FINALLY SOMEONE SPEAKS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE "INTRUDER" DNA

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tricia, May 18, 2004.

  1. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Thank God someone finally is telling the truth. Unfortunately the scientist won't let his or her name be used but she/he spells it out right here.

    From the Rocky Mountain News.

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_2893675,00.html

    By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
    May 18, 2004

    A claim by John Ramsey's campaign that investigators have the DNA of his daughter's killer goes too far, according to the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.

    "That's one of the possibilities, but that's not the only possibility," said the scientist, who asked that his name not be used.


    Advertisement



    The DNA sample was found commingled with blood in the underwear of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey.

    It's impossible to say whether the DNA belonged to an adult or a child, according to the scientist.

    "You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist said. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation."

    The sample does not match any member of the Ramsey family or any known suspects in Boulder's unsolved Christmas night 1996 slaying, according to Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner.

    Ramsey, 60, who now resides in Charlevoix, Mich., announced May 11 he is running as a Republican for the 105th House District seat in the Michigan State Legislature.

    On Ramsey's campaign Web site, www.supportramsey.com, visitors can click on an icon titled "Family Tragedy/Update."

    "On Dec. 11th, 2003, the family was advised by the (Boulder) D.A.'s investigative team that the Denver Police Department DNA lab had successfully identified the 10th DNA marker from the blood samples found on the underwear of JonBenet. Consequently, all of the state and federal DNA data systems now have the entire profile of the unknown deposit, thanks to the identification of the 10th marker."

    It also states the following:

    "It is the current understanding of the family that the investigation team considers this male DNA sample to be the key piece of evidence and was, without a doubt, left behind by the killer of their child."

    But that's not necessarily the case, said the man who developed that tenth marker.

    "It is only a sample," he said. "You need a match, and that will help you get a name. And then that gives you somebody to talk to. But that person might be alibied-out, or there might be some other explanation for why it's there."

    He also said there is no way to "age" the sample, to determine whether it was left in the underwear at the time of JonBenet's murder or at some other point.

    Ramsey campaign manager John Yob didn't answer a call and e-mail Monday seeking comment.

    But Atlanta attorney Lin Wood, who has represented the Ramseys for several years but is not associated with John Ramsey's campaign, defended the campaign's assertion.

    "I agree with the statements on the Ramsey Web site," said Wood. "There is no doubt in my mind, based on my knowledge of this case over the course of five years representing this family, that the DNA found in JonBenet's underwear is the DNA of the killer.

    "Anyone in a law enforcement investigation who is searching for an innocent explanation for foreign male DNA found mixed in the victim's blood on her underwear is either incompetent or prejudiced to the point of being unqualified to participate in a fair and objective investigation.

    "I am sure that explains in part why this case was taken away from the Boulder Police Department."

    Another state forensics expert, who also asked not to be identified, said the significance of the DNA profile must be weighed conservatively, based on where it was found, and in what substance.

    Without knowing if a sample was left by blood, saliva, or some other material, it could be "unknown cellular material sloughed off by somebody's hand," the source said. "You're in an area that is very gray, and it can be very confusing, as to the interpretive value of it."

    It is true that identifying the tenth genetic marker enabled Ramsey investigators to finally enter the unidentified genetic profile into the FBI's Combined DNA Index System, a national database.

    As of March, the Ramsey sample was one of 78,475 unidentified forensic profiles entered in the CODIS system, where it is regularly searched for potential matches against genetic profiles of convicted offenders - 1.6 million of them, and counting.


    ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

    YES this is what was needed for the truth to finally start coming out.
     
  2. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Tricia

    Please check your Inbox.
     
  3. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    As of March, the Ramsey sample was one of 78,475 unidentified forensic profiles entered in the CODIS system, where it is regularly searched for potential matches against genetic profiles of convicted offenders - 1.6 million of them, and counting.

    :yay:

    1.6 Millllllllion Plus Eliminated from the Suspect Pool! How many does that leave now?!

    Many Thanks to Charlie Brennan for NOT losing his voice as so many others that bring us the news have since Linn rode into town. :devil:

    IMO-
    RR
     
  4. Driver

    Driver FFJ Senior Member

    Amen to that, RR, amen.
     
