1. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    As you all know, a major component of the Ramsey intruder theory of the case is that since DNA not belonging to JonBenet was found under her nails and on some spots in her underwear, it must belong only to her killer, because apparently all items in the world are sterile when it comes to DNA, and its presence therefore requires that its owner knowingly and deliberately came in contact with the item involved.

    Whoops! The world in general is increasingly inclined to disagree with this intruder theory. As the examination of evidence for DNA traces is becoming more and more common, what are we finding? Stories of unidentified DNA from multiple contributors appearing all over the place!

    Let us take a tour of these stories, shall we?

    http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/...l?id=38b09cab-d273-4c2b-b303-452b1d5d4505&p=1

     
  2. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=303492

     
  3. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Wow, what a mystery this one is.

    Here's another connundrum for the sterile DNA scene proponents. I read a book last year about a murder in Massachusetts of a prominent doctor's wife. She was brutally stabbed in a recreational park area path where she and her husband often walked together. In fact, her husband claimed they had been walking that day and she had hurt her back, so she told him to take the dog to the water, and that's what he did. He claimed the dog ran back to his wife, and that's when he discovered her dead body.

    Long story short, the woman's doctor husband was convicted of killing her. What caught my attention in the book was that rubber gloves he used in the murder had not only her DNA on them but also rogue DNA. The jury did not even blink an eye at that rogue DNA. It was miniscule, just like the rogue DNA in JBR's underwear. Neither LE nor the prosecutor blinked an eye at it. They knew there is often rogue DNA on evidence that has nothing to do with the crime.

    Not everyone is gullible or stupid.
     
  4. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    The Dirk Greineder case? I still have some videotape broadcast on Court TV of that (from the good old days when Court TV thought nothing of broadcasting hours of courtroom testimony uninterrupted by commercial breaks). You are correct: unidentified DNA was found on evidence, and despite the defense's best effort to connect that DNA to someone other than Greineder, they failed and the jury threw it away as not being evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of Dirk's guilt.
     
  5. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin


    Yes, it was the Greineder case. I think 20/20 had something on this not long ago. The book was very good.
     
  6. Amber

    Amber Member

    Wow Why Nut, that's fascinating!

    I think whilst LE and Lawyers might be familiar with rogue DNA, the rest of us are led to believe through CSI and similar shows that if miniscule DNA is present then that person must be a suspect or at least have come into contact with the deceased.

    Forgive my memory or for asking a stupid question but:

    Was any DNA from the Ramsey's found on JB's underwear or anywhere on her body?
     
  7. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    It was, if you read the initial CBI report on the DNA findings from January of 1997. In that report, they state that IF the unidentified DNA found under the nails and in her underwear was from a mixture of JonBenet's material and that of one other person, then the Ramseys were excluded. But that "if" must be followed by an inferred "if not". If the DNA was not from just one person, but markers representing the degrading of DNA provided by more than one unidentified contributor, then a member of the Ramsey family is not excluded. One or more of them must have markers in common with the deposited DNA.
     
  8. Paradox

    Paradox Banned for Stupidity by RiverRat

    I think all this means the intruder was a rogue.
     
  9. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Thank you, Why_Nut, for the excellent information on this thread. I find the topic of DNA and genetics fascinating, and it is one of the most intriguing aspects of crime scene investigation. I wish everyone who believes the Ramsey spin that the DNA is linked to the killer would read the above information with an open mind.

    It's interesting that the last bastion of Ramsey defense has come down to the partial and degraded DNA. They don't talk about the "killer's" calling card of the ransom note or about anything else. It's DNA all day, every day, and it's what John and Patsy stressed in their last interview in Hawaii. Basically, after 10 years and all the evidence against them, that's all they have left ... and it's not much.
     
  10. Paradox

    Paradox Banned for Stupidity by RiverRat

    Actually, they have the law industry behind them. Without that DNA is worthless.
     
  11. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thank you for posting this excellent article on Rogue DNA, Why_Nut. What a fantastic breakthrough, to be able to pulverize the teeth and obtain DNA.

    Thank you for the other excellent post on the seven murders, and the information about the DNA on the remaining food found in the trash.

    Thank you WY for your interesting post on the doctor's wife.
     
  12. Elle

    Elle Member

    Wish I had posts to read like this every day, Cherokee. :) Like you, I find the topic of DNA very intriguing. How about the teeth being pulverized and holding DNA? Amazing!
     
  13. tylin

    tylin Banned

    Thank you Why Nut and WY. Very interesting stuff.
    Think the RST will ever get it?
     
  14. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin


    The RST will never get it, because they don't want to get it. They have fashioned their defense of the Ramseys on faulty information, and that's the way it's going to stay. It's like building a house. If the foundation is off level, or untrue, the entire house is going to be untrue. That house will also fall down a lot sooner than the house that was built on a true foundation.
     
  15. heymom

    heymom Member

    In the Bible, the foolish man built his house upon the sand, but the wise man built his house upon the rock.

    I'd say the RST has dibs on the beach.
     
  16. Little

    Little Member

    JMHO Tylin, the RST got it, which explains the scorched earth tactics. When the only thing left to hang on to were some very fragile strands they had to try to make them appear to made of iron.

    Little
     
  17. tylin

    tylin Banned

    WY,
    Doesn't it make you wonder why the spin team refuses to see and accept the correct information? It blows my mind. I've read so much RST crap over the years, it makes me nauseous. I can't for the life of me understand the poor John, poor Patsy bs.
     
  18. ACandyRose

    ACandyRose Super Moderator

    Why_Nut,

    Everytime I read a posting by you I am just totally amazed on your keen eye and mind following this case.

    Thank you once again. :)

    ACR
     
  19. Little

    Little Member

    Yep, we are fortunate to have the Why_Nuts and the ACRs and FFJers to keep us on track.

    Little
     
  20. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    The irony is, that as DNA testing becomes more sensitive, the more likely it is to find DNA that hs no bearing on the case you're working.
     
  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