Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 96
  1. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    Remember that creepy morgue worker who was arrested for trying to sell the morgue log that listed the pick up of JB's body? He would be just the kind of creep who would pull down her panties and longjohns and take a look. Or touch.

    Why hasn't HE been tested as a donor for the male DNA?

    Oh...I remember. That would take a REAL DA to ask for a warrant to swab his cheeks. Do we have a real DA there yet? I have a favorite saying about things like that....

    It's like the puppy who peed behind the sofa. It remains to be seen.
    I believe he stole the log page long after the murder.

    Most visitors to the morgue weren't left by themselves. He wouldn't have been. Grabbing a page out of a book is something that only takes a moment. You wouldn't be able to pull off much more than that.

    The security guards and some hospital personnel had access. They've probably been tested. Whether or not one of them might have brought some other unknown person into a deserted morgue in the middle of the night, who knows?

    In State of Play Russell Crowe plays a reporter who pokes around a dead body in the morgue while a coroner's assistant fidgets nearby. It's only a movie, of course, but it showed me I wasn't crazy for wondering if a reporter or a Ramsey PI might have bribed his way in. Fleet White told Steve Thomas that he was interviewed by Ramsey investigators the same afternoon JonBenet's body was found. (Apparently White kept notes of everything.)

  2. #14

    Default

    A brilliant poster at the topix JBR forum, otr, pointed out something right under our noses for years: an autopsy picture of the medical examiner or someone who assisted with the autopsy holding JonBenet's hand...clearly touching her fingers/fingernails. If he/she had DNA on those gloves, contaminated as has been reported from using the same, unsterilized clippers on various bodies, transference could have occurred here. Or if she had DNA on her own fingers or under her fingernails from something she had touched, that could have gotten on these gloves while handling those, as well:



    Now think about that: if the medical examiner had DNA on those gloves from contaminated instruments or fingers or fingernails or anything, he also pulled down the longjohns and Bloomies. He looked at the Bloomies close enough to report that the BLOODSTAINS IN THE PANTY did not correspond to bloodstains on the genital area of the body. How closely did he handle those Bloomies to determine those spots did not match up?

    There's an excellent opportunity for contamination of the longjohns and Bloomies, IMO.

    "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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    A brilliant poster at the topix JBR forum, otr, pointed out something right under our noses for years: an autopsy picture of the medical examiner or someone who assisted with the autopsy holding JonBenet's hand...clearly touching her fingers/fingernails. If he/she had DNA on those gloves, contaminated as has been reported from using the same, unsterilized clippers on various bodies, transference could have occurred here. Or if she had DNA on her own fingers or under her fingernails from something she had touched, that could have gotten on these gloves while handling those, as well:



    Now think about that: if the medical examiner had DNA on those gloves from contaminated instruments or fingers or fingernails or anything, he also pulled down the longjohns and Bloomies. He looked at the Bloomies close enough to report that the BLOODSTAINS IN THE PANTY did not correspond to bloodstains on the genital area of the body. How closely did he handle those Bloomies to determine those spots did not match up?

    There's an excellent opportunity for contamination of the longjohns and Bloomies, IMO.
    That picture makes me want to post something...totally off topic....that I have been saying for years....that is NOT a heart on her hand..it is a smiley face...without the circle. Eyes and a mouth underneath. = ) (Only right side up). It is as plain as the noses on our face too.

    Is that a hair on the sleeve of her other arm...up above the arm with the hand with the SMILEY face drawn it (underneath the ruler, around 1 or 1 1/2). It looks like a dark hair to me....could it be....hmmmm....Patsy's?? I bet it wasn't even tested...probably wasn't even seen. Another blotched job.

  4. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    I've seen several articles about the problem of DNA contamination at crime scenes and mortuaries by investigators and lab techs. Since it seems likely that Patsey Ramsey wrote the ransom note, how did the minute amount of foreign DNA (the amount in a sneeze) get into the blood spot in JonBenet's underwear? Maybe just by someone talking over it?

    "Results show that contamination by talking in both kneeling and sitting positions occurred almost immediately (<30 seconds, but not from just one sentence) up to 69 cm from the subject. When standing, contamination could be observed up to a maximum 115 cm from the subject, and was only present in one of three repeats when talking for only 30 seconds. This article illustrates how rapidly a static person can potentially contaminate an area in front of him or herself within a laboratory or scene environment, just by talking."

