What Happens Next?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Barbara, Jan 10, 2004.

  1. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For argument sake:

    Let's say the DNA turns out to match someone who has nothing to do with this murder. What if the DNA turns out to match someone like Pasta Jay or someone casual that JBR came into contact with at the Whites, etc. who has nothing to do with the crime?

    Personally, I don't think the DNA is part of the crime but I prefaced the post for argument sake

    Now what? Where does the rest of the evidence lead?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Nehemiah

    Nehemiah Active Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I've wondered that, too, Barbara. Sounds to me that it is being said that whoever's DNA this is....that is the killer. Open/shut case. Is this correct?
     
  4. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's what the RST is saying. Sooooo...what happens if the DNA happens to match someone who is not connected to the crime?

    AND what about Grandpa Paugh's DNA? Tested? Not teste? Burke's DNA..tested? not tested???? Nobody seems to want to answer this.
     
  5. Maxi

    Maxi Guest

    If the DNA is just a degraded and/or contaminated trace, the prosecution would have to show that there was no other probably way for it to have gotten in JBR's panties. A defense team would likely argue secondary transfer.
     
  6. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now that the DNA is the hottest topic to clear or capture potential suspects the spin has begun. On other forums it seems this has been brought up already and now those whose DNA may not match such as Oliva and Helgoth can still be suspects because the theory will then change to.......
    Are you ready...............?

    TWO
    TWO
    TWO MURDERERS IN ONE!

    Yes, that's right folks. That's the latest spin..A TEAM :banghead:

    I've been saying that for years, only a team of three is my guess

    Okay, so now we know how the RST will respond, but I have to wonder how Keenan and the others will respond.
     
  7. Toth

    Toth Inactive

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the dna 'matches' anyone, he had something to do with the murder! He might be able to explain how his dna got under her fingernails to the satisfaction of some dumb jury, but he sure won't ever be able to explain away his dna getting into the panties of a six year old girl. No way.
     
  8. Maxi

    Maxi Guest

    Tertiary transfer from scratching.
     
  9. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I hope you will still say that if the DNA turns out to be a Ramsey family member....or will you then go with the transfer theory that she SHOULD have family members DNA because she is part of the family and then she might have scratched herself inside her panties

    Which theory would you choose then?

    Let's not forget that we really don't have more than Lin's word that the DNA doesn't match Ramsey. With new, more sophisticated testing, it might just turn out that they can really narrow it down to a co mingling with a family member
     
  10. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Toth....but only if the DNA doesn't match Burke or another Ramsey, or a Paugh, right?

    The DA might have trouble explaining how the donor shed degraded DNA.
     
  11. Nehemiah

    Nehemiah Active Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    So, if this turns out to be Burke's DNA, you will stick to this statement?

    I really hope the DNA does turn out to solve the murder. I'm sure we all do.
     
  12. Toth

    Toth Inactive

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ALL Ramsey males have been excluded as being the source of the dna.
     
  13. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What about PAUGH males?
     
  14. Shylock

    Shylock Former Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Last I heard, Toth, six year old little girls DO occasionally go to the bathroom. And when they do, I've heard they even wipe themselves. That being the case, I don't think it would be TOO hard for some DNA on the hands of a little girl to transfer to her panties.
    Oh, and I also understand that little girls also get the urge to scratch an itch once-in-a-while too.

    Guess you never heard these things about girls, huh Toth?
     
  15. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Right, Maxi.

    And I would add the possibility of planting "DNA evidence." What was John Ramsey up to during his hour-long vanishing act the morning of the 26th? What better way to manufacture phony physical evidence than invite a bunch of people over for a kidnapping party, then wipe up some used drinking glasses, hopefully mix a few saliva samples to confuse things and create the DNA of a person who doesn't exist... or possibly frame someone specific? nah... ya think? - (BTW, Wood did say it was saliva, didn't he?)... then slink off to the crime scene to deposit it. Think about it... when you need DNA evidence, you gotta have real live people. It's the most logical reason I can think of for hosting that ridiculous kidnapping brunch.
     
