Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 111
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    I don't know this for a fact, but I just have a feeling that the family's DNA was not considered relevant when it came to things they might have had normal contact with. And that wipe down JonBenet got after she was dead, I guess that managed to get rid of at least some of what may have been incriminating. In this case, the DNA evidence will NOT ever convict the killer.
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  2. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    [snip]

    Kolar is clear in his book that we still don't have all the details. For example, he was never able to find out the amount of markers from the TDNA on the leggings, other than it did not meet CODIS requirements. WHY?
    Furthermore, I'm not buying that Patsy's DNA at the very least was not found on the leggings especially since her DNA and Burke's DNA was found on the Barbie nightgown through TDNA.
    Horita indicated that Touch DNA testing had discovered traces of genetic material on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét. This Touch DNA belonged to Patsy and Burke Ramsey.
    Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 414

    DOUBLE TAKE HERE!

    So the Ramsey's DNA WAS at the crime scene. AND IT WAS PATSY'S AND BURKE'S?

    Oh. My.

    Where oh where have we seen that combo show up at the crime scene before?

    Bowl of pineapple and glass of tea?

    I am reading, I swear! I'm up to Part II of the book. But trying to keep up with the forums and Tricia's great podcasts and the Fam...I'm starting to fray a little around the edges myself.

    So does Kolar tell us what the biological sample on the gown is from? I know there was some blood found on it.

    Don't just drop that bomb on us, cynic! I'm trying not to jump ahead, as Tricia told us not to...which I hate, because I'm one of those people who peeks at the ending as soon as questions are laid out in mystery novels.

    Okay, you listed the page. I'm going to look it up.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  3. #15
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    The Ramsey's DNA would be all over the place in that home so it is inconsequential. Since all family members spent the entire day with JBR it would be virtually impossible for their DNA not to be there.


    The fact that there are multiple DNA matches on the clothing, including a female's, tells me that you either had half a dozen intruders stomping around the house, or the samples came from multiple people who weren't related to the crime.

    Remember, JBR's body was not found in a river six months after the fact. The body was fresh, the crime scene was fresh--so where was the hair evidence? Footprints?

    You know I am not even going to feed in to this red herring anymore. That's what John Ramsey wants.

  4. #16

    Default

    Here is an excerpt from Kolar's book on the DNA as presented to the Cold Case panel in 2009, pages 413-16:

    Horita confirmed the public announcements Lacy had made
    about matching DNA found in the leggings worn by JonBenét.

    He went on to report, however, that additional samples of trace
    male DNA had been discovered on the cord used in the wrist
    bindings, and the garrote that had killed JonBenét. These trace
    “Touch DNA” samples were genetically unique from one another,
    and were believed to belong to different individuals.

    It took several moments for this information to be absorbed
    by the cadre of law enforcement experts filling the room before
    one of the female laboratory technicians voiced her observation.

    It went something like this:

    “Are you telling me, based on trace Touch DNA testing results,
    that we are now looking at six different people being involved in
    this murder?”

    Horita reluctantly nodded his head.

    We collectively recapped the DNA evidence that had been
    analyzed in this investigation, and it included the following:

    1.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath
    JonBenét’s fingernails of both hands during autopsy that
    was identified as belonging to her.

    2.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath
    her left fingernails during autopsy that belonged to an
    unidentified male.84

    3.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath
    her right fingernails during autopsy that belonged to
    another unidentified male, and a female. (JonBenét could
    not be eliminated as a possible contributor of the female
    DNA.)

    4.) There had been trace DNA samples located in the crotch
    and waistband of her underwear that belonged to an
    unidentified male. This became known as Distal Stain
    007-2.

    5.) The new technology of Touch DNA identified trace
    samples in the waistband of the leggings that matched
    the unidentified male DNA (Distal Stain 007-2) in the
    underwear.

    6.) The new technology of Touch DNA had located another
    sample of DNA located on the wrist bindings that
    belonged to a different unidentified male.

    7.) The new technology of Touch DNA had located another
    sample of DNA located on the garrote that belonged to yet
    another unidentified male.

    By our count, we were looking at six separate and independent
    DNA samples that belonged to unknown individuals, comprising
    a group that consisted of five males and one female.

    But there was more.

    Horita indicated that Touch DNA testing had discovered traces
    of genetic material on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the
    Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét. This Touch DNA belonged
    to Patsy and Burke Ramsey.

    No surprise there: they all lived in the same house.

    So, what is the takeaway that we may derive from this information?

    In my view, it demonstrates the advances that our scientific
    community has made in the application of the forensic sciences.

    [snip]

    The point to be made is that Touch DNA is relatively new
    technology, and we are still trying to understand the parameters of
    its capabilities.