    From "How long does it take a static speaking individual to contaminate the immediate environment?"

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/16461813157pqk46/
    Interesting article, Fr. B. I note that this article mentions the possibility of guilty people being released from prison because some foreign DNA shows up. I believe this is really going to be a problem in the future as so many people are now being released from prison on this scant DNA evidence. Defense attorneys have clothing scraped and, if unknown DNA is found, then, the process begins.

    Now, as for the JBR unknown DNA. There are many ways this scant DNA could have gotten where it was found and, the article you presented, gives us an example of another one.

  5. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    I'm not quite sure where to put this--Problems with DNA or just Problems.

    "Ghouls are at play in the city's morgues.

    The people employed to respectfully handle the remains of the deceased have instead turned cadavers and body parts into macabre playthings, The Post has learned.

    And they shockingly documented their depraved foolery in photos taken as keepsakes.

    Grinning mortuary technicians use corpses as props in dozens of disturbing Polaroids obtained by The Post.

    Perhaps most disturbing of all is mortuary technician Kaihl Brassfield holding a severed head in a classic Heisman Trophy football pose.

    The creepy pictures, some undated and others from 2004, show Brassfield and unidentified co-workers hamming it up. "It was foolish," he conceded. "Now I'm older. It stopped."

    Brassfield, a $35,000-a- year technician at the Brooklyn morgue of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, had been out of work on disability, but was suspended without pay after inquiries by The Post.

    He says that for several years, everyone working in the Staten Island and Brooklyn morgues, from cops to coroners, participated in the gory games.

    But in recent years, after the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner took over from the Health and Hospitals Corp., staff got more professional, Brassfield said.

    "We are looking into the allegations," said Office of the Chief Medical Examiner spokeswoman Ellen Borakove. "This is the antithesis of the mission of our agency to always treat families and decedents with the utmost respect and sensitivity."

    The probe by the office's inspector-general began after the queries were made about the photos, and the city's Department of Investigation has begun interviewing ME employees.

    Brassfield said the photos were stolen in November. He said he received calls blackmailing him in December, but refused to pay."


    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/f...#ixzz12EDzjNfi

    Well, here's another possible source for the unknown DNA. How many murder victims would Boulder get in the morgue? And a child at that? It wouldn't be that far fetched to think that a curious or some curious individuals had a look see....

  6. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    A brilliant poster at the topix JBR forum, otr, pointed out something right under our noses for years: an autopsy picture of the medical examiner or someone who assisted with the autopsy holding JonBenet's hand...clearly touching her fingers/fingernails. If he/she had DNA on those gloves, contaminated as has been reported from using the same, unsterilized clippers on various bodies, transference could have occurred here. Or if she had DNA on her own fingers or under her fingernails from something she had touched, that could have gotten on these gloves while handling those, as well:



    Now think about that: if the medical examiner had DNA on those gloves from contaminated instruments or fingers or fingernails or anything, he also pulled down the longjohns and Bloomies. He looked at the Bloomies close enough to report that the BLOODSTAINS IN THE PANTY did not correspond to bloodstains on the genital area of the body. How closely did he handle those Bloomies to determine those spots did not match up?

    There's an excellent opportunity for contamination of the longjohns and Bloomies, IMO.
    This was a good pickup by otr. In several articles, that posters have presented, experts have insisted on the importance of frequent glove changes so as not to transfer DNA, etc. They site examples of lab techs touching one article of clothing and then transferring DNA to another article because they failed to change gloves. Now, we must remember, back in 1996, they weren't gathering DNA from skin cells left by touch. I think it's safe to assume that Meyer (and whoever might have been assisting) was not as careful in 1996 as Meyer might be today with the advancement in the technology.

  7. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Southern Silicon Valley !!
    Posts
    2,285

    Lightbulb

    Yes, Learnin, remember that famous outburst in the OJ trial from Barry Scheck Atty from the Innocence Project..."And how about THAT Mr. Fung". It was videos of Criminist Fung picking up blood samples and not changing his gloves. It was a big boo boo then and of course it could be even bigger now because of the easy way that we now know it is to spread DNA breathing on things, sneezing on things, or just touching them.
    "When are we going to get our heads out of the sand and understand that sometimes really nice people who look good on the outside are dastardly on the inside." Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, MA

  8. #20

    Default

    Perhaps this isn't the best thread for this, but....

