The Misdirection and Deception of the DNA

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Cottonstar, Apr 13, 2018.

  1. 887sMtreme

    887sMtreme Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    804
    Likes Received:
    4,630
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Wasn’t at least one of the contributors said to have been possibly someone in the factory where the panties were manufactured and packaged?
     
    TeaTime likes this.


  2. Userid

    Userid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ^ That's been supposed, yes.
     
    TeaTime likes this.
  3. kaykay543

    kaykay543 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    6,035
    Trophy Points:
    93

    Everything I read said it "could have been" a factory worker. I think mainly to show that there are a lot of different ways an "unknown" males touch DNA could be on there.
     
    dcountmontecristo and TeaTime like this.
  4. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    12,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
  5. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    12,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
    TeaTime likes this.
  6. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    12,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
    JR / th01 / 6 , 9.3
     
  7. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    12,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
    test
    AaBbCcDdEe
     
  8. Cottonstar

    Cottonstar Victimologist

    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
  9. lisasalinger

    lisasalinger Juror13

    Messages:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Thanks Tadpole. Yes, I’m aware of how you figure out that marker. That spreadsheet is intended to compare the information that was put out there, as it was put out there, in a way that hasn’t been presented


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    TeaTime likes this.
  10. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    12,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
    dcountmontecristo likes this.
  11. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    12,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
  12. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    12,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
    dcountmontecristo likes this.
  13. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    12,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mixed sample / Caucasian 2015 Expanded FBI STR Loci Allele Frequencies:


    Th01 / 9 / 0.1658
    D55818 / 10 / 0.0495
    D18551 / 11 / 0.0124
    D135317 / 13 / 0.1114
    D351358 / 15 / 0.2475
    vWA / 18 , 19 / 0.2178 , 0.0817
    FGA / 22 , 26 / 0.1881 , 0.0173
    D21511 / 31.2 / 0.1015
     
    dcountmontecristo likes this.
  14. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    12,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
    dcountmontecristo likes this.
  15. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    12,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
    dcountmontecristo likes this.
  16. Heatherk79

    Heatherk79 New Member

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3

    If what Tadpole12 said is correct in determining JR's markers for locus TH01, doesn't that mean JR has matching alleles at 12 out of the 13 markers? If that's the case, isn't JR's DNA just as likely as BR's to be one of the male components of "Unknown Male 1?" Or am I missing something?
     
    dcountmontecristo likes this.
  17. lisasalinger

    lisasalinger Juror13

    Messages:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Hey Heather / Tadpole,

    The point of the post isn’t to figure out exactly whose DNA is at the scene. We know it doesn’t belong to one other person. The point is to highlight the misdirection of Ramsey/Lacy in claiming it does. Why does there need to be a misdirection? That’s the point; what does their misdirection tell us? It is important to note, John Ramsey was excluded from every sample collected. Burke Ramsey was not.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Cottonstar and TeaTime like this.
  18. lisasalinger

    lisasalinger Juror13

    Messages:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    But conveniently, Lacy nor any of the Ramseys make any mention that Burke was not excluded. Why did Lacy hide these reports from the public? Do Ramseys have a right to sue those questioning Burke’s involvement when Burke’s name is right there on the reports - can’t exclude


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    TeaTime likes this.
  19. Heatherk79

    Heatherk79 New Member

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Thanks for your response, Lisa. I understand more clearly now the point of your post/article. I agree; the members of Team Ramsey were masters at misdirection.
     
  20. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

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

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