Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 154

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

  1. #106
    Elite Member Wiseguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olivia View Post
    Not those photos, no, those are not the original crime scene photos. Smit wasn't even there at the time.
    Um, Smit had digital copies of EVERYTHING, including the original crime scene photos and crime scene videos from the Boulder Police. So yes, they most definitely WERE the crime scene photos!!


  2. #107
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    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!!
    No, you quoted a document that claimed Smit took a CD of digital crime scene photos. You provided no source that the photo you posted in this thread was an actual crime scene photo or any photo used in court.

    The photo you posted was from the JB Crime Encyclopedia and that site itself states that the photo was taken from a Lou Smit PowerPoint and that, because of the other photos from the same sequence and other indications, they doubt it's a genuine crime scene photo. The photo you took from their site and posted was NOT used in any court.

    Again Wiseguy, on no planet were those photos "agreed on by ALL parties" as being a crime scene photo. It is a fact that the window was NOT like that on December 26. I already quoted the original police reports from officers who were there and examined it that day as well as the statements by John Ramsey, who claimed to have checked it as well. All denied that the window was wide open and all - John, his friend Fleet White, and the police officers - could certainly tell if a window was wide open in the dead of winter when all at that time were looking for an "intruder."

    Quoting from Crime Library is really just the icing on the cake - its poorly written, sloppily researched, barely sourced articles are a hoot.

    From what I can find on touch DNA, it's been successfully used in more than one case.
    I wrote that it's only been used successfully so far in one COURT case. The news article you linked to concern cases that have not yet gone to trial (and the one were the jury returned a guilty verdict on two counts but hung on the others). The only successful case I know of where touch DNA was admitted and got a result (i.e. a conviction or a release) was the Timothy Masters case, also out of Colorado (IIRC February of this year). And while Masters was released from prison, he has not yet been cleared officially as a suspect.

    Touch DNA is SO new that it's never really been tested in the courts. A touch DNA sample contains only 7 or 8 skin cells from the outermost layers of human skin. Yet the average human sheds 30,000 to 40,000 skin cells per hour. Thus why it's called touch DNA - because it's left behind when someone touches something. You can see how that makes it problematic in terms of evidence: traditional DNA testing requires blood, bodily fluids, hair etc. It's persuasive because humans tend not to leave blood, semen or other bodily fluids around constantly and randomly - we do, however, leave an estimated 1 million skin cells around every day and everywhere we walk, on everything we touch, on the ground, in the air, etc. Just about any surface, anywhere will contain skin cells.

    The testing for touch DNA is also very hard on the samples and one of the main criticisms against it is that the testing itself uses a sample so small that it distorts the results. Another problem is that basically almost every touch DNA sample in the U.S. is tested by Max and Lucy Houck, the husband and wife team who invented the concept of touch DNA in the first place. Since they almost exclusively conduct and control all touch DNA testing, there have been criticisms ranging from the whole concept being a way for the Houcks to make money for their lab, to it being almost impossible to review the standards and procedures for this new forensic technique if essentially only one lab (the Houcks') keeps all the work.

    Even if, by some miracle the JonBenet case went to trial, it is a big IF that the touch DNA would be admitted and, if it was, if it would be persuasive to a jury. There is no established scientific or legal track record for touch DNA yet. (And I don't know if anyone has conclusively revealed whether the sample even exists anymore - its possible that the Houcks' testing destroyed it, making anything that was there useless for further testing.)
    Last edited by NoNoRehab; October 15th, 2010 at 12:17 AM.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  3. #108
    Gold Member thunder&lightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olivia View Post
    Patsy killed her. Let's move on.

    The DNA evidence was so old it probably came from the factory where the panties were made. That was totally a red herring put out by the Ramsey camp.

    i agree with you on that one.
    another year i claim of total indifference.

  4. #109
    Elite Member Wiseguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    No, you quoted a document that claimed Smit took a CD of digital crime scene photos. You provided no source that the photo you posted in this thread was an actual crime scene photo or any photo used in court.
    No, I provided a copy of two court documents that stated that Smit had access to all of the original police crime scene photos (amongst many other items). You were implying that he used MS Paint(!!!) to possibly doctor them.

    You are just so unwilling to consider that there was an intruder who killed JonBenet, that you are throwing every excuse (including MS Paint!) out there. Why don't you accept what every legal authority involved has accepted - the crime scene photos, videos, testimonies, autopsy reports, DNA (from three separate items of clothing) etc all showed evidence of an intruder. The Ramsey's didn't do it. It was an intruder. The evidence is overwhelming.


  5. #110
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default

    I have spent an embarrassing amount of time reading about this case over the years and it's difficult to separate what's factual from what's not, whether it's lies, red herrings, propaganda, bad reporting, misunderstandings gone wild, etc. I have flip-flopped a dozen times about whether or not the Ramseys did it, and have never considered either side's evidence to be overwhelming or a done deal. The sticking point with me has always been the ransom note and how similar the writing is to Patsy's. Whenever I start thinking they're innocent, I can't get past the note.

