:
    3,120
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What if they break the dna into its separate component parts and any one part links directly to JR, PR, or BR, what happens then?


    .
     

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