Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 154

Thread: Police to interview Burke Ramsey RE: JonBenet. Possible break in the case?

  1. #91
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CornFlakegrl View Post
    But didn't they do some new dna testing (touch dna or something)a little while ago that found dna on JonBennet's pants matching the original dna in her underwear? The dna matched no one in the house.

    Boulder PD declared Patsy innocent after that. Isn't that significant?
    The DNA was very, very old and probably from the factory where the underwear was made.

    The gussets of female underwear are still sewn by hand. More than likely that mysterious DNA had nothing to do with the crime and everything to do with the construction.
    CHILLY FREE!
    i have to zero the contain to your level -bugdoll
    you can't even be ogirinal - Mary

  2. #92
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,316

    Default

    Making gussets sounds like a pretty dangerous activity with all the bleeding and everything.

  3. #93
    Elite Member CornFlakegrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hanging with the raisin girls
    Posts
    11,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olivia View Post
    The DNA was very, very old and probably from the factory where the underwear was made.

    The gussets of female underwear are still sewn by hand. More than likely that mysterious DNA had nothing to do with the crime and everything to do with the construction.
    I get that with regard to the underwear originally tested. But I'm talking about a test done a year or so ago on her outer pants. The ones the killer supposedly took off or put on. That matched the dna inside her underwear.


    I'll go find the article I read... I must be missing something.

    ***

    Here's a piece of an article. It's long so I didn't post the whole thing. Link to entire article at end.

    ****

    Early in the investigation, police found male DNA in a drop of blood on JonBenet's underwear and determined it was not from anyone in her family. But Lacy said investigators were unable to say who it came from and whether that person was the killer.

    Then, late last year, prosecutors turned over long underwear JonBenet was wearing to the Bode Technology Group near Washington, which looked for "touch DNA," or cells left behind where someone has touched something.

    The laboratory found previously undiscovered genetic material on the sides of the girl's long underwear, where an attacker would have grasped the clothing to pull it down, authorities said. The DNA matched the genetic material found earlier.

    Lacy said the presence of the same male DNA in three places on the girl's clothing convinced investigators it belonged to JonBenet's killer and had not been left accidentally by an innocent party.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4245698.shtml

  4. #94
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,316

    Default

    Lacy said the presence of the same male DNA in three places on the girl's clothing convinced investigators it belonged to JonBenet's killer and had not been left accidentally by an innocent party.
    Wow.

  5. #95
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CornFlakegrl View Post

    Early in the investigation, police found male DNA in a drop of blood on JonBenet's underwear and determined it was not from anyone in her family. But Lacy said investigators were unable to say who it came from and whether that person was the killer.

    Then, late last year, prosecutors turned over long underwear JonBenet was wearing to the Bode Technology Group near Washington, which looked for "touch DNA," or cells left behind where someone has touched something.

    The laboratory found previously undiscovered genetic material on the sides of the girl's long underwear, where an attacker would have grasped the clothing to pull it down, authorities said. The DNA matched the genetic material found earlier.

    Lacy said the presence of the same male DNA in three places on the girl's clothing convinced investigators it belonged to JonBenet's killer and had not been left accidentally by an innocent party.

    DNA Clears Family In JonBenet Slaying - CBS News
    First, I don't know how they can say this new genetic material matched the old. They could barely determine that the old material was from a male it had degraded so badly.

    I've never heard of this "Touch DNA" before. Since the original DNA was highly degraded, the matching couldn't have been complete or extensive.

    We have all kinds of DNA on us from 100s of sources. If a JB's murderer had committed the intimate horrors on her, that are claimed, there would a lot more DNA in a lot more specific places then just Touch DNA that requires such deep testing to reveal it.

    Read the article up thread about the German investigation of a mythical female serial killer rampaging all over Europe. Turns out, their samples were contaminated by one woman at the lab that made the sterile cotton evidence swabs.

    The older the DNA, the more likely it had nothing to do with a crime. If the Touch DNA matches the older decayed DNA, my suspicion is neither has any relationship to this crime.
    CHILLY FREE!
    i have to zero the contain to your level -bugdoll
    you can't even be ogirinal - Mary

  6. #96
    Elite Member ManxMouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lemuria
    Posts
    7,380

    Default

    ^^^
    no offense, but I think I'd believe the current DA, who would know the case inside and out and would probably love to solve it more than anyone, over the opinion of the armchair CSI crowd.
    Santa is an elitist mother fucker -- giving expensive shit to rich kids and nothing to poor kids.

