Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 96
  1. #25

    Default

    Autopsy photos taken during examination of body and collection of evidence by Dr. Meyers:



    Notice the gloved fingers of someone holding the hand open for the photo. If the gloves were contaminated while clipping of the fingernails with a contaminated clipper, the partial (very--only 1 to 3 markers in the fingernail DNA samples were recovered), these gloves could have spread that DNA also to the Bloomies and long johns when pulling them off the body and/or attempting to match the Bloomies blood spots to JB's genital area, which Dr. Meyer said he could not match those spots to the any on the body.

    Also, the unsourced DNA could have been contaminant from the lab, handled by a technician during DNA collection. Obviously the technician would have handled the waistbands of the long johns and Bloomies, as well as the crotch of the Bloomies.

    As much as Team Ramsey want us to believe contamination wasn't possible at different locations on the clothing, it was not only possible, but with current DNA technology, it's highly possible to find contaminate DNA left when evidence was processed. It's become common to find unsourced DNA artifact at crime scenes and on evidence. This has shown up in many trials now. Dr. Meyer admitted he might have used contaminated clippers, did he not? At least, that's how I remember it.

    "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.

  2. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Autopsy photos taken during examination of body and collection of evidence by Dr. Meyers:



    Notice the gloved fingers of someone holding the hand open for the photo. If the gloves were contaminated while clipping of the fingernails with a contaminated clipper, the partial (very--only 1 to 3 markers in the fingernail DNA samples were recovered), these gloves could have spread that DNA also to the Bloomies and long johns when pulling them off the body and/or attempting to match the Bloomies blood spots to JB's genital area, which Dr. Meyer said he could not match those spots to the any on the body.

    Also, the unsourced DNA could have been contaminant from the lab, handled by a technician during DNA collection. Obviously the technician would have handled the waistbands of the long johns and Bloomies, as well as the crotch of the Bloomies.

    As much as Team Ramsey want us to believe contamination wasn't possible at different locations on the clothing, it was not only possible, but with current DNA technology, it's highly possible to find contaminate DNA left when evidence was processed. It's become common to find unsourced DNA artifact at crime scenes and on evidence. This has shown up in many trials now. Dr. Meyer admitted he might have used contaminated clippers, did he not? At least, that's how I remember it.
    While I am in total agreement with what you are saying, I believe the very evidence that proves the Ramseys' DNA was no part of the so-called "evidentiary DNA", by the same reasoning, John Mark Karr's DNA should be eliminated along with that of the Ramseys. So, IMO, that puts him right back at the top of the suspect list, along with the Ramseys and all other "suspects" that LE might be looking at.

    Karr has said (among his other ascertians about the DNA "evidence") that he doesn't know why his DNA did not match. By this, he seems to be implying that although he expected it to be a match, it wasn't.

    There are still far too many questions about Karr that haven't been answered, and since there is much evidence that LE failed to investigate him AT ALL, much less THOROUGHLY, he's still a very plausible suspect, IMO. And I'm told that some in LE agree.

  3. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    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.
    It was well known at the time that the coroner in the JB case did NOT follow protocol regarding the nail clippers he used. Not only did he use the same clipper for each hand (instead of proper procedure of a separate sterile clipper for each finger), he may have used the same clipper on other bodies without sterilizing them. This man was no more able to perform a proper autopsy than I am. And maybe less so.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mBm View Post
    As for his DNA being eliminated. It was. IF you say by comparing it to the contaminated DNA it eliminated him, just as with the Ramseys.
    The reasons for keeping the Ramseys under the umbrella of suspicion (to use Beckner-speak) and being dismissive of the DNA evidence are numerous.
    The Karr situation is profoundly different, and DNA evidence can be used to exclude Karr and expose him as a liar.
    Not that I usually ever agree with what Lacy has to say, but she makes a valid point here:
    Mary Lacy: So when you say “was it the DNA, the lynchpin? It was based on his story. The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all…there’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else. But the way he (Karr) told the story, it had to be his and it’s not. So once that came back as not a match, he is not the killer.
    Mary Lacy Press Conference Regarding John Mark Karr - 8/29/06

    This is the way he told the story: (My apologies to everyone for giving this perverted freak any attention.)
    He kissed the child's body and massaged her feet. DAXIS performed oral sex on JonBenet Ramsey.
    Arrest affidavit – 8/15/06
    http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf

    Saliva left as a consequence of his alleged sex act would have left his DNA profile behind. What Karr failed to realize by being so fixated on his sick fantasies is that this little detail painted him into a corner. There is simply no way that Karr’s DNA profile would not have been found if he did what he claimed. Not only were the bloodstains from JonBenet’s panties tested, multiple swabs were taken from the pelvic region of JonBenet. Where is Karr’s DNA? It’s not there because he was not there. Being there in imagination only doesn’t count.
    (Just as a side note, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that any of the sampled DNA in this case comes from saliva. Because the sample sizes were both small and degraded they were unable to determine, definitively, the origin of the DNA cells. This makes it highly probable that the source was skin cells and quite probably the result of contamination or some other means of adventitious transfer.)
    Karr knew what happened and he told it like it was.
    DNA aside, and I’m not interested in hijacking a thread and certainly not to devote time to Karr, there were multiple problems with Karr’s “confession.”
    He was brought back solely in an effort by Mary Lacy to pin the death of JBR on anyone with a pulse that wasn’t a Ramsey.
    It was a completely baseless arrest. Nothing that he said with respect to case facts was unique or new, it was all from information that was openly available in the public domain. Interspersed with that were the sick fantasies of a twisted pedophile mind.
    What makes the whole event incredible is that despite the fact that Karr mentioned things that were completely untrue with respect to the crime, his “confession” was deemed by Lacy to have merit.
    I will give two examples:

    1. “Karr said he waited until he believed all occupants of the home were asleep then entered into JonBenets bedroom obtained her from her bed as she was sleeping and carried the sleeping child down a stairwell into a basement level room. Within the room JonBenet was placed on his lap and he spoke with her and stroked her hair.”
    http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf
    Alright, let’s think about this. He expects us to believe that he just waltzed into JBR’s room and proceeded to essentially go on a little “date” with her in the basement. JonBenet allegedly goes along with this, offering no resistance.
    Sure, I might have been born at night, but not last night.

    2. “Karr added he placed underwear or "knickers" onto JonBenet that he brought with him. The underwear brought by Karr was several sizes too large for JonBenet.”
    http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf
    If this isn’t a red flag that this guy is lying, I don’t know what is. I will spare you a replay of a full discussion of the oversized Bloomies, but there is no doubt, whatsoever, that the panties that JBR was found in were panties that were purchased by Patsy Ramsey and not brought into the home by an outside party.

    Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start with what - I will make it very simple for you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you in possession of or what do you know about the underwear that your daughter was wearing at the time she was found murdered?
    A. I have heard that she had on a pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.
    Q. The underwear that she was wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you know where they come from as far as what store?
    A. Bloomingdale’s in New York.
    Q. Who purchased those?
    A. I did.

    Q. Do you recall when you purchased them?
    A. It was, I think, November of '96.

    Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you understand the reason we are asking this, we want to make sure that this intruder did not bring these panties with him, this was something –
    A. Right.

    Q. - that was in the house.
    A. Yes.
    Q. And we are clear that, as far as you know, that is something that was in this house?
    A. Yes.
    Q. -- that belonged to your daughter, these panties?
    A. Correct.

    Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000

  5. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    The reasons for keeping the Ramseys under the umbrella of suspicion (to use Beckner-speak) and being dismissive of the DNA evidence are numerous.
    The Karr situation is profoundly different, and DNA evidence can be used to exclude Karr and expose him as a liar.
    Not that I usually ever agree with what Lacy has to say, but she makes a valid point here:
    Mary Lacy: So when you say “was it the DNA, the lynchpin? It was based on his story. The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all…there’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else. But the way he (Karr) told the story, it had to be his and it’s not. So once that came back as not a match, he is not the killer.
    Mary Lacy Press Conference Regarding John Mark Karr - 8/29/06

    This is the way he told the story: (My apologies to everyone for giving this perverted freak any attention.)
    He kissed the child's body and massaged her feet. DAXIS performed oral sex on JonBenet Ramsey.
    Arrest affidavit – 8/15/06
    http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf

    Saliva left as a consequence of his alleged sex act would have left his DNA profile behind. What Karr failed to realize by being so fixated on his sick fantasies is that this little detail painted him into a corner. There is simply no way that Karr’s DNA profile would not have been found if he did what he claimed. Not only were the bloodstains from JonBenet’s panties tested, multiple swabs were taken from the pelvic region of JonBenet. Where is Karr’s DNA? It’s not there because he was not there. Being there in imagination only doesn’t count.
    (Just as a side note, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that any of the sampled DNA in this case comes from saliva. Because the sample sizes were both small and degraded they were unable to determine, definitively, the origin of the DNA cells. This makes it highly probable that the source was skin cells and quite probably the result of contamination or some other means of adventitious transfer.)