  5. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Limpwood quote:

    Is this guy for real? Does he even have a clue how stupid he sounds with this statement? Has he no common sense at all? This scientist is a DNA expert who knows there is no way to determine how the DNA got in the underwear. If they had a realistic suspect who had left fibers or blood or hairs at the crime scene, that would give them good reason to believe the DNA came from that suspect on the night of the crime. As it stands right now, they have none of that - no fibers, no blood, no foreign hairs left at the crime scene, much as Wood and his friend Smit want it to be so. They cannot say with ANY degree of accuracy that the DNA came from JBR's killer or that it was deposited on the underwear on the night she was murdered. If they tried to prove that in court, they would fall flat on their faces, because the scientific experts would blow them out of the water.

    In so many ways, I wish the RST had to prove everything they are saying in court, under oath, with nationally acclaimed scientific experts to make them look like the complete idiots they really are. From the alleged entrance into and exit out of the basement window to the DNA to the Hi Tec footprint to the palmprint to the peanuts to the alleged stun gun- every single fabricated piece of so-called evidence dredged up by Smit and Wood and Keenan and the Ramseys would be shot down by the experts, because absolutely none of it can be dated to Christmas night, 1996, nor can it be connected to the crime. Period. It's supreme stupidity for them to continue to spew this nonsense to people who are not one bit stupid. All they have is the totally biased and skewed perception of the delusional Lou Smit. One has to wonder how many other cases this "legend" screwed up and how many innocent people he helped put in jail.
     
  6. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    I challenge Lin Wood to explain to the public, in his own words, what an allele is. If he understands DNA enough to be able to perform this small task, his opinions on DNA evidence would be worth considering. Short of that accomplishment, though, he is blowing smoke and hoping people will think he is breathing fire.
     
  7. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Tricia:

    “Thank God someone finally is telling the truth. Unfortunately
    the scientist won't let his or her name be used but she/he spells
    it out right here.â€

    “YES this is what was needed for the truth to finally start
    coming out.â€

    How right you are!!! As I read this article and thought of it in
    conjunction with a couple of other recent happenings, they
    converged into “Down went McGinty to the bottom of the sea.â€

    The house of cards is collapsing at an exponential rate. For the
    first time in over four years, I can see an end to the Ramsey
    charade. There may never be a conviction because of the
    difficulty of establishing which Ramsey did what, but the
    intruder myth is two micro steps from completely gone.

    Over and over again, Wood and the Ramseys have touted the support
    of Mary Keenan (supporting the Carnes’ ruling) in the claim of
    evidence of an intruder, thereby, removing the Ramseys from under
    the umbrella of suspicion. They repeatedly ignored the fact that
    Keenan recanted this statement on May 25, 2003. However, John’s
    bid for public office revived the issue and the chickens came
    home to roost.

    “When asked if John and Patsy had been cleared in their
    daughter's murder, Boulder county district attorney Mary Keenan
    says, "No, we have not excluded anyone from the investigation."
    To which John Ramsey responds, "That's the correct answer. No one
    should be excluded." (PEOPLE MAGAZINE)

    Not only does Keenan deny removing the Ramseys from under the
    umbrella of suspicion, John, with back to the wall, agreed with
    the designation of himself and Patsy as suspects; which is
    exactly opposite the position declared and pivotal in the suit
    against Fox. (Evidence of intruder automatically excludes the
    Ramseys. Ergo, Keenan admits there is no evidence of an
    intruder.)

    In continuation of the idiocy of the unknown as evidence of an
    intruder, the actual abundant evidence of Ramsey guilt is ignored
    and a bit of contaminated DNA is absurdly called proof of an
    intruder.

    “I agree with the statements on the Ramsey Web site," said Wood.
    "There is no doubt in my mind, based on my knowledge of this case
    over the course of five years representing this family, that the
    DNA found in JonBenet's underwear is the DNA of the killer.

    "Anyone in a law enforcement investigation who is searching for
    an innocent explanation for foreign male DNA found mixed in the
    victim's blood on her underwear is either incompetent or
    prejudiced to the point of being unqualified to participate in a
    fair and objective investigation.â€

    Panic time. Wood is dropping into an abyss and can do nothing but
    scream absurdities, evade unwelcome facts, and try to salvage
    the unsalvageable by calling opponents “prejudiced†and
    “incompetent.†(What’s new?) Can’t you just imagine the reaction
    of a jury upon hearing Wood’s declaration in conflict with the
    conclusions of DNA experts? The DNA spin was grabbing at the last
    straw, and now that straw is gone as well. The “Ramsey Defenseâ€
    is now totally defenseless.