    Springs unit hot on cold cases with new DNA testing machine

    COLORADO SPRINGS — A robotic DNA processing machine at the Colorado Springs Police Department will soon be humming as it helps solve murder mysteries up to 60 years old.

    Over the next several weeks, two forensic scientists will use the machine to identify DNA left on hundreds of pieces of evidence, including clothing collected from 89 murder victims since 1949....The team spent the first eight months tracking down evidence in storage lockers and analyzing files to see which cases had the best chance of being solved with DNA testing. They initially identified 35.

    Although testing had been done on some of the cases, the new machine can do things older tests couldn't. It can analyze tiny skin cells left behind when a killer pulls on rope to strangle someone or tears a victim's clothing....


    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17603528

  9. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    Perhaps this isn't the best thread for this, but....

    Springs unit hot on cold cases with new DNA testing machine

    COLORADO SPRINGS — A robotic DNA processing machine at the Colorado Springs Police Department will soon be humming as it helps solve murder mysteries up to 60 years old.

    Over the next several weeks, two forensic scientists will use the machine to identify DNA left on hundreds of pieces of evidence, including clothing collected from 89 murder victims since 1949....The team spent the first eight months tracking down evidence in storage lockers and analyzing files to see which cases had the best chance of being solved with DNA testing. They initially identified 35.

    Although testing had been done on some of the cases, the new machine can do things older tests couldn't. It can analyze tiny skin cells left behind when a killer pulls on rope to strangle someone or tears a victim's clothing....


    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17603528
    Think the BPD will give them a call? Nah. They might actually SOLVE this case by testing the garrote. Think they want to do that? Nah. Nobody wants to solve this case except people like us.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  10. #22

    Default Sound familiar?

    What follows is from a trial that at the time of this writing is still in progress. The defendant, Steven DeMocker, is accused of killing his former wife, Carol Kennedy, by bludgeoning her to death at her home on July 2, 2008
    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...519issues.html

    What can happen when a careless coroner handles evidence?

    Overview:
    DNA from 3 unidentified men found in 3 locations:
    • Under the fingernails of the victim’s left hand.
    • On the victim’s left hand
    • On a cell phone held by the victim.

    (The man on trial, DeMocker, was excluded as a possible donor of the DNA.)
    (What would Mary Lacy do in a case like this? (I think we know.))

    September 1, 2010
    A scientist who works at a private laboratory testified Wednesday that Carol Kennedy had DNA from three unknown men underneath the fingernails of her left hand.
    Alexis Brown, a supervisor at the Sorenson Forensic laboratory in Salt Lake City, Utah, told a jury in the murder trial for Kennedy's ex-husband, Steven DeMocker, that Kennedy also had DNA from three unknown males on her left hand itself.
    In addition, Brown said, a cordless phone that her laboratory tested showed the DNA from three unidentified males. Tests found that the DNA had not come from DeMocker, she said.
    Kennedy was talking to her mother on the phone in the evening of July 2, 2008, when she suddenly exclaimed, "Oh, no," and the call ended. Her mother, Ruth Kennedy, became alarmed when she could not then reach her daughter and eventually called the Yavapai County Sheriff's Office. A deputy looked into a window of Carol Kennedy's Williamson Valley home and saw her body on the floor of a room she used as an office. A cordless phone lay nearby.
    Brown said tests excluded DeMocker's DNA from the samples taken from Kennedy's hand, nails and the cell phone.

    Previously, Dr. Philip Keene, who performed the autopsy on Kennedy, said the nail clippers he used to clip her nails were pulled from a drawer and might not have been sterile.
    DeMocker, who voluntarily gave a statement to detectives the night of his former wife's death, said that he had been riding his mountain bike on trails near Granite Mountain at the time of her death. He offered to give them blood and DNA samples.
    Det. Luis Huante, one of the initial investigators, testified that DeMocker aroused his suspicions when he came to Kennedy's Bridal Path house that evening after his younger daughter told him that her mother died. DeMocker asked Huante if he was a suspect. Also, Huante noted scratches on DeMocker's arms and legs that DeMocker said came from bushes along the trail.