    DNA aside, and I’m not interested in hijacking a thread and certainly not to devote time to Karr, there were multiple problems with Karr’s “confession.”
    He was brought back solely in an effort by Mary Lacy to pin the death of JBR on anyone with a pulse that wasn’t a Ramsey.
    It was a completely baseless arrest. Nothing that he said with respect to case facts was unique or new, it was all from information that was openly available in the public domain. Interspersed with that were the sick fantasies of a twisted pedophile mind.
    What makes the whole event incredible is that despite the fact that Karr mentioned things that were completely untrue with respect to the crime, his “confession” was deemed by Lacy to have merit.
    I will give two examples:

    1. “Karr said he waited until he believed all occupants of the home were asleep then entered into JonBenets bedroom obtained her from her bed as she was sleeping and carried the sleeping child down a stairwell into a basement level room. Within the room JonBenet was placed on his lap and he spoke with her and stroked her hair.”
    http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf
    Alright, let’s think about this. He expects us to believe that he just waltzed into JBR’s room and proceeded to essentially go on a little “date” with her in the basement. JonBenet allegedly goes along with this, offering no resistance.
    Sure, I might have been born at night, but not last night.

    2. “Karr added he placed underwear or "knickers" onto JonBenet that he brought with him. The underwear brought by Karr was several sizes too large for JonBenet.”
    http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf
    If this isn’t a red flag that this guy is lying, I don’t know what is. I will spare you a replay of a full discussion of the oversized Bloomies, but there is no doubt, whatsoever, that the panties that JBR was found in were panties that were purchased by Patsy Ramsey and not brought into the home by an outside party.

    Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start with what - I will make it very simple for you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you in possession of or what do you know about the underwear that your daughter was wearing at the time she was found murdered?
    A. I have heard that she had on a pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.
    Q. The underwear that she was wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you know where they come from as far as what store?
    A. Bloomingdale’s in New York.
    Q. Who purchased those?
    A. I did.

    Q. Do you recall when you purchased them?
    A. It was, I think, November of '96.

    Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you understand the reason we are asking this, we want to make sure that this intruder did not bring these panties with him, this was something –
    A. Right.

    Q. - that was in the house.
    A. Yes.
    Q. And we are clear that, as far as you know, that is something that was in this house?
    A. Yes.
    Q. -- that belonged to your daughter, these panties?
    A. Correct.

    Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000
    Thank you, Cynic, for your most excellent post that states the facts clearly and concisely. You have shown why JMK cannot be considered a suspect in the Ramsey case by using both documented evidence and JMK's own words. Bravo!

  6. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Thank you, Cynic, for your most excellent post that states the facts clearly and concisely. You have shown why JMK cannot be considered a suspect in the Ramsey case by using both documented evidence and JMK's own words. Bravo!
    Thank you for the kind words, Cherokee.
    I consider it one of life’s simple pleasures to rebut anything to do with Michael Tracey.
    It’s disappointing when anyone gives him, or anything to do with him, any credence.

  7. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Thank you for the kind words, Cherokee.
    I consider it one of life’s simple pleasures to rebut anything to do with Michael Tracey.
    It’s disappointing when anyone gives him, or anything to do with him, any credence.
    Amen to that.

    "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. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Thank you for the kind words, Cherokee.
    I consider it one of life’s simple pleasures to rebut anything to do with Michael Tracey.
    It’s disappointing when anyone gives him, or anything to do with him, any credence.
    Isn't THAT the truth!

    I think it's the height of irony Michael Tracey taught classes on ETHICS IN MEDIA at Boulder. Tracey wouldn't know ETHICS if it took him to dinner and asked to have his baby!

    Tracey is all about Tracey. His ego is bigger than his weasel nose, which is saying a lot! He STICKS that weasel nose where it doesn't belong and makes up stuff to get attention and accolades. The crocumentaries he did for UK television are so full of lies, half-truths and false insinuations, it would make a career criminal blush, but Tracey is proud of them! Tracey literally destroyed one innocent man's life by falsely painting him as a suspect in the Ramsey case. That same crock would have been shown here in the US if it hadn't been for the efforts of Tricia Griffith and FFJ. Once US media learned that Tracey's shoddily-researched crocumentary accused innocent people, and that they could be sued because of it, Tracey's dreams of big money in the US went up in smoke!

    Several of us have entered formal complaints regarding Tracey's crocks with the UK board that governs their TV media, and except for one showing last year (I believe) from a minor channel, all of them have been shelved for now. Since the person Tracey accused is American, it is difficult for him to sue Tracey in UK courts. Tracey KNEW that, and that's the reason he had them shown there first. He HOPED he could get by with selling them to US media, but we stopped him cold.

    Oh dear, you shouldn't have gotten me started on Michael Tracey! Just thinking about the damage he, Mary Lacy and Lou Smit have done to the Ramsey case (and to the innocent lives they trashed) makes my blood boil!

    Okay, back to the DNA, which not one of them - Tracey, Lacy OR Smit - ever understood or ever WILL understand. It's beyond their capabilities. All they know is their beloved Ramseys HAVE to be innocent, and everything else, all evidence and scientific facts, must be made to BEND to that erroneous foregone conclusion.
    Last edited by Cherokee; June 7, 2011, 2:16 pm at Tue Jun 7 14:16:28 UTC 2011.

  9. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    [snip]

    Oh dear, you shouldn't have gotten me started on Michael Tracey! Just thinking about the damage he, Mary Lacy and Lou Smit have done to the Ramsey case (and to the innocent lives they trashed) makes my blood boil!
    Don't get you or me started on Tracey. What a delusional ego-maniac. I agree: Tracey either doesn't know the meaning of the word "ethics," much less practice it, or he's simply a scoundrel out for personal gain and self-promotion who doesn't care that his body of work is primarily represented now by hypocritical crocs which a 10 yr. old can see are based on speculation about manufactured evidence created by an old fool looking for his last 15 min's. of fame, Lou Smit.

    Okay, back to the DNA, which not one of them - Tracey, Lacy OR Smit - ever understood or ever WILL understand. It's beyond their capabilities. All they know is their beloved Ramseys HAVE to be innocent, and everything else, all evidence and scientific facts, must be made to BEND to that erroneous foregone conclusion.
    You said a mouthful there!

    "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.

  10. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Okay, back to the DNA, which not one of them - Tracey, Lacy OR Smit - ever understood or ever WILL understand. It's beyond their capabilities. All they know is their beloved Ramseys HAVE to be innocent, and everything else, all evidence and scientific facts, must be made to BEND to that erroneous foregone conclusion.
    Playing fast and loose with DNA:

    • Here is Lacy paving the way for potentially prosecuting Karr on the off chance she might be able to connect him to the case despite the fact his DNA didn’t match. The DNA is deemed to be meaningless.

    "The DNA could be an artifact," Lacy said in August. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else."

    "Where you have DNA, particularly where it's found in this case, prosecuting another (suspect) that doesn't match that DNA is highly problematic," she said. "It's not impossible, but it's highly problematic - and it doesn't make any difference who it is.
    Mary Lacy Press Conference Re: John Mark Karr, August 29, 2006


    • With time running out in her reign of incompetency, and no more "Karrs" to conceivably pin the crime on, she decides to do a “presidential pardon” of the Ramseys. The DNA is deemed to be unassailable.
    Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence.
    Mary Lacy, Letter of exoneration to the Ramseys, July 9, 2008

    • In the final year in office, she tries to do damage control on her pathetic legacy and pretend that she is a tough DA. The DNA is back to being meaningless.
    Mary Lacy: "If I found out tomorrow that this has been a big charade, and that John Ramsey was involved in any way with this murder, I wouldn't hesitate to review it for the death penalty," she said.
    December 26, 2008

    http://www.coloradodaily.com/ci_12953394#axzz1OXrl8DES

    This is Lacy in full bipolar splendor. Although “there can be no innocent explanation” for the DNA, there could foreseeably be a trial in which Boulder prosecutors would seek the death penalty against John Ramsey???
    Simply amazing.
    Last edited by cynic; June 8, 2011, 1:15 am at Wed Jun 8 1:15:26 UTC 2011.

  11. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    The reasons for keeping the Ramseys under the umbrella of suspicion (to use Beckner-speak) and being dismissive of the DNA evidence are numerous.
    The Karr situation is profoundly different, and DNA evidence can be used to exclude Karr and expose him as a liar.
    Not that I usually ever agree with what Lacy has to say, but she makes a valid point here:
    Mary Lacy: So when you say “was it the DNA, the lynchpin? It was based on his story. The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all…there’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else. But the way he (Karr) told the story, it had to be his and it’s not. So once that came back as not a match, he is not the killer.
    Mary Lacy Press Conference Regarding John Mark Karr - 8/29/06

    This is the way he told the story: (My apologies to everyone for giving this perverted freak any attention.)
    He kissed the child's body and massaged her feet. DAXIS performed oral sex on JonBenet Ramsey.
    Arrest affidavit – 8/15/06
    http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf

    Saliva left as a consequence of his alleged sex act would have left his DNA profile behind. What Karr failed to realize by being so fixated on his sick fantasies is that this little detail painted him into a corner. There is simply no way that Karr’s DNA profile would not have been found if he did what he claimed. Not only were the bloodstains from JonBenet’s panties tested, multiple swabs were taken from the pelvic region of JonBenet. Where is Karr’s DNA? It’s not there because he was not there. Being there in imagination only doesn’t count.
    (Just as a side note, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that any of the sampled DNA in this case comes from saliva. Because the sample sizes were both small and degraded they were unable to determine, definitively, the origin of the DNA cells. This makes it highly probable that the source was skin cells and quite probably the result of contamination or some other means of adventitious transfer.)

    DNA aside, and I’m not interested in hijacking a thread and certainly not to devote time to Karr, there were multiple problems with Karr’s “confession.”
    He was brought back solely in an effort by Mary Lacy to pin the death of JBR on anyone with a pulse that wasn’t a Ramsey.
    It was a completely baseless arrest. Nothing that he said with respect to case facts was unique or new, it was all from information that was openly available in the public domain. Interspersed with that were the sick fantasies of a twisted pedophile mind.
    What makes the whole event incredible is that despite the fact that Karr mentioned things that were completely untrue with respect to the crime, his “confession” was deemed by Lacy to have merit.
    I will give two examples:

    1. “Karr said he waited until he believed all occupants of the home were asleep then entered into JonBenets bedroom obtained her from her bed as she was sleeping and carried the sleeping child down a stairwell into a basement level room. Within the room JonBenet was placed on his lap and he spoke with her and stroked her hair.”
    http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf
    Alright, let’s think about this. He expects us to believe that he just waltzed into JBR’s room and proceeded to essentially go on a little “date” with her in the basement. JonBenet allegedly goes along with this, offering no resistance.
    Sure, I might have been born at night, but not last night.

    2. “Karr added he placed underwear or "knickers" onto JonBenet that he brought with him. The underwear brought by Karr was several sizes too large for JonBenet.”
    http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf
    If this isn’t a red flag that this guy is lying, I don’t know what is. I will spare you a replay of a full discussion of the oversized Bloomies, but there is no doubt, whatsoever, that the panties that JBR was found in were panties that were purchased by Patsy Ramsey and not brought into the home by an outside party.

    Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start with what - I will make it very simple for you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you in possession of or what do you know about the underwear that your daughter was wearing at the time she was found murdered?
    A. I have heard that she had on a pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.
    Q. The underwear that she was wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you know where they come from as far as what store?
    A. Bloomingdale’s in New York.
    Q. Who purchased those?
    A. I did.

    Q. Do you recall when you purchased them?
    A. It was, I think, November of '96.

    Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you understand the reason we are asking this, we want to make sure that this intruder did not bring these panties with him, this was something –
    A. Right.

    Q. - that was in the house.
    A. Yes.
    Q. And we are clear that, as far as you know, that is something that was in this house?
    A. Yes.
    Q. -- that belonged to your daughter, these panties?
    A. Correct.

    Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000
    Thanks for taking the time to put this excellent post together.

  12. #36

    Default

    Thanks, Cynic, for posting that excellent DNA article. It goes to show how easily DNA can be transferred from one item to the next. The victim, of the sad story you presented, had three sets of DNA under her fingernails. The best profile came from the contaminated clippers. The more degraded could have been picked up by the victim several days before her murder. Handwashing probably accounts for it's degradation.

    It just stands to reason that if I can touch a phone and leave a flu virus on that phone; and if you can come along two hours later and get that flu virus on your hand after picking up the same phone, then, skin cell DNA is all over the place. It would be transferred in the same manner. You go to a movie theater and rest your arm on the arm rest. Chances are, you have someone's DNA on your clothing or arm. With every technological advancement, there is a resulting danger or drawback. The harvesting of minute skin cell DNA will, no doubt, result in correct convictions that would never have taken place. But, it will also allow others to get off the hook when unknown DNA shows up.

    I tend to believe this unknown JBR DNA came from something the child got for Christmas, a doll or bicycle. It may have come from the morgue but surely they would have been able to track down a match if that were the case.



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
  •