  16. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    False. Nothing about Burke's DNA analysis has been revealed.

    JMO
     
  17. WolfmarsGirl

    WolfmarsGirl New Member

    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Does anyone, right now, have a little boy or girl close to JBR's age? Well, I do.

    Do you know what I have found in my little girl's undies (and in every other garment she wears)?

    Well, here are some of the things I can remember seeing in the last 5 1/2 years:

    Paint. She may have painted during the day...but not in her undies!
    Sand...A day or two after she has even played in the sand!
    Dog hairs here and there...We have a dog, but they don't share underwear!
    Crumbs of food...Go figure!

    I mean, I have to ask my Kindergartener to PLEASE not scratch while she is in public, especially if she can't get to the bathroom where she can at least wash her hands first. Sometimes she forgets and she will scratch with whatever dirt might be on her fingers and under her nails.

    My little girl plays 'dress up' with at least one, but usually several girls each day. They exchange clothes, drop all of their old clothing on the floor (yes, sometimes even undies) and then do the whole thing all over again.

    In the summer, they exchange swim suits.

    If we need to use a public restroom, my little girl makes sure to be extra sloppy when she wipes, etc., just to terrify me, lol.

    I dip my daughter into a nice hot bath tub every night, but I still can't stop the dirt from ending up in the strangest of places during the day!

    I mean, kids will be kids. No matter whose DNA is identified, I don't think it matters much one way or the other.
     
  18. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting post and one that I can identify with. I have two daughters and a son and it has always been part of the daily routine to have a bath or shower.

    When my older daughter was about JonBenet's age, I went in to check her before going to bed myself and she was lying uncovered on the bed and her nightdress had worked up to expose her panties. Her panties looked odd and lumpy and I realised there was something inside them so I checked and she had a host of little objects stuffed down inside her panties - including a gold locket!

    The following day, she said she was hiding them from the Goblins. We had been burgled some time prior to this and she told her teacher we'd been 'Goblin-ed'.

    So little girls do put things inside their knickers. As the locket was mine, it probably had had my DNA on it. I wonder if that would have transferred to her underwear?
     
  19. Toth

    Toth Inactive

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are all these imaginative and supposedly entertaining posts about young girls putting things in their panties.

    I wonder if what the real purpose of these posts might be? Are you all forgeting that when a victim is found dna under her nails and in her panties is considered prime evidence.

    Gold lockets transferring dna? Anything except an intruder. No matter how far fetched or remote and unlikely, anything except an intruder.
     
  20. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's pretty obvious that you have no children.

    The one legged, one armed, invisible, dead team of intruders is much more likely now that we know they left "degraded" DNA and nothing else. Why didn't I realize this sooner? :banghead:

    Good work Toth
     
  21. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not imaginative - factual. I have numerous friends and relatives who would testify to the truth of this story as it has been "entertaining" them for over a decade.

    Now it seems that they can lift DNA from a fingerprint - what is so incredible about them lifting DNA from a gold locket? I regularly hold my locket between my fingers in order to reposition the catch on the chain. If my fingerprints are on it, then my DNA will be on it.

    You cannot escape the FACT that there are other, potential explanations for JonBenet having foreign DNA in her underwear. You have personally FAILED to prove any credible source for the DNA in her panties coming from the same source as the DNA under her fingernails and many of us do not like to ASS-U-ME that it does in the absence of that credible source.

    The FACT is - that even if they do find the person whos DNA is un JonBenet's panties, they will still have to build a case against him. OTOH, he will likely attempt to provide a reason why his DNA could have gotten there through innocent transfer.

    Why don't you apply this same logic to Patsy's fibres being entwined in the garotte knot? Somehow I think that if it was someone else's fibres, then some folk would consider THAT to be very significant.
     

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