    Does the discovery of the additional samples of “touch” male
    DNA on implements used in JonBenét’s murder truly mean that
    we should be searching for an entire group of individuals who
    participated in this crime?

    Or should we interpret this trace evidence in another manner?

    Is it possible that new technology is capable of identifying
    trace evidence, naked to the human eye, which has nothing to
    do with the transfer of DNA evidence that occurred during the
    actual commission of a crime?

    Is it possible that these trace samples of DNA were deposited
    on these items of evidence at a time prior to the murder of this
    little girl?

    There are numerous examples across the nation where courts
    have thrown out critical physical evidence due to some type of
    contamination taking place during laboratory testing. A technician
    forgets to change a pair of gloves, and microscopic trace evidence
    from one crime is transferred to the evidence of another.

    I can’t help but wonder, what the hell makes this case so
    different? Why are we not giving consideration to the possibility
    that all of these pieces of trace evidence were in place long before
    these articles came into contact with JonBenét Ramsey? Are we
    afraid to even consider other options in our evaluation of this case,
    and in our pursuit of the truth?
    Last edited by Cherokee; August 1, 2012, 6:53 pm at Wed Aug 1 18:53:00 UTC 2012.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  5. #17
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    I agree completely. Remember--it was Christmas. JBR got new clothes, a new bike, new toys. That stuff was probably covered in stray DNA and secondary transfers probably happened all day long.

  6. #18

    Default

    Reading on, after recounting a crime he'd been involved in investigating where an unidentified fingerprint at a crime scene turned out to be artifact, Kolar writes more on the DNA markers of these partial samples which led him to ask further questions about the significance of the profiles:

    Page 417:

    The point to be illustrated here is that physical evidence may
    be collected from a scene that has no connection whatsoever to
    the perpetrator of a crime. There will frequently be unanswered
    questions about this type of evidence, and each piece must be
    carefully scrutinized and weighed as to its probative nature.
    It is critical that we keep an open mind, however, and properly
    evaluate every piece of evidence that we have collected over the
    course of an investigation.

    As of this writing, I have been unable to determine the
    strength of the genetic markers that were identified as the Touch
    DNA samples found in the leggings worn by JonBenét at the time
    of the discovery of her body. Horita reported that they were
    weaker than the partial sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2.

    The strength of the loci (genetic markers) observed in the cord
    of the wrist bindings were reported to be 6 markers, and those of
    the male in the garrote were 7. Both of these samples were less than
    the partial sample of 10 markers identified as Distal Stain 007-2.

    What I viewed as significant however, was the revelation that
    Horita had disclosed during the task force meeting held in
    February 2009:

    • Touch DNA testing discovered the presence of two additional,
    unknown samples of male DNA on the implements
    that had been used to kill JonBenét.

    • Mary Lacy made the decision to withhold this information
    from the public when she apologized to, and exonerated,
    the Ramsey family.

    For what it’s worth, here is my personal observation and my
    takeaway:

    For reasons beyond my comprehension, there has been a total
    lack of objectivity on the part of the prosecutor’s office regarding
    the DNA in this case, and I have a difficult time understanding
    why the totality of the Touch DNA testing evidence was not
    released to the public by Lacy when the family was exonerated in
    the death of their daughter.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  7. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BobC View Post
    I agree completely. Remember--it was Christmas. JBR got new clothes, a new bike, new toys. That stuff was probably covered in stray DNA and secondary transfers probably happened all day long.
    Not to mention, JonBenet had been to a party at the White's with other children and adults present, plus she'd been to the Stine's and the Walker's homes on the way home.

    Patsy said in her '98 LE interview she didn't know if JB had bathed or washed her hands that day. She didn't seem to know when JB had last had a bath, though I may have a memory gap there. Anyone else remember this line of questioning?

    There were also neighborhood children in and out of the Ramsey home that Christmas Day playing with Burke and JonBenet.

    Really, this is just mind-numbing.

    Kolar repeats throughout his book that it's always "possible" that a foreign faction of ninja-like intruders committed this crime...but not very likely.

    Since I believe Patsy wrote the note, and I think that's clear to anyone with two eyes and a modicum of intelligence, unless Patsy belonged to the foreign faction, I don't think it is possible, IMO.

    Plus there's that bugaboo, the pineapple in the intestinal tract. Kolar mentions early in the book the medical experts gave the timeline of that pineapple being digested and moving through to her intestine as approx. 2 hours. The head blow injuries were given 90 minutes from the blow to the strangulation, according to Kolar, so that timeline works like this: JonBenet ate the pineapple; half an hour later she was bludgeoned; 90 minutes later she was asphyxiated with the ligature.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  8. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    I think we (I mean the LE community) really are going all CSI now, getting into areas that are useless to crime investigations and will allow many perpetrators to get off scot-free. This is ridiculous, finding this kind of trace DNA and trying to figure out who it's from! Have all murders been committed by this crowd of anonymous DNA contributors? For God's sake!