  7. #97
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Admit what??!! They most definitely ARE crime scene photos!! Smit was employed by the Boulder DA and was given access to not only the crime scene photos, but also the crime scene videos and autopsy reports. He had access to ALL the evidence and kept copies of it and took it with him when he resigned.
    First off, keeping personal copies of evidence is a horrible breach of procedure even if you are employed by a police department. Secondly, Smit was never employed by the Boulder PD, he was employed by the DA and than the Ramseys, so for him to take copies of anything for personal use is a huge ethical violation.

    But aside from that, that Smit essentially stole things from discovery does not mean the photos you linked to - which Smit used in his PowerPoint presentations - are crime scene photos. As I already wrote, the JB Encyclopedia noted that the other photos of the window in the same series from Smit show it open, closed, with people standing next to it and with items around the window moved around. THAT means they were not photos taken at the crime scene, where police take pictures to document the condition of the scene before anything is touched (or can be touched further). The weather evident in some of the other photos also dismissed them from being taken the winter day that JonBenet was found.

    The police reports and witnesses at the crime scene have said that that window was not open that day. Smit was never at the crime scene, he was at the house well after it had been cleared. At THAT point, Smit took the photos you posted - as he also took video, etc. to boost his intruder theory. He labeled them "crime scene photos" and put them on the Internet and in his presentations when they are photos of a FORMER crime scene, not the actual crime scene documents the police took. Smit was never at the crime scene as it existed and he had no ability to document it.

    It's just a shame that there are people gullible enough to think that because when into MS Paint and slapped "Crime Scene Photos" on a picture that means it's an official police document.

    no offense, but I think I'd believe the current DA, who would know the case inside and out and would probably love to solve it more than anyone, over the opinion of the armchair CSI crowd.
    The DA is an elected position and there's no reason to believe the current DA who was never connected to the original case "knows the case inside and out." The DA does no personal investigation and relies on reports from whoever he/she sees fit.

    Mary Lacy, the DA who "exonerated" the Ramseys, also was convinced that John Mark Kerr was guilty. It was pure headline making, because Lacy's "exoneration" meant nothing legally or practically. It was merely a PR move. Lacy was not the DA when the crime happened, during the active investigation and no charges were pending against the Ramseys to "exonerate" them from. Lacy's "exoneration" would not prevent a prosecutor from filing charges against John Ramsey tomorrow.

    "Touch DNA" has so far only successfully been used in one criminal case in the United States. That's because, unlike blood or bodily fluids, "touch DNA" is so minute that it's on everything since humans are constantly shedding skin cells. If you shake hands with someone their "touch DNA" would be on you - if you then touch your keyboard, it could be transferred without the owner of the DNA ever being in the same room as your computer. It's been a hard sell in court and it's possible, should a miracle happen and the JonBenet case ever go to trial, that the DNA would never be admitted as evidence. There's not even enough of it to determine the race of the person who left it.

    The Boulder PD tested several new, unopened packages of underwear from a store and found "touch DNA" on them, thus determined that the JonBenet DNA couldn't positively have come from the killer. Former Boulder DA Tom Bennett and famous criminal defense lawyer Barry Scheck also said the DNA was too minute to be determined as the killer's.

    The Ramsey family were excluded as the contributers to the DNA, as were some family friends and the family maid, but several friends of the family were never tested. That is significant because the Ramsey family was very social and JonBenet encountered many people, including on the day she died. It's been reported by family friends that JonBenet - who had problems with toilet training - used to go up and ask people to help her in the bathroom. It's possible the touch DNA came from a family friend who did that - or from someone who picked JonBenet up, hugged her, etc. There's also the issue of transference - JonBenet (who supposedly had the habit of not washing her hands) could have met someone, touched them, shaken hands, etc., got their skin cells on her hands and then transferred them to her clothes when she went to to the bathroom.
    Last edited by Tati; October 14th, 2010 at 10:47 PM.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  8. #98
    Elite Member Wiseguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post
    First off, keeping personal copies of evidence is a horrible breach of procedure even if you are employed by a police department. Secondly, Smit was never employed by the Boulder PD, he was employed by the DA and than the Ramseys, so for him to take copies of anything for personal use is a huge ethical violation.

    But aside from that, that Smit essentially stole things from discovery does not mean the photos you linked to - which Smit used in his PowerPoint presentations - are crime scene photos. As I already wrote, the JB Encyclopedia noted that the other photos of the window in the same series from Smit show it open, closed, with people standing next to it and with items around the window moved around. THAT means they were not photos taken at the crime scene, where police take pictures to document the condition of the scene before anything is touched (or can be touched further). The weather evident in some of the other photos also dismissed them from being taken the winter day that JonBenet was found.

    The police reports and witnesses at the crime scene have said that that window was not open that day. Smit was never at the crime scene, he was at the house well after it had been cleared. At THAT point, Smit took the photos you posted - as he also took video, etc. to boost his intruder theory. He labeled them "crime scene photos" and put them on the Internet and in his presentations when they are photos of a FORMER crime scene, not the actual crime scene documents the police took. Smit was never at the crime scene as it existed and he had no ability to document it.

    It's just a shame that there are people gullible enough to think that because when into MS Paint and slapped "Crime Scene Photos" on a picture that means it's an official police document.
    Give it a break! MS paint to write "Crime Scene Photos" on them? Are you for real? They have been acknowledged by all parties that they WERE crime scene photos and the photos clearly showed that an intruder could have easily gained access to the house.
    The police report on December 26 noted that there were a number of open windows and at least one open door; therefore, an intruder would not need to break in. One possible point of entry was the basement window. Not only was it easily accessible via a ground level lift-out grille, it had been broken sometime before Christmas and could not be secured. These facts, although well documented by the police, did not come to public attention until a year after the event.
    http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...vidence_2.html
    The Boulder Police screwed this investigation up so badly and did not consider an intruder killed JonBenet and so did not send off vital pieces of evidence for forensic study. The lead detective had zero experience in homicide.
    DNA has cleared the Ramsey family. Expert evidence has cleared the Ramsey family. Crime scene photos support the Ramsey's version of events. End of story - the Ramsey family are innocent.


  9. #99
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    50,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ManxMouse View Post
    ^^^
    no offense, but I think I'd believe the current DA, who would know the case inside and out and would probably love to solve it more than anyone, over the opinion of the armchair CSI crowd.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  10. #100
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ManxMouse View Post
    ^^^
    no offense, but I think I'd believe the current DA, who would know the case inside and out and would probably love to solve it more than anyone, over the opinion of the armchair CSI crowd.
    The current DA would NOT know the case inside and out. He isn't even investigating the case. Just because he is labeled the current DA, that does not mean he has any idea what happened during the JB investigation. He probably has enough current cases to fill his time.

    Since you seem unwilling to admit that Smit's photos were taken YEARS after the original crime, and that he staged them to fit the conclusions he wanted, then I don't know how to logically talk with your here.

    Wiseguy said -

    "Give it a break! MS paint to write "Crime Scene Photos" on them? Are you for real? They have been acknowledged by all parties that they WERE crime scene photos and the photos clearly showed that an intruder could have easily gained access to the house."

    Nope. Smit admitted those pictures specifically were his own photos taken long after the crime. They are not the original crime scene photos. They were taken to muddy the waters of this investigation.

    I remember watching the TV show when Smit set up that very suitcase and showed the journalist the foot print. What Smit said was very revealing. He was very careful to use "if" a lot. When the journalist asked him "This suitcase was under the window like this?" Smit replied "a suitcase COULD have been under the window and the intruder COULD have entered and left like this."

    Of course, none of the evidence supported an intruder being anywhere near that window, at all.

    This wasn't the only instance of Smit doing incredibly unethical things to fill the media with the assumption of Ramsey innocence.
    Last edited by olivia; October 14th, 2010 at 09:39 PM.
    CHILLY FREE!
    i have to zero the contain to your level -bugdoll
    you can't even be ogirinal - Mary

  11. #101
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,316

    Default

    From what I can find on touch DNA, it's been successfully used in more than one case. For example,

    Led to the arrest of a suspect in the rape and killing of 10-year-old Anna Palmer.

    Led to the arrest of a suspect in the John Cromwell murder case.

    Used to link several suspects to a weapons and drug case.

    Lack of touch DNA cited by defense in an arson case.

    From looking at these articles, people who came in casual contact with Jonbenet would not have left touch DNA on her. And it seems pretty unlikely that it would be on three separate areas of Jonbenet, unless it was the killer. And it means that the person who left the DNA on the underwear was not some person in a factory.

    I'm not sure why nonorehab mentioned not being able to determine someone's race from the DNA sample. It seems to me that something like this is used to either a) exclude possible suspects whose DNA doesn't match, or b) associate someone with having been in physical contact with the victim. The fact that there hasn't been a match would also seem to mean that the person whose DNA is on Jonbenet is not in the CODIS database. It could also mean, if I heard nonorehab correctly that the police have failed to get DNA samples from other known people who might have come in contact with Jonbenet that day.

  12. #102
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post

    I'm not sure why nonorehab mentioned not being able to determine someone's race from the DNA sample. It seems to me that something like this is used to either a) exclude possible suspects whose DNA doesn't match, or b) associate someone with having been in physical contact with the victim.
    Again, the DNA was very very old. The contact between that DNA and JB's clothing was long before the crime or way too brief to make any sort of profile.
    CHILLY FREE!
    i have to zero the contain to your level -bugdoll
    you can't even be ogirinal - Mary

  13. #103
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olivia View Post
    Again, the DNA was very very old. The contact between that DNA and JB's clothing was long before the crime or way too brief to make any sort of profile.
    From what I'm reading, the age of the DNA is irrelevant. Unless the DNA was stored in really bad conditions (unlikely in this case, since it was collected immediately after the murder), it breaks down very, very slowly. Scientists frequently sequence and match DNA that is thousands of years old. Small amounts of DNA don't seem to be a problem either because of the use of LCN (low copy number) technique.

  14. #104
    Elite Member Wiseguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olivia View Post
    Nope. Smit admitted those pictures specifically were his own photos taken long after the crime. They are not the original crime scene photos. They were taken to muddy the waters of this investigation.
    Source???
    I just provided a source where the Boulder DA took Smit to court wanting the crime scene photos, videos, coroner's reports etc back. So, yes they WERE crime scene photos which were accepted in court in 2008 as evidence. As if a court would accept doctored or non-relevant evidence!!


  15. #105
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseguy View Post
    Source???
    I just provided a source where the Boulder DA took Smit to court wanting the crime scene photos, videos, coroner's reports etc back. So, yes they WERE crime scene photos which were accepted in court in 2008 as evidence. As if a court would accept doctored or non-relevant evidence!!
    Not those photos, no, those are not the original crime scene photos. Smit wasn't even there at the time.

    There was no court case in 2008, so what are you talking about?

    "From what I'm reading, the age of the DNA is irrelevant. Unless the DNA was stored in really bad conditions (unlikely in this case, since it was collected immediately after the murder), it breaks down very, very slowly"

    Which sort of proves my point. Repeated washing, such as the chemical solutions they put clothing through after manufacture, or lack of a viable sample or simple age from environmental exposure made those DNA samples degrade before they ever got tested. It had nothing to do with the evidence storage conditions, since the tinytinytiny samples were already so damaged when collected.
    Last edited by olivia; October 15th, 2010 at 12:11 AM.
    CHILLY FREE!
    i have to zero the contain to your level -bugdoll
    you can't even be ogirinal - Mary

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Boulder police take back JonBenet Ramsey investigation
    By celeb_2006 in forum Crime and Punishment
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 1st, 2016, 03:06 PM
  2. Former JonBenet murder suspect John Mark Karr interview on Larry King
    By AliceInWonderland in forum Crime and Punishment
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 20th, 2006, 12:29 AM
  3. JonBenet Ramsey hoaxer walks free
    By A*O in forum Crime and Punishment
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: October 9th, 2006, 12:34 PM
  4. Arrest Made In JonBenet Ramsey Case
    By AliceInWonderland in forum Crime and Punishment
    Replies: 526
    Last Post: August 30th, 2006, 12:00 AM
  5. Suspect says JonBenet Ramsey death 'an accident'
    By aabbcc in forum Crime and Punishment
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 17th, 2006, 12:36 PM

Posting Permissions

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