The Ramseys are Cleared

New Posts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25608543/

SNIP

The previous 1997 DNA “swab” testing of the child’s panties found DNA in two separate areas. DNA was found mixed with fluid from the little girl. The 1997, DNA contained enough information or DNA markers to be entered into the federal DNA database called CODIS.

The new “touch” DNA from JonBenet has been compared with what exists in CODIS, but no match has been found.

CODIS includes strict guidelines for what can be entered into its system. There has to be a minimum of information or DNA markers before CODIS will accept the samples into its system. The original 1997 DNA passed CODIS requirements and is in the federal CODIS database. It was entered into CODIS in 2002.
 
I think that no matter what evidence is found some people will never believe they didn't do this. All I know is if this was another case and the perps DNA matched the undies and the tights you would convict. In this case they don't know who the DNA belongs to, but that doesn't mean they are not real.
 
fran said:
Yes MrsMush, you're right. And they would have been stored in separate evidence bags, not together so the dna wouldn't transfer from one garment to the other.

This evidence was not analyzed in Colorado, but in Virginia. That would be at Quantico, FBI labs.

JMHO
fran
Click to expand...

that's right and the should have been wearing gloves.
 
Spazkat9696 said:
I think that no matter what evidence is found some people will never believe they didn't do this. All I know is if this was another case and the perps DNA matched the undies and the tights you would convict. In this case they don't know who the DNA belongs to, but that doesn't mean they are not real.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Medea said:
Maybe I'm not understanding that, but wouldn't that mean the DNA could have come from any investigator or technician who ever handled the evidence?
Click to expand...

The technicians wear rubber gloves. There's no way for the DNA to be the technicians.

JMHO
fran
 
Medea said:
That's what I thought and I agree, Mary Lacy wants to close the case especially after the Karr debacle.

Unless a perpetrator is caught I will never believe a stranger broke into the house leaving no evivdence of the break in, murdered JonBenet, then spent a few minutes writing and rewriting the most bizarre ransom note in history and disappeared without a trace except for miracle DNA that JUST surfaced.

For Christs sake, didnt' they retest everything when Karr confessed?
Click to expand...

It's not NEW DNA, just NEW TESTING. They've had the DNA but haven't been able to test it until now. I think this is a great break through, IMO.
 
Why hasn't this touch DNA been found on the tape, the garotte and other obvious places?
 
This is extremely "timely" considering the LooseMitt special has been on TV (rerun of the original) twice in the past two weeks.

:rolleyes:
 
becklynn said:
Why hasn't this touch DNA been found on the tape, the garotte and other obvious places?
Click to expand...


porous surfaces hold DNA better than smooth surfaces. They are slightly rougher so you are more likely to shed skin cells.
 
Everyone should realize that so many people doubted the parents because many didn't believe someone could just come in their house in the middle of the night, undetected.

But since then, we've seen two high profile case, no three, where this very thing happened. Elizabeth Smart, Danielle VanDam, and the one in Florida, I believe.

I think this is good evidence and I think it clears the parents.

Now, where's the perp? Who is it? Back to square one, IMO.

JMHO
fran
 
Medea said:
Maybe I'm not understanding that, but wouldn't that mean the DNA could have come from any investigator or technician who ever handled the evidence?
Click to expand...

God knows....thats how the reporter was explaining it:confused:
I think because it matches the older DNA they know its not from a technician etc
 
Medea said:
Unless a perpetrator is caught I will never believe a stranger broke into the house leaving no evivdence of the break in, murdered JonBenet, then spent a few minutes writing and rewriting the most bizarre ransom note in history and disappeared without a trace except for miracle DNA that JUST surfaced.
Click to expand...

From crimelibrary.com:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/feb_13.html

Lou Smit presented his evidence on why he believed that JonBenet was killed by an intruder.
Smit had a number of key points to make:
  • The Ramseys are loving parents with no motive for killing their child and no history of criminal or abusive behavior.
  • Lovely JonBenet was a "pedophile's dream" and her visibility in the community made her a target. Likewise, the Ramseys' wealth and high profile made them potential targets of a kidnapper.
  • Three suspicious events point to an intruder: unknown vehicles parked outside the Ramseys' home near the time of the crime; JonBenet's comment to people that she was going to get a "special visit from Santa," even though Patsy never heard JonBenet say anything about a visit from Santa.
  • Police statements about there being no footprints in the snow were misleading as there was no snow around most of the perimeter of the house.
  • The open basement window, movement of the window well grate and the presence of leaves and debris in the basement below the open window and a number of other clues point to the window being the entry point for the intruder.
  • Pieces of debris from the window well were found in the wine cellar where JonBenet's body was discovered.
  • The suitcase below the open window, which was moved there by someone other than the Ramseys, appeared to be the way an intruder boosted himself up to the open window to exit the house.
  • Many hairs and fibers connected to the crime do not belong to the Ramseys or any other family member.
  • Marks on JonBenet's body are consistent with the use of a stun gun which would have kept her quiet while she was removed from her bedroom.
  • Fresh unidentified footprints which were visible in the mold on the wine cellar floor did not belong to any family member.
  • Tests showed that a scream reported by a neighbor could have come from the basement without the Ramseys hearing it.
  • The expertly constructed garrote used on JonBenet indicates an experienced sexual sadist.
  • JonBenet's vicious injuries occurred before her death and were not part of some post-mortem staging.
  • Unknown male DNA was found under JonBenet's fingernails and other unknown DNA was found on her body and her panties.
  • The ransom note was almost certainly written before JonBenet died by a brutal, calm and deliberate person.
  • Experts concluded that John Ramsey did not write the ransom note and it cannot be concluded that Patsy did.
Click to expand...
You disregard all of this?

 
I don't believe this exonerates the Ramseys. The unknown DNA profile has been known about since 97, all this does is say that the same DNA that was known about before is also in other places and its NOT semen. Good grief, it could be from some teacher, nurse, anybody.

It doens't account for the rest of the evidence that indicates there was no intruder.
 
Why would they "close the case" after officially clearing the Ramseys?
 
fran said:
Everyone should realize that so many people doubted the parents because many didn't believe someone could just come in their house in the middle of the night, undetected.

But since then, we've seen two high profile case, no three, where this very thing happened. Elizabeth Smart, Danielle VanDam, and the one in Florida, I believe.

I think this is good evidence and I think it clears the parents.

Now, where's the perp? Who is it? Back to square one, IMO.

JMHO
fran
Click to expand...

Jessica Lunsford
 
fran said:
Everyone should realize that so many people doubted the parents because many didn't believe someone could just come in their house in the middle of the night, undetected.

But since then, we've seen two high profile case, no three, where this very thing happened. Elizabeth Smart, Danielle VanDam, and the one in Florida, I believe.

I think this is good evidence and I think it clears the parents.

Now, where's the perp? Who is it? Back to square one, IMO.

JMHO
fran
Click to expand...

I don't see those cases as being similar. This "intruder" got into the house, got JonBenet in her room, took her downstairs, abused her and killed her including garroting her and the paintbrush, then goes back upstairs, sits down, does a couple dry runs with the ransom note, writes the ransom note and leaves it.

It's one thing to come in, abduct a person and leave straight away, its another to drag them around the house from upstairs to downstairs, riffle through the note pad and all the rest of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 196 more.
Total: 3,718 (members: 197, guests: 3,521)

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
3,521
Total visitors
3,718
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,540
Messages
17,988,826
Members
229,160
Latest member
Kakkilynn
Back
Top