    To make matters worse for the RST, there is in the mix a high
    profile individual who trusts John Ramsey not at all.
    Furthermore, he does not hesitate to publicly make known this
    distrust:

    “State Rep. Ken Bradstreet, R-Gaylord, isn't so sure. He holds
    the 105th District seat but can't run again because of term
    limits. He said last month that he'd support a conservative
    Democrat in November's general election if Ramsey wins the August
    primary.

    "I've read two full-length books about the case and hundreds of
    ancillary materials," he said. "The more I read, the less
    comfortable I am with his candidacy." (From Freepress article,
    May 15, 2004)

    RUN, JOHN, RUN!
     
  8. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    This is just another example of the misleading statements put out by the RST.

    There is a burden of proof that a prosecutor must meet to say a certain suspect committed a certain crime. To do this, the analyst examines 13 locations (not 10) along the chromosome, known as "loci," which the relevent international scientific community has identified as suitable for comparison purposes. Each locus contains two alleles - one from each parent. When the STR's from a crime scene profile match an offender's profile, it means that there is a match from each and every one of the 26 alleles (genes) that comprise the 13 loci. The specificity of this forensic identification is one of the most significant powers of DNA.

    When scientists prepare the the crime scene evidence profile and the offender's profile, they look for a 100% match of the two profiles at the 13 loci.

    For verification purposes, the 13 core loci used for STR comparisons are: TPOX, D3S1358, FGA, D5S818, CSF1PO, D7S820, D8S1179, TH01, VWA, D13S317, D18S51, D21S11, D16S539.

    Reference http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/forensic_dna_fundamentals.pdf for complete text on the above.

    There is a reason I listed the 13 core loci used for STR comparisons in crime cases. Simple arithmetic proves that the above statement on the Ramesy website regarding having a complete sample for DNA comparison is fraudulent. The criteria is 13 core loci, not 10. If even one of the loci is missing from the equation, the odds of proving the probability that a certain DNA sample came from a certain person drop considerably. Take away loci TPOX, FGA, and THO1, for example, and the odds of proving a "match" may drop from 1 billion to 1 to, say, 1000 to 1. That is not a scientific number, it's my way of making a valid point.

    So, while CODIS may have accepted the DNA from the Ramsey case with its 10 core loci, that DNA will NEVER EVER identify anyone. It can eliminate a suspect, but it will never identify a suspect, as the RST claim it can. Furthermore, the only worth the DNA has at this point is either as an eliminator of suspects or as supporting evidence, if there were any other evidence to support. Since it's been 7+ years, and the RST has yet to come up with a credible intruder suspect, it's a good bet they can't build a case against an intruder because they don't have any viable evidence, and the DNA will never help them because they don't have a viable suspect with supporting evidence.

    If they had someone they could prove through circumstantial evidence was in that house that night and had access to JonBenet during the crucial hours, and if the person had no alibi and couldn't pass a polygraph, and if they could say, well, we have a partial match to the partial DNA stored in CODIS, (partial simply because the CODIS sample is incomplete), then they might have something. The DNA in this case is not a stand-alone piece of evidence, and it never will be.

    The Ramseys are lying on their website, and so is Lin Wood when he spins the DNA to be something it isn't.
     
  9. Aurora

    Aurora Member

    Campaign opening up a can of worms~

    Maybe this campaign of JR's is God's way of making him answer the tough questions of his own volition. They should have stayed under their rock. Now ...many people are trying to flip that rock over and get to the truth. Remember the truth never changes.... Ramsey's have been caught in alot of diiscrepancies with their stories. Woody doesn't like the truth either. *tsk tsk*
     
  10. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    As Spade says, Wood can't handle the truth. One of these fine days, though, it's going to sneak up and bite him hard in his steel magnolias. It's going to be fun to watch all that hot air come out of him like a popped balloon.
     
  11. JustChillun

    JustChillun Member

    What I want to see is the Fox Legal Department receive an e-mail of the statement by JR from the People mag, with the quote and the view from EW above. What an interesting thing that would be, seeing the JR's being pegged for making contradictory (and therefore negating ) statements to their charges within the lawsuit. If that thing got dropped, they would then be responsible for the legal fees incurred (100%). What perfect timing that would be, during his campaign and all. :cool2:
     
  12. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    Michigan press

    This is great news...I can't not only believe it's in the RMN, but Charlie Brennan the author? Yeehaw!

    I wonder what kind of impact it will have on Boulder readers, especially those who work at the BDA and BPD and CBI.

    I wonder if anything like this is being published in the Michigan papers where John's running. It absolutely should be.
     
  13. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    WY, outstanding post on the DNA codes! It makes it clear that this mysterious DNA specimen is a red herring that could never identify anyone yet is intended to create reasonable doubt, not proof, in the Ramseys' defense. That's the BEST they can and always have been able to hope for, is sufficient reasonable doubt to dodge a conviction. As everyone has posted here, that ain't gonna happen should there ever be a criminal trial.

    Keep your eye on the Fox case. The intruder theory, and all it's supporting "evidence," will get this kind of scrutiny should it go to civil trial. Afterall, the Ramseys are claiming McKinley's statement that there is no evidence of an intruder is libel, so THAT is the issue that will be tested at trial. That creates a wide open door to put an end to this intruder fantasy once and for all. Once that is accomplished, criminal charges could be filed against the Ramseys and their only viable defense all these years will be null and void. The die is cast so watch justice unfold and prevail!

    Ginja, I agree, someone should give Fox the heads up to be reading here at FFJ. And thanks, Charlie Brennan, for having the cajones so many of the media have lost over the years!
     
  14. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

     
  15. JustChillun

    JustChillun Member

    WOOHOO!!!

    Way to go, EW.

    I'd like to be a fly on the wall there
    right about now.

    :eye: :eye:
     
  16. Driver

    Driver FFJ Senior Member

    I guess Limpy's next step will be to request a continuance in light of his client's run for the House. Stall stall stall Or maybe (regretfully) drop the suit because of the drain on John's time at this critical point in the campaign. :rolleyes:

    Please, God, do not let Fox drop this hot potato.
     
  17. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    FOX isn't known for backing down, but more than that, they aren't one person trying to pay his lawyer through donations and whatever savings he had, like Steve Thomas had to do. FOX stands to win big if they win this lawsuit, and the publicity they get from doing so could far outweigh the cost of paying attorneys. Publicity = Profits for FOX. To ST, $100,000 was an overwhelming amount of money. To FOX, $1 million or whatever it takes to defend this case is the cost of 30 seconds worth of advertisements. They aren't afraid of Wood; the lawsuit is frivoulous, but FOX may want the story bad enough to turn it around on Wood and the Ramseys and really mess their day up for them.

    I hope FOX is reading here, for sure. The material to win their case is right here at FFJ. Go FOX!!
     
  18. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    "Incompetent?"

    Linn Wood, the man of caucasion DNA fame, is calling LE incompetent? What a pompous :(:(:(. Why Nut I hope you aren't holding your breath waiting for him to explain what an alelle is...
     
  19. purr

    purr Active Member

    i just wrote Charlie Brennan an email thank you note.

    i thanked him for writing THE TRUTH....

    and to check out our website.

    and that you guys had met with the Govenor's attorney lately.

    and about the 911 call.....

    and that Burke WAS awake that morning.

    and that Mary Kennan should NOT be going forward with the case.

    and that a special prosecutor should be appointed!

    i clicked on CONTACT US...and had to dig and dig
    to the bottom of the list, but i finally found charlie brennan's
    email address.......
    nevermind..here it is:
    brennanc@RockyMountainNews.com

    so if you feel inclined...you might want to consider
    and thank him too.....

    and encourage him to do more TRUTH SEEKING
    articles on jonbenet.....like i did!

    The Truth Will Set You Free,
    purr
     
  20. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Brennan

    Margoo says:-
    And herein lies the mindset of the RST (or should that be Rambot? - what is a Rambot?).

    Margoo seems to think it is OK for John to make misleading statements in his website - but that it's not OK for Brennan redress the balance. Brennan's article is neither "presuming" guilt nor is it demanding that the Ramseys prove otherwise. In claiming otherwise, Margoo displays either ignorance or bias - not sure which. Maybe both.

    Maikai calls Brennan a "BORG" because he wrote some facts that don't spin for Ramsey. Several Mr & Ms Borgs of Michigan are now deeply offended and won't be voting for John Ramsey.
     
  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