This is not a DNA case...

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by "J_R", Aug 29, 2004.

  1. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

    ...(Lin) Wood pointed out other findings that still could not be explained: unidentified male DNA found in JonBenét's panties, and the ransom note. I had talked with Henry Lee many times over the years regarding DNA issues in the case. Both of us felt it likely there was some sort of contaminant throwing off the results. Mortal Evidence by Cyril Wecht, MD., J.D. and Craig Saitz with Mark Curriden P77;pp2

    Authorities working on the case secured what the newspaper called, "unopened control samples," of the same underwear produced at the same factory in Southeast Asia. Tests then were conducted on the samples, and some had human DNA in them. P77;pp3

    Read it and weep Susan Bennett aka Jameson and Lin Wood aka the :doughboy:
  2. Little

    Little Member

    It's not all that puzzling, I suppose, that the RST tries to hang their hat on the DNA, however, the only way to make this a DNA case is for them to sell this as an intruder. Unidentified DNA does not an intruder make.

  3. Little

    Little Member

    Orchid Positioned to Provide Increased DNA Testing Services

    Press Release Source: Orchid BioSciences, Inc.

    Orchid Positioned to Provide Increased DNA Testing Services as Landmark New Criminal Justice Law Goes Into Effect
    Tuesday November 2, 1:31 pm ET
    - `Justice for All Act' Provides Major Federal Funding to Clear Backlog of DNA Samples, Ensure the Right Person is Convicted and Expand Use of DNA in Law Enforcement -

    PRINCETON, N.J., Nov. 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Orchid BioSciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: ORCH - News), a leading worldwide supplier of DNA identity testing services, announced today that it is well-positioned to assist in providing the increased DNA testing services expected to result from a landmark new law recently signed by President Bush -- the "Justice for All Act of 2004," which sets the stage for broad-based DNA testing for law enforcement in the U.S.

    The legislation authorizes an infusion of more than $1 billion in federal funds over the next five years to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA evidence languishing in police department evidence rooms, to afford greater access to DNA testing by convicted offenders and to enable expansion of the FBI Laboratory's national Combined DNA Index System, known as CODIS. Through its Orchid Cellmark unit, Orchid is a long-established leader in providing forensic DNA analysis services to law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and the U.K., and in developing innovative ways to expand the utility of DNA testing.

    "Through our involvement in literally thousands of criminal cases in nearly all 50 U.S. states and the U.K., currently the most advanced user of forensic DNA analysis in the world, Orchid Cellmark has experienced first hand the power of DNA testing to improve the criminal justice system, so we are well-positioned to accommodate the increasing testing volumes expected to result from this landmark legislation," said Paul J. Kelly, M.D., chief executive officer of Orchid. "As a pioneer and innovator in DNA analysis, we look forward to serving as a key collaborative partner with law enforcement agencies, organizations protecting the innocent, and advocates for victims of crime to ensure that DNA evidence is used in a timely manner to convict the guilty and absolve the innocent."

    Highlights of Orchid's forensic activities include:
    -- Collaborated with the New York City Police Department to create
    Biotracks, a new pilot program to solve burglaries using DNA samples
    from crime scene evidence. According to published news reports,
    Biotracks has identified 23 suspects in 34 cases, most of which might
    otherwise have been left unsolved. Orchid proposed this new
    application of DNA forensic analysis in the U.S. based on its
    successful experience supporting a similar program in the U.K.
    -- Orchid Cellmark is the largest independent supplier of scene-of-crime
    DNA analysis to U.K. police forces including the Metropolitan Police
    Force, home of the famed "Scotland Yard." The U.K. is recognized as a
    world leader in using DNA evidence to help solve crimes.
    -- Orchid Cellmark recently helped identify a suspect in a 1968 murder
    case in New Jersey by analyzing DNA samples more than 30 years old.
    Orchid Cellmark provided DNA testing assistance leading to the
    confession of Gary Ridgeway in the Green River murders investigation,
    the largest serial rape and murder case in the nation's history. DNA
    testing by Orchid Cellmark exonerated four wrongly-convicted
    defendants imprisoned for more than 17 years for the Chicago slaying
    of medical student Lori Roscetti. Orchid Cellmark is also currently
    assisting the Houston Police Department in the reanalysis of DNA cases
    during its moratorium to attain accreditation.
    -- Orchid Cellmark has analyzed DNA evidence used in many high profile
    criminal cases, including O.J. Simpson, JonBenet Ramsey, Danielle Van
    Dam, and the Unabomber, and has helped to identify the remains of
    victims of the World Trade Center disaster.
    -- Orchid Cellmark has also provided forensic testing in historically
    notable cases including Christopher Columbus, the Boston Strangler,
    Jesse James and Billy the Kid.

    "One of the more significant aspects of the Justice for All Act is that the elimination of DNA backlogs and wider use of DNA forensic testing will actually increase the effectiveness of police investigations by adding more criminals to the federal CODIS database and testing DNA evidence in a higher proportion of crimes," noted Mark Stolorow, executive director of Orchid Cellmark. "In the U.K., where the DNA database includes all convicted offenders and many arrestees, almost 50 percent of crime scene evidence samples produce a database 'cold hit,' thereby identifying the perpetrator.

    We look forward to working with criminal justice organizations throughout the country to help unlock the power of DNA analysis to further improve the effectiveness and equity of our criminal justice system."

    About the Justice for All Act of 2004

    The Justice for All Act of 2004, or H.R.5107, passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent on October 9, 2004 after passing the House on a similar vote earlier that week. The bill was signed into law by the President on October 30, 2004. This omnibus legislation enhances the rights and protections for all persons involved in the criminal justice system through two different, but complementary, mechanisms: (1) a new set of statutory victims' rights that are both enforceable in a court of law and supported by fully-funded victims' assistance programs; and (2) a comprehensive DNA bill that seeks to ensure that the true offender is caught and convicted for the crime. This critical legislation will provide much-needed funds to reduce the backlog of cases for which there is untested DNA evidence, provide funding for victims' services through grants to prosecutor and defender offices, and ensure access to post- conviction DNA testing for those who may be in prison or on death row for crimes they did not commit. The bill:

    Enacts the Debbie Smith Backlog Grant Program, authorizing $755 million to test the backlog of over 300,000 rape kits and other crime scene evidence awaiting analysis in our nation's police departments, to test offender DNA samples, and to improve the capacity of crime labs to conduct DNA analysis;
    Enacts the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act and the Rape Kits and DNA Evidence Backlog Elimination Act, authorizing more than $500 million for programs to reduce non-DNA backlogs, train examiners, support sexual assault forensic examiner programs, and promote the use of DNA to identify missing persons; and Includes the Innocence Protection Act, which: -- Creates the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program and
    authorizes $25 million over five years to help states pay the costs

    of post-conviction DNA testing; and

    Authorizes grants to states for Capital Prosecution and Capital Defense Improvement, which will be used to train, oversee, and improve the quality of death penalty trials, as well as assist families of murder victims.
    More information about the Justice for All Act of 2004, or bill H.R.5107, can be found on the Library of Congress website at

    About Orchid Cellmark

    Under the Cellmark brand, Orchid has been a leader in private forensic DNA analysis since 1987 and is now one of the largest private DNA forensic testing providers in the world. Orchid has an international network of forensic testing laboratories in the U.S. and U.K., where it works with the famed "Scotland Yard" and others. The company provides a full range of high quality, customized forensic DNA testing and consultative services for both prosecutors and defendants. Its services include DNA testing for criminal casework analysis and expert testimony, as well as identification of victims of accidents and disasters. Last year the company launched DNA Express(TM), a premium service to help U.S. local law enforcement agencies analyze backlogs of DNA evidence from unsolved crimes in five business days, as compared to the standard one-to-two months. More information on Orchid's U.S. forensic DNA testing services can be found at

    About Orchid BioSciences, Inc.

    Orchid BioSciences is a leading provider of identity genetics services for the forensic and paternity DNA testing markets and for public health and animal DNA testing for food safety. Orchid's strong market positions in these segments leverage the Company's accredited laboratories in the U.S. and U.K., its innovative genetic analysis technologies and expertise, and the world- renowned Cellmark and GeneScreen brands that have been associated with exceptional quality, reliability, innovation and customer service for nearly two decades. More information on Orchid can be found at

    All statements in this press release that are not historical are forward- looking statements within the meaning of Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements regarding: the expected increase in DNA testing services resulting from a landmark new law; the expected infusion of more than $1 billion in federal funds over the next five years authorized by the Justice for All Act; the expectation that Orchid is well-positioned to assist in providing the expected increase in DNA testing services; the expected increase in effectiveness of police investigations, by adding more criminals to the federal CODIS database and testing DNA evidence in a higher proportion of crimes, and Orchid's anticipation in continuing to work with criminal justice organizations. Such statements are subject to the risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected, including, but not limited to, uncertainties relating to technologies, product development, manufacturing, market acceptance, cost and pricing of Orchid products and services, dependence on collaborations and partners, regulatory approvals, competition, intellectual property of others, patent protection, litigation and Orchid's ability to obtain additional financing. These risks and other additional factors affecting Orchid's business are discussed under the headings "Risks Related to Our Business," "Risks Related to the Biotechnology Industry" and "Risks Associated with Our Common Stock" in Orchid's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and in other filings made by Orchid with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time. Orchid expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in Orchid's expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions, or circumstances on which any such statements are based, except as may be required by law.

    Source: Orchid BioSciences, Inc.
  4. Elle

    Elle Member

    Little, With such a backlog of DNA , and more criminals being added to the CODIS database, I wonder why Science labs in the universities couldn't look after their own criminals in their own State? Wouldn't this help to reduce the backlog?

    Thank you for posting this.
  5. Little

    Little Member

    No DNA pointing to a suspect - No apparent motive.
    The point being, lack of, or presence of DNA, doesn't mean that there can not be charges brought against the most likely person/s to have committed the crime. It's not the be all, end all.

  6. Elle

    Elle Member

    I agree with you, Little. The Ramseys seem to feel very secure about not being charged relating to their DNA not matching. I think something else will get them in the end.
  7. JustChillun

    JustChillun Member


    Yeah, it'll get them in the END, all right...the HIND end.

  8. Elle

    Elle Member

    You bet, Just Chillun!:clap:
  9. Lora13

    Lora13 Member


    Hi all, I am new to this forum, but I am not new to the Ramsey case.

    Unidentified DNA does yell out intruder! It was inside her panties for crying out loud. I just don't understand how foreign DNA could end up in her panties... Unless she accidently grabbed a pair of one of her friends at a sleepover party and never returned them and just happened to be wearing those same panties the night of her death. I understand that there are some questions about the value of those DNA samples, but still there is just something that isn't right about this case. Does anyone else have a theory about how the DNA got there???

    I believe that if the Ramseys are responsible for JonBenet's death that it was an accident that turned into a massive cover-up. I do not believe that it was premeditated. And in the event that it was an intruder I believe the inturder was hiding the house when the Ramseys came home and that the ransom note was already written by the time the Ramseys walked in the door. The ransom note indicates to me one of two things. I desperate parent trying to cover up the death of their child or an intruder with a plan to take JonBenet. In other words plan A was to take her out of that house, but obviously something went wrong. She must have struggled. And if the marks on her body were marks from a stun gun then that further proves that she gave him a run for his money... Because he had to use it on her more than once.

    I am just trying to keep an open mind, and look at this case from every possible angle.
  10. Little

    Little Member

    No evidence of a stun gun.

    No evidence of an intruder

    I prefer this quote from Lou- this one at least makes some sense:
  11. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member


    What makes you think a stun gun was used on her? The post mortem pictures that show small marks on her have been studied and compared. The marks don't match any stun gun. At least that is what the stun gun manufacturers have said.
  12. Elle

    Elle Member

    Lora, the same unidentified DNA was also found in new packets of underwear from the same manufacturer, and belongs to those who packaged the underwear. The police have quite a job on their hands singling out the actual Plant worker who may have sneezed over them as they were placing them in the packet.

    Charlie Brennan is right when he states If investigators are right about possible production-line contamination - perhaps stemming from something as innocent as a worker's cough - then the genetic markers obtained from JonBenet's underpants are of absolutely no value in potentially excluding any suspects in the unsolved Boulder slaying.

    Lin Wood keeps plugging away at this unidentified DNA as being that of an intruder. All the evidence points to the Ramseys.

    I don't think it was premeditated either.
  13. Elle

    Elle Member


    This article published in April, 2003 gives a good account of the JonBenét case.

  14. Lora13

    Lora13 Member

    Stun Gun

    OK, here is my thing with the stun gun... The marks are about the same distance apart as an Air Teaser stun gun. My question is... Was there any sign of burning or unexplained markings on her clothes. If there were then that could explain why the marks on her looked different. In fact from the pictures I have seen there is a difference between the two marks found on her body. The her neck/side of face area, the top point is almost a brownish black color. Could this mark look different because the gun was applied to directly to her skin rather than through her clothing? Or was it just black because she lived for awhile after that she recieved it. I believe she died a few minutes after the second one was given to her. Meaning the marks may have not had time to develope into burn-like marks.

    Of course, all of this could be way off the mark, because I do not know much about stun guns. All I know is what I have read. And I have asked myself a hundred times... If it's not a stun gun then what in the heck left those marks on her body. The one on her back is in a spot that doesn't raise to many questions becuase it is somewhere where you might expect for a victim to have marks. But the one on her neck is the one that gets me. It's in an odd place where any amout of pressure of any kind with a sharp or pointed object would have drawn blood. You can tell by the color of that injury that it was applied when she was still alive, because its all red and even appears to be bruised. That takes time! The ones on her back, however, are just pink. Meaning that she lived long enough after that for blood to rush to the area of injury, but she didn't live long enough for it to bruise or begin to change colors as most bruises or other injuries would have...

    From what I have read in this forum it appears that most of you have made up your mind as far as the Ramseys are concerned, which is fine. I am just asking about evidence... Not matter how you put the pieces together it just doesn't fit right.

    If Patsy Ramsey got angry with JonBenet over bedwetting it would make sense for her to hit JonBenet over the head... But several books written by expert medical examiners say that the strangulation came first then the blow to the head. So what doesn't make sense is that Patsy Ramsey lost it and went looking for rope to strangle JonBenet... I believe that whoever killed didn't mean to kill her. Maybe Cyril Wecht is right... Maybe John was playing some kind of twisted sex game with JonBenet. Patsy caught him and swong to hit John in the head but John moved and Patsy hit JonBenet instead. Who knows. I am just trying to find a way that all of the evidence fits together.
  15. Little

    Little Member

    Evidence vs. non evidence:

    The ransom note:

    Detectives quickly determined that the note had been written on a pad of paper found in the Ramsey’s house, with a Sharpie pen also found in the home.

    Handwriting experts from CBI eliminated John Ramsey as the note's author, but they couldn't do the same for Patsy. Although they collected at least five handwriting samples from Patsy, along with "historic'' samples of things she wrote before JonBenét's death, they could neither eliminate her as the writer, nor say definitively that she was.

    Chet Ubowski of CBI wrote of one of her samples that "This handwriting showed indications that the writer was Patsy Ramsey.'' Ubowski told investigators that the samples she gave "do not suggest the full range of her handwriting.''

    Broken paint brush:
    - The broken paintbrush used to fashion a crude "garrote'' was linked to Patsy Ramsey's art supplies

    Broken window:
    - A broken window in the basement. Investigators don't know how long the window had been broken, but John Ramsey told investigators he had broken the window once when he locked himself out of the house. Investigators found a spider web was found outside on the window-well grate.

    bedtime & pineapple:
    - Contradictions. John and Patsy Ramsey repeatedly told reporters and police that they put their sleeping daughter to bed as soon as they arrived home from visiting friends on Christmas night. But Coroner John Meyer found pineapple in her stomach, and a bowl of pineapple was sitting in the family's kitchen. The coroner's findings suggest JonBenét had eaten after the family returned home that night. And, the Ramseys both said their son, Burke, was asleep the morning of Dec. 26 until his father awakened him to take him to the Whites' house after police were called. But an enhanced version of the tape of Patsy's 911 call seems to reveal Burke's voice in the background, asking what's going on.

    - More than a year after JonBenét's death, her parents gave police the clothing they were wearing the night they put her to bed around 10 p.m.

    Palm print:
    Evidence in JonBenet's slaying case appears to discount intruder theory

    DENVER (AP) -- Investigators have reportedly concluded that a palm print and footprint found in the home of JonBenet Ramsey were made by family members, not an intruder as some have suggested.

    Investigators believe the prints found in the basement of the home were not related to the unsolved killing of the 6-year-old girl whose body was found Dec. 26, 1996, the Rocky Mountain News reported Friday.

    Authorities have known the answers for some time, the newspaper reported.
    A footprint found in mold on the floor of the Ramseys' wine cellar, near where the girl's body was found, was linked by investigators to her then-9-year-old brother, Burke. Burke, now 15, has long since been cleared by authorities.
    Investigators also said a palm print on the door leading to the wine cellar is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half sister, who was in Georgia at the time of the girl's death. The technician who originally ruled her out as the source of the print erred, the newspaper said.

    Attorney Lin Wood of Atlanta, who represents JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, said his clients do not dispute the palm-print findings, but he said the family disagrees that the footprint came from Burke.

    Duct tape:

    - Duct tape, taken from JonBenét's mouth by her father when he found the body. The tape was analyzed by FBI and detectives purchased identical tape from McGuckin Hardware in Boulder. An Atlanta-area hardware store clerk told investigators that she had helped Patsy Ramsey find duct tape in the store sometime in December 1996, according to a book on the case, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town.'' But a search of the store's receipts turned up no record of a duct-tape purchase by Patsy Ramsey, the book's author, Lawrence Schiller wrote.


    A flashlight, found on a counter in the Ramseys' kitchen. Sources say investigators believe it could have cause a wound like JonBenét's skull fracture? It was wiped clean of any prints, according to sources.
  16. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member


    You are right to look closely at the evidence and decide for yourself. Please consider the autopsy report. The so-called stun gun marks are described as abrasions - not burns. Even Lou Smit, who authored the stun gun idea, changed his initial story and admitted that the marks don't match an air taser stun gun. I believe he is still searching to find exactly what stun gun they do match. Wouldn't you say that is trying to make the evidence fit into his theory rather than his theory fitting the evidence?
  17. Lora13

    Lora13 Member

    This is true Texan but...

    I think that Lou Smit is like many of us... When he saw the marks on JonBenet, he brainstormed. What could have possibly left those marks? Were the marks applied after or before JonBenet died? Were they even relevant to the investigation? All of these are questions we all ask ourselves. When Lou saw that the marks were similar to what a stun gun might leave, he followed that lead, like any good dective would. Now he claims that it may have not been a stun gun after all, or that if it had been, it hasn't matched one that he could find. I think that an important thing to remember with Lou Smit is that he believes in his work. If he is wrong, he is wrong, and is usually the first one to admit it. He actually came into the investigation with a feeling that the Ramsey's were responsible, but after he reviewed the evidence he had more questions than he did answers. I feel the same way about this case. The more reading and research I do, the more questions I have.

    I personally have a lot of respect for Lou Smit... He is one of the only dectives on the Ramsey case to stick with the evidence. Yes, the other dectives followed evidence too... But when push came to shove they all quit because there was to much pressure on them and the department. Lou Smit has lost a lot of credit with the public because of how he has dealt with this case. But unlike other dectives on the case he didn't quit on JonBenet even when the whole world was watching and discrediting everything that he was doing. To this day he is still working on the Ramsey case idependantly.

    So even if you don't agree with his theory, I think we should all respect him for work he has put into the Ramsey case.
  18. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Oh Lora131 I couldn't disagree more.

    This is a man who took the evidence with him when he left and gave it to Lin Wood for the Ramseys to use in a civil suit.

    Some of the evidence Lou Smit gave Lin Wood to use to protect the Ramseys against a civil suit include:

    *Mysterious Palm Print on the celler door. Yet by the time Lin Wood and Lou Smit used this in their civil case the palm print had been identified as belonging to John Ramsey's older daughter.

    The truth never stopped Lin Wood or Smit from using the palm print to bolster their intruder theory. It belongs to Ramsey's daugher yet Wood and Smit continue to use this evidence.

    *Lou Smit has worked with Professor Michael Tracey.

    Professor Michael Tracey is one of the most unethical people I have ever have the displeasure of knowing. Tracey produces "documentaries" on the Ramsey case. With Lou Smit's help. Despite the evidence Tracey and Smit continue to point fingers at an innocent person. Case in point. Read this forum right here for the Tracey/Smit crappola..

    In Tracey's latest crock he states that the P.I's he is working with worked with Lou Smit and Mary Keenan on the case and therefore the evidence in the crock is correct. Which is the furthest thing from the truth.

    Lou Smit does not have my respect. He refuses to see anyone but an intruder.

    Someone help me out here because I have to run. Maybe someone can link up to ACR's site the pictures of Smit coming in through the window without "disturbing" the sill. Just like the "intruder." Yeah right.
  19. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    respect for Lou

    I think Lou Smit may have been a good detective at one time and I can respect that. I can understand his desire to solve the case and the possibility of those marks helping to solve the case.

    I do not think it was wise or even ethical for him, a law enforcement officer, to develop a relationship with the Ramseys when they were suspects - whether he thought they did it or not. It was not ethical to change the evidence books in the war room as alleged in Steve Thomas' book. It wasn't morally right to take the pictures and reports when he resigned. I wonder what his motive is when he goes on national T.V. and gives his presentation. Is it an attempt to find the "intruder"?
    I don't think it is. I think it shows his lack of objectivity and he is "trying the case in the media" just as much or more than the people who feel the Ramseys are culpable.
  20. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Actually "Lora," nobody has been asking "what could possibly have made those marks" other than Lou Smit (and you, apparently). I would go into why, for the 10,000th time, but the whole issue bores me into a coma at this point. Now let's pretend for a minute you are someone new to this case, and I do mean pretend--ask yourself what intruder "could possibly" want to stage a crime scene in someone else's home? The answer is clear: nobody.

    "This is an inside job." John Ramsey 1997
  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