    http://www.prescottaz.com/main.asp?S...rticleID=84882

    In September of 2010, the prosecution was pretty sure that the unidentified DNA that the defense was touting as DNA from the “real killer(s)” was the result of contamination. They were right.
    6 months later the owner of the major DNA profile in the case was identified

    March 21, 2011
    DeMocker trial: Mystery DNA identified

    Results support prosecution's nail clipper contamination theory

    PRESCOTT - The DNA found on fingernail clippings of the victim in the murder trial of Steven C. DeMocker has been identified as being that of a man who may have died prior to or shortly after Carol Kennedy, according to documents obtained by the Courier.
    The results may substantiate claims by the prosecution that the nail clippers used by the medical examiner were contaminated.
    The prosecution in the DeMocker trial on Monday asked Judge Warren R. Darrow to order the Chino Valley Medical Center and the Yavapai Regional Medical Center to release the medical records of Ronald Lloyd Birman, who, the document said, "has been identified as the major donor of the DNA profile, previously unknown" by the Department of Public Safety's crime lab.


    The Yavapai County Medical Examiner, Dr. Philip Keene, did an autopsy and determined Birman bled to death after an arterial graft failed.
    DeMocker is accused of beating to death Kennedy, his ex-wife, on July 2, 2008.

    The timing of the Birman's death will play a crucial role in DeMocker's retrial, as will the existence of DNA on Kennedy's body from what appears to be a totally unrelated person, which may point to contamination at Keene's office, as previously reported in the Courier.
    Kennedy's fingernail contained DNA from three people, one "major" profile and two "minor" profiles. The DNA test results are believed to refer to the "major" profile, according to testimony quoted in the Courier.
    On Aug. 24, 2010, Dr. Keene testified under examination by Deputy County Attorney Joseph C. Butner III that the clippers used to trim Kennedy's nails for evidence had not been sterilized.

    The prosecution says in the motion that it wants to "corroborate the findings of the DPS crime lab."
    Because a gag order has been imposed on the trial, neither side was able to speak about the motion or the identification made by DPS.
    Scott Orr, The Daily Courier

    http://prescottdailycourier.com/main...rticleID=91964
    Last edited by cynic; June 1, 2011, 11:40 pm at Wed Jun 1 23:40:38 UTC 2011.

  11. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    What follows is from a trial that at the time of this writing is still in progress. The defendant, Steven DeMocker, is accused of killing his former wife, Carol Kennedy, by bludgeoning her to death at her home on July 2, 2008
    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...519issues.html

    What can happen when a careless coroner handles evidence?

    Overview:
    DNA from 3 unidentified men found in 3 locations:
    • Under the fingernails of the victim’s left hand.
    • On the victim’s left hand
    • On a cell phone held by the victim.

    (The man on trial, DeMocker, was excluded as a possible donor of the DNA.)
    (What would Mary Lacy do in a case like this? (I think we know.))....

    In September of 2010, the prosecution was pretty sure that the unidentified DNA that the defense was touting as DNA from the “real killer(s)” was the result of contamination. They were right. Six months later the owner of the major DNA profile in the case was identified.


    March 21, 2011
    DeMocker trial: Mystery DNA identified

    Results support prosecution's nail clipper contamination theory

    PRESCOTT - The DNA found on fingernail clippings of the victim in the murder trial of Steven C. DeMocker has been identified as being that of a man who may have died prior to or shortly after Carol Kennedy, according to documents obtained by the Courier.

    The results may substantiate claims by the prosecution that the nail clippers used by the medical examiner were contaminated.

    The prosecution in the DeMocker trial on Monday asked Judge Warren R. Darrow to order the Chino Valley Medical Center and the Yavapai Regional Medical Center to release the medical records of Ronald Lloyd Birman, who, the document said, "has been identified as the major donor of the DNA profile, previously unknown" by the Department of Public Safety's crime lab.


    http://prescottdailycourier.com/main...rticleID=91964
    I didn't occur to me before that the DNA on JonBenet's long johns and underwear might belong to another corpse in the morgue, transferred via the gloves of the person who undressed her.

  12. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    I'm really disturbed reading all of this important DNA information. Instead of it helping to solve the crime, it appears to be causing nothing but havoc.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.



Similar Threads

  1. Michigan Primary Results
    By Ginja in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: August 16, 2004, 2:21 pm, Mon Aug 16 14:21:33 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

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