    Wild goose-chasing? Or chasing unicorns?
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  9. #21
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    I'm with you Heymom. I am really scared that our criminal justice system will grind to a halt if trace DNA, half a nanogram, can exonerate people who have a dead child in a locked home/staged crime scene. The implications are mind-boggling.

  10. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    So does Kolar tell us what the biological sample on the gown is from? I know there was some blood found on it.
    He doesn't tell us, but there was that info from the lab report held up by Erin Moriarty. That report indicates blood.

    LAB CLASS XX???-2136(?)-4153(?) SECTION: DNA TESTING
    AGENCY(?) NAME – CD0878136 – F2 ACBLDER(?)
    EXTRACTED(?) BY: blacked out EXTRACTION DATE: 123196(?)
    ABSTRACT(X) AFA(?) ?/? ???
    RAMSEY, PATSY W/F
    RAMSEY, JOHN W/M
    RAMSEY, JONBENET W/F

    Two lines BLACKED OUT
    DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
    EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
    #5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
    #7 Bloodstains from panties
    #14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
    #14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
    #14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
    #15A, #15B Samples from tape
    Bloodstains from white blanket
    #17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??
    #13A, #13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
    Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey

    LABORATORY REPORT
    BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
    ??????? Section Testing WB
    BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
    WB WB
    BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
    WA WB WB W18

    THE DNA PROFILES DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBITS #5A, 5B, AND 17C MATCHED THE PROFILE FROM JONBENET RAMSEY.

    FED FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M REVEALED A MIX- COMPONENT MATCHED JONBENET RAMSEY. IF THE MINOR
    5 #7, 14L AND 14M WERE CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE
    JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY, JEFF
    RAMSEY
    EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED.

  11. #23

    Default

    Bump. Having almost finished my book, and having looked through this DNA thread, I am correct in stating that the longjohn TDNA (you know the stuff that Lacy said got the Rams off the hook) had even less markers than the infamous panty DNA, no?????

    Why isn't the media picking up on this big time? I was always under the impression that the longjohn TDNA had a complete set of markers. This would have, definitely, made the panty DNA more relevant.

    Yet, I aways wondered how that touch DNA, on the longjohns, could have been such a pristine sample (having been collected years after the crime) while the panty DNA (collected the day after) was so degraded? This makes more sense. If Kolar's book only contained this one bit of new information, then, it would have been worth it.

    This dam_ _d DNA is worthless.

  12. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    Bump. Having almost finished my book, and having looked through this DNA thread, I am correct in stating that the longjohn TDNA (you know the stuff that Lacy said got the Rams off the hook) had even less markers than the infamous panty DNA, no?????

    Why isn't the media picking up on this big time? I was always under the impression that the longjohn TDNA had a complete set of markers. This would have, definitely, made the panty DNA more relevant.

    Yet, I aways wondered how that touch DNA, on the longjohns, could have been such a pristine sample (having been collected years after the crime) while the panty DNA (collected the day after) was so degraded? This makes more sense. If Kolar's book only contained this one bit of new information, then, it would have been worth it.

    This dam_ _d DNA is worthless.
    The DNA was always a red herring, to give the Ramseys a hand with their effort to hide what happened that night. The DAs know there was never an intruder. I'm sure many of the BPD also know that. Probably the grand jury knows it too, and a plethora of others. But every time something about that night comes up again, you'll notice that the DNA evidence is also thrown out as if it means something. Like the Wizard of Oz, behind his curtain, we're supposed to just accept it as fact and GO AWAY!
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!



Similar Threads

  1. CNN Interviews James Kolar (Oct 26, 2013)
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 28, 2013, 3:56 pm, Mon Oct 28 15:56:28 UTC 2013
  2. Sexual Behavior Problems (SBP) - from James Kolar's book about Ramsey case
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 159
    Last Post: December 24, 2012, 11:24 am, Mon Dec 24 11:24:14 UTC 2012
  3. Where to buy James Kolar's book: "Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet"
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: August 18, 2012, 12:35 pm, Sat Aug 18 12:35:36 UTC 2012
  4. James Kolar's new book! It's what we have been waiting for! Daily Beast article!
    By Moab in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 308
    Last Post: August 14, 2012, 10:11 pm, Tue Aug 14 22:11:18 UTC 2012
  5. Listen to James Kolar talk about new book on Tricia's show tonight! (July 18, 2012)
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: July 19, 2012, 8:43 pm, Thu Jul 19 20:43:59 UTC 2012

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •