JBR's underwear sent for DNA analysis

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tez, Dec 27, 2003.

  1. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Ramsey case in the UK news

    The Ramseys case is NEVER reported here so imagine my surprise when I bought a newspaper today and saw that the DNA story was covered. It suggested that the perps DNA profile was obtained from testing of the second bloodstain.

    However, this was no ordinary week for Ramsey coverage in the UK news. On of the best-selling woman's weeklies has done a lengthy anti-Ramsey story. The headline on the fron of the magazine is "My daughter was murdered on Christmas Day and I am a suspect".

    At the time of the Tracey Doc II, one of the lesser woman's magazines covered the documentary and there were also stories in a tv magazine and a crime magazine. This is the first time I have seen it covered in one of the main weeklies. Often, when this happens, there is a flurry of similar stories in lesser magazines, so I'll have to keep my eyes peeled.
  2. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Adrian, I'm intrigued with your Mr. X theory. Do you contend that Mr. X had anything to do with the tragic death of Beth Ramsey? How about Patsy Ramsey's cancer? I've long espoused that a very powerful network of brokers orchestrated the futility of this case and the exhoneration of the Ramseys, but never considered the angle you allude to in your above post. Do you also contend that Mr. X is an individual or a small group?
  3. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    I think the Ramseys' big troubles began when they first moved to Boulder, and I think Beth's death and Patsy's cancer were coincidences which just compounded what they were going through with Mr. X.

    I think Mr. X is an individual, when it comes to Ramsey-related problems, but that beyond Mr. X there is a network of corruption involved in drugs and prostitution. I do think Mr. X is a pedophile, and that his involvement in the prostitution in Boulder has to do with procuring the more underage resources. That is speculation on my part, in the spirit of hypothesis to explain the reason for a phenomenon, in the scientific method.

    I'm not exactly sure what the nature is of the hold Mr. X has over the Ramseys. It may be a scenario similar to the Nancy Krebs B.S. but with entirely different players (thus making it easy to hand a script to the bad method-actors in San Louis Obisbo). It's very possible that "Uncle Johnnie" really IS "Uncle Johnny", but with different victims. That would be a solid enough raft of blackmail to ensure that John Ramsey does Mr. X's will.

    Essentially, the phenomenae I'm trying to explain with my hypothesis is the combination of unmatched DNA found at the scene, with extremely guilty behavior on the part of the Ramseys. But hard nuggets of corroboration come from Steve Thomas' book when it comes to the shady acts of key players in the BPD and BCDA (just that Thomas might not have fit it all together in terms of the nature of the conspiracy). Other corroboration comes from Fleet White, where he sheds light on the Hal Haddon angle of it all. It was also my first gut instinct when initially looking at this case about 15 months ago.

    If my hypothesis is correct, then Tom Bennett was hand-picked to tie up loose knots in the cover-up. His purpose is to investigate, but not a real investigation of a real crime--rather, to see what else needs to be done by "the Machine" after the major work of the grand jury secrecy was used to snatch the bulk of the evidence and hide it under lock and key. This could be with or without Mary Keenan's knowledge, although some of her odd statements may imply that she's simply duped by the Machine, rather than a part of it (as I believe Alex Hunter was).

    The way it would have worked would be like this: Good Cop, Bad Cop. Alex Hunter was to play Good Cop and try to be all fairness and constitutional rights for the Patsies (pun intended) dangled before the public's eyes. Then the Koby and Eller flying circus were to be both Bad Cop and Keystone Cops, to give an illusion that they were hard-charging against the Ramseys and reassure the public that "an indictment is just around the corner". To ensure that real evidence doesn't fall into the laps of investigators assigned to the case, they picked a guy fresh out of narcotics (the one who was wondering why he was ordered not to do drug stings!) to lead the case. They tell Linda Arndt to treat the Patsies like VIPs and yet send absolutely no backup when she calls for it, allowing JR plenty of time to go through Mr. X' crime scene with a proverbial blender--as ordered.

    That other woman who was found beaten to death; I think it's possible she was a witness to some aspects of what was "really going on" there. After that example was made, anyone else with inside knowledge knew to keep their trap shut (except perhaps Lee Hill, but they had his number too).

    It sounds kooky, but it's the way theory would have to stretch, I think, to cover all the markers of the evidence. JMHO.
  4. AK

    AK Member

    Goodness gracious!

    Have I stumbled into a creative writing forum?

    Because this doesn't sound anything like reality. Or a serious murder investigation.

    Maybe I just need a tin-foil hat to appreciate the whimsy.

    I think that Woody feels safe that he can make his DNA press blitz without being challenged by anyone with specific rebuttals. That will come when the case is presented in court. So let him spin all he wants to now -- it doesn't matter.

    I have involvement with three cases where DNA was sent for testing and the results have not come back yet. Two cases have gone on for more than four years, the other about two years. One inmate remains in jail. There are clear targets in these cases and still things take time. I don't expect the FBI lab to fast-track Woody's phantom perp DNA.
  5. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    Re: Goodness gracious!

    Too many other hypotheses get eliminated by deductive reasoning, I think. Simply put, if the Ramseys acted alone, there wouldn't be the foreign DNA. If an intruder did it without the knowledge of the Ramseys, they wouldn't have been acting even 1% as guilty as they did. What does that leave? An Uncle Johnny who had spare vials of other men's blood lying around the house, just in case he'd need it to stage a crime scene? That would be even kookier than my tin-foil-hattedness, I'm afraid. And I've seen some people try to give innocent explanations for everything suspicious the Ramseys had ever done, but the tin-foil-factor there is absolutely off the charts.

    The DNA is a two-edged sword. It was needed to let the Patsies ride off into the sunset (presumably without their own version of a Jack Ruby rubbing them out), but it also might be the straw that breaks the back of the conspiracy camel here.

    Woodie's just getting personally rewarded for bird-dogging the media into complying with what the corrupt element of Boulder wants the nation at large, to think: that there is some lone, unnamed, unknown serial killer lurking out there, without an actual series of crimes to establish his "serialness".

    Even if they did, its owner is probably not stupid enough to let his get stamped into CODIS.
  6. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    I disagree, Adrian

    This is one of Woody's wet dreams.

    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what's needed to convince a jury that irregardless of the evidence and linkage to the murder by Patsy and her fibers being all over the victim and murder weapon, an intruder/outside perp committed these crimes.

    By the same token, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this DNA is PROOF of an intruder. Do you think there's any possibility in that?

    The defense end of this argument is that there's DNA in her panties and fingernails, ergo her parents should be cleared and cops need to find this perp.

    A good prosecutor would point out that this is innocent transfer BY the victim herself PRIOR to the crimes committed. This is obviated by the fact that the amount of DNA material is minute and has no linkage to this child defending herself against rape, bludgeoning and murder. This DNA is trace evidence that's random, having no linkage to the crime.

    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Defense doesn't have to prove anything; but if they want to build a case (and they do because of the actions Wood is taking) on the random evidence being evidentiary proof of an intruder, they have to be able to convince a jury that this is the ONLY way the DNA was deposited UNDER her nails and COMMINGLED with her blood in her panties, sans ANY indication of defensive moves by JonBenet.

    OTOH, the prosecution could easily PROVE there was no intruder. There's no evidence of an intruder. There's nothing they can point to to prove someone else was in the home that night, committed a number of crimes, was through the whole house for hours and yet...didn't leave any indication or evidence behind.

    They could point to Patsy, allegedly asleep through the entire ordeal, asking how her fibers, from the jacket she wore that night, were all over the crime scene, the victim's body, on the duct tape, in the paint tray and caught in the ligature em*bed*ded in her daughter's throat. Patsy's fibers link her to the crime scene, to the murder weapon, to the victim.

    IOW, defense cannot point to any linkage of the DNA to the crime or the fact that it was even deposited during the commission of the crimes.


    Prosecution CAN point to a number of SIGNIFICANT evidence that puts Patsy's smack dab in the middle of the crime scene AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER!

    One could argue...actually a few have...that these fibers were innocently transferred to JonBenet when Patsy wept over her body.

    But it doesn't work. Patsy claims she was never in the basement -- yet her fibers were down there...in the paint tray, on the duct tape, caught in the ligature. A fiber didn't fall off Patsy and entwine itself into the ligature while Patsy did her Lazarus performance!

    OTOH, JonBenet could easily have picked up DNA at ANY time prior to the murder, getting stuck under her fingernails. Then at some point, she either wiped herself or scratched herself or maybe even washed herself in the tub, transferring the material from her fingernails to her vagina. The foreign DNA COMMINGLED with JonBenet's blood. IOW, her blood washed the foreign DNA with it into her undies. This could have happened after death when the bladder emptied...it could have happened while she was unconcious and carried into the wine cellar...again with the loose blood passing over and carrying with it the dna.

    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors are going to find the simple transfer by JonBenet herself far more plausible, especially considering the Patsy evidence entwined in the ligature and stuck on the duct tape. Prosecution can show how much fiber evidence was loosed by Patsy handling the body that night. Where's the same kind of evidence defense can point to to show proof their intruder was in the house for hours committing various crimes???





    If the ligature was a gun and had Patsy's prints on it, she'd have been arrested!

    Patsy should be charged. THEN...if she had an accomplice who left his dna behind, she rat him out because she wouldn't want to go down alone. Besides, even if they did identify the DNA, it doesn't put the perp in the house that night nor does it link him to the crime. It's Patsy's evidence that's on the murder weapon. DNA had nothing to do with THAT!
  7. Ilene-Sue

    Ilene-Sue Member

    The DNA could have been there before the crime. She didn't even bathe in 2 or 3 days and her mother didn't even know when the last time was that she even washed her hands.
  8. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    Re: I disagree, Adrian

    Woodie wasn't in Colorado personally extracting the DNA sample. He's an evil character, but he isn't omnipresent.

    Do people go around randomly putting their blood into little girls' panties? I'm asking here.

    I don't buy into the Judge Carnes ruling, but blood DNA, I also don't buy that being there "innocently" or "randomly".

    I do agree that Patsy is all over the crime scene. But I also believe that someone else was there.

    In a world where the authorities (especially Alex Hunter) aren't corrupt, things can work that way.

    In Boulder, things were corrupt, and they couldn't work that way.
  9. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Good point, Ilene-Sue, and that is why CBI determined that the fingernail material was entirely too degraded for any forensic use. That means it cannot be used to "source" anyone, it cannot be used to "match" any DNA material from the panties, it is absolutely useless. Any claims that it was sourced or matched to any other DNA evidence is pure unadulterated ********. So all we have left is the panty DNA material. Is it semen? Or is it truly blood? When last we were informed, CBI determined that whatever its origin, there were insufficient amounts to perform any reliable sourcing or matching tests. Now suddenly it's been whisked off to the FBI for entry into CODIS so that some mysterious homicidal pedophile can be found. If that's all true, folks, what if it DOESN'T match anyone in CODIS???? There's a reason why Dr. Henry Lee claimed this case a non-DNA one....

    Ginja, I hear ya.....
  10. Sabrina

    Sabrina Member

    Lin Wood is now claiming the DNA was CODIS certifiable all along, since 1999, and the BPD "HID" it away somewhere.

    Please see the thread "Wood makes media rounds". I would really like to know what the source of this revelation is; we have always heard the DNA was way to degraded to reach CODIS...Wood himself said so much in past interviews.
  11. AK

    AK Member


    Nice closing argument, Ginja!
  12. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland


    Patsy claimed to have been wrapping presents in that room on Christmas Eve. That came out in the NE book. The RST tried to spin it big time.

    Was she wearing her red jacket at the time? No Idea. According to Patsy she "didn't recall" when asked about it in her interview.
  13. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    Re: Ginja

    Wrapping Christmas presents with paintbrushes. Doesn't everybody do that?
  14. Sabrina

    Sabrina Member

    Didn't Pasty (or Wood) also claim her fibers got on the tape because she hugged JonBenet after her body was brought upstairs?

    Forget the fact that John ripped the tape off and threw it on the basement floor.

    I guess Patsy's fibers were floating around on the basement floor? Was she wearing the infamous red and black jacket while wrapping Christmas presents the day before too?

    Many, many questions about those pesky little fibers....
  15. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    The excuse was even more lame than that. The Spin Team says that the secondary transfer could have been by way of the blanket, when John dropped the tape onto the blanket. The spot on the blanket where he dropped it just HAPPENED to have a high concentration of Patsy fibers from when they put JonBenet to bed the night before. I dunno though. Four random fibers happening to secondary-transfer within a 2" x 3" space? That's pretty iffy if you ask me.

    Most particularly about the ones wrapped into the folds of the knots of the ligature. Secondary transfers of fibers do happen (and cases are often solved that way), but a fiber isn't just going to insert itself into the windings and bindings of a garrote. The air would have to be saturated with them at the time of the murder for it to even be physically plausible, and that just begs the question.
  16. Ginja

    Ginja Member


    My reference to Woodie's "wet dream" references back to your remark that:
    IOW, THIS is what Wood wants us to believe...that since the DNA doesn't match the Ramseys, they must be innocent.

    My response is: In his dreams! (wet or otherwise!!!)

    We don't know what the dna material is. What authorities DO know for sure is that it isn't semen. The "blood" identification of the dna material is from Lou Smit, who's no doctor or pathologist. Because the dna material was COMMINGLED in JonBenet's blood, Smit automatically believes this random evidence must have also been blood. This is the same guy who claimed there were shreds of flesh under JonBenet's fingernails. I suppose he thinks, too, that this unidentified "flesh" was commingled with JonBenet's own flesh that she scratched off herself in trying to remove the garotte during strangulation!

    References to "random", when used in the context of a murder investigation, simply means that it has no linkage to the crime. We don't know what the material is...we do know, though, that it isn't flesh. We know it matches what's under the fingernails, but we also know that what's under the nails isn't blood. Most importantly, we know that whatever's under the nails, it WAS NOT THE RESULT OF DEFENSIVE ACTIONS! JonBenet DID NOT scratch her throat in trying to remove the garotte...there is no evidence of such action. She did not scratch her 'attacker' in trying to ward off his/her advances. Given the degradation of the material under her nails, it is pretty obvious the material was not fresh. That is, not deposited the night of the murder. The panty dna commingled with her blood, meaning that commingling took place internally and washed out into the panties the night she was killed.

    JonBenet could easily have transferred this material herself. Further, her autopsy report shows she was sexually abused within 72 hours of her death. It's possible this dna transfer took place during that abuse, accounting for the degradation of the material under her nails and the internal deposit washing out with her blood at death.
  17. purr

    purr Active Member

    a question for all the forum members

    referring to the fact that jonbenet was sexual
    abused approx. 72 hours before she was murdered..........

    did the person who sexual abused her..........
    murder her?

    isnt that logical???

    so who do you think sexually abused her?????

    and do you think they sexually abused her
    before the fleet's christmas party.........
    and that is why she was "acting up"
    and not wanting to wear what patsy
    wanted her to wear.......
    or was that just "normal" for a kid
    her age.......or a kid with a mom
    like hers to act or react.......???

    or.......do you think she was sexually
    abused right before she was murdered???

    i think this really, really narrows down
    who murdered her?

    but who would do that........
    according to several people on this forum
    burke is the person who sexually abused jonbenet.
    several think that john sexually abused jonbenet.
    but very few think that patsy sexually abused her.

    what do you think?

    just curious,
  18. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    Re: Adrian

    Okay, gotcha. Yeah, he's not going to establish "innocence" quite so easily as that. The presence of a third person at the scene does not make all the fiber evidence of the parents' presence go away.

    Smit should be the next Lin Wood libel suit target if he's inaccurate about that then (can you feel the sarcasm here?)

    This was a bizarre assertion on the RST's part a while back. When I looked at the autopsy photos myself, I saw no scratch marks whatsoever, although I did see a bruise peeping out from under the ligature. Seems to me the ligature was staging to hide that bruise.

    I just think that whoever belongs to that DNA sample, they're going to have some "splaining" to do, it being male DNA in a place where male DNA doesn't belong, and all that. If someone gets accused of being Mr. Pineapple Ninja because of it, further details will have to come under closer scrutiny by that individual's defense in Discovery. That's when Mary Keenan's going to have to practice her rendition of "nahamanahamanahamana..." (If you're right about this being a stray skin cell that got a secondary transfer down there.)

    But then, if my conspiracy theory isn't all tinfoil and short wave radios, finding the owner of that DNA is going to be the last thing on earth MK wants to have happen.

    Which to me further establishes a conspiracy whereby an unnamed male third party was allowed sexual access to JonBenet by her parents. It's my opinion that staging and cover-up actions on the parents' part did take place, because they absolutely don't want knowledge of this "pimping" of their daughter to become public knowledge.

    They'd rather be thought guilty of murder, by a not-so-illuminated public, than guilty of THAT.
  19. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    Adrian and Purr

    The autopsy report shows that JonBenet suffered acute and chronic vaginal injury and trauma. The acute, obviously, is the insertion of the paint stick. This caused some bleeding and left behind the birefringent material in the vaginal mucosa. I have no doubt this was less a sexual 'attack' than it was staging, to divert attention. I seriously don't believe it was to cover up prior abuse. I think Patsy's smart enough to know that can't be done.

    The chronic injuries include bruising, inflammation and erosion. The erosion is a significant injury in that it couldn't occur with just one episode. There's also stretching of the vaginal opening and again, this cannot occur in one episode.

    On the night of the Ramseys' Christmas party (the 23rd), it was reported that JonBenet sat crying on the stairs of the butler's pantry, complaining she wasn't pretty enough. Perhaps something happened at that party...something as awful as her being abused, but then again, something as innocent as someone wiping her after she'd pottied. A totally innocent transfer could have occurred at this time, thus knocking out the notion that the person who "abused" her was her murderer. The person may have been in the Ramseys on the 23rd, but not on the 25th.

    It's a well documented fact that JonBenet simply yelled out to whomever was in the vicinity to come into the bathroom to wipe her. But she also could have transferred the material herself easily. If she was being abused by a parent (which I believe she was), she could have reacted to feelings of itchiness or soreness, thus touching herself and transferring the dna material innocently.

    The sample is so minute. It matches what's under the nails but that sample is degraded, meaning it's older and couldn't have been transferred that night.

    No one "had" to be in her panties that night for such a transfer to have taken place. If the material in the panties matches the fingernail material, and the fingernail material is degraded/old, then it pretty obvious the transfer took place some time prior to the murder and was not a result of any of the activities or crimes committed to JonBenet on the 25th.
  20. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    A strand of DNA is dozens of times tinier than a speck of dust. And here we only have a partial strand of DNA!

    Are there any partial specks of intruder dust at the crime scene?
  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