    The information is all over the internet but this thread on forumsforjustice has pictures of the graphics & all the other info in it. The similarities in the letters get me every time. I really wanted Patsy to be innocent, and every once in a while I start to believe it when I read the intruder theories, but then there's the damn note.

    Analysis of the Linguistics and Handwriting in the Ramsey Ransom Note - Forums For Justice

    I think one of the reasons this case has continued to hold so much interest is because both sides are so passionate about their positions. But it's like arguing politics - each side views the evidence through their own perspective and doesn't understand why the other side refuses to see the truth. Unlike the Caylee Anthony case, which doesn't have nearly the amount of ambiguity, there is no "side" out there of any significant size or credibility pushing a Casey Anthony is Innocent agenda. The facts are easy to find. Not so much with JonBenet - you have to wade through all the bias & spin. Almost everything you read has opinion in it, or somebody is arguing that it happened another way altogether.

    As for the crime scene photos, it's too late to back up what I'm about to say, but I thought it was common knowledge that a great many photos were taken well after the fact, and that Smit either used some or took them himself to illustrate his theory.
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  6. #111
    Elite Member Wiseguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    ^^^Six experts testified that it was NOT Patsy.


  7. #112
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default

    Maybe you're right, I never heard/read that - always heard it was inconclusive or that she couldn't be ruled out. All I know is that it looks extremely similar when viewed side by side.
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  8. #113
    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
    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.
    Well, I don't know that much about DNA but it's impossible that dna from inside her underwear and on her outer long johns were from the same factory worker or other random source.

    And the DA says they were a match which means some unknown person touched her. Why would they lie?

    I will say that if the original dna was so badly degraded that gives me pause. The dna left by the killer would have been hours old. Unless the CO pd screwed it up before testing.

  9. #114
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post

    I wrote that it's only been used successfully so far in one COURT case. The news article you linked to concern cases that have not yet gone to trial (and the one were the jury returned a guilty verdict on two counts but hung on the others). The only successful case I know of where touch DNA was admitted and got a result (i.e. a conviction or a release) was the Timothy Masters case, also out of Colorado (IIRC February of this year). And while Masters was released from prison, he has not yet been cleared officially as a suspect.

    Touch DNA is SO new that it's never really been tested in the courts. A touch DNA sample contains only 7 or 8 skin cells from the outermost layers of human skin. Yet the average human sheds 30,000 to 40,000 skin cells per hour. Thus why it's called touch DNA - because it's left behind when someone touches something. You can see how that makes it problematic in terms of evidence: traditional DNA testing requires blood, bodily fluids, hair etc. It's persuasive because humans tend not to leave blood, semen or other bodily fluids around constantly and randomly - we do, however, leave an estimated 1 million skin cells around every day and everywhere we walk, on everything we touch, on the ground, in the air, etc. Just about any surface, anywhere will contain skin cells.

    The testing for touch DNA is also very hard on the samples and one of the main criticisms against it is that the testing itself uses a sample so small that it distorts the results. Another problem is that basically almost every touch DNA sample in the U.S. is tested by Max and Lucy Houck, the husband and wife team who invented the concept of touch DNA in the first place. Since they almost exclusively conduct and control all touch DNA testing, there have been criticisms ranging from the whole concept being a way for the Houcks to make money for their lab, to it being almost impossible to review the standards and procedures for this new forensic technique if essentially only one lab (the Houcks') keeps all the work.

    Even if, by some miracle the JonBenet case went to trial, it is a big IF that the touch DNA would be admitted and, if it was, if it would be persuasive to a jury. There is no established scientific or legal track record for touch DNA yet. (And I don't know if anyone has conclusively revealed whether the sample even exists anymore - its possible that the Houcks' testing destroyed it, making anything that was there useless for further testing.)
    It's already being used in multiple trials, and there appears to be no controversy in any of them regarding the validity of the testing. The latest one I found was a Maryland trial where they finally identified the suspect in a 1996 murder based on touch DNA cells. They suspected it was him, but the touch DNA cells confirmed it.

    Multiple labs test for touch DNA, not just the Houcks. For example, the Indiana state crime laboratory.

    There are also times when there isn't enough fluid from a blood or semen sample to obtain DNA, so the epithileal technique actually supplies more information in some instances.

    In terms of legal precedent, it has already been used in Europe to obtain convictions. In the U.S. the precdent was set in February of this year when a New York supreme court justice allowed it for the Hemant Megnath trial. Megnath was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

    I think that touch DNA would be very persuasive to a jury because most juries are aware of how DNA has been used to acquit or convict multiple people. In fact, it seems like DNA leads the way in most jurors' minds as what constitutes evidence (above sworn statements, sometimes). And remember this was DNA found on the waistband of Jonbenet's clothing, where someone who would have forcibly removed clothes would have had their hands. And this DNA did not match the Ramseys or their friends who were tested. The fact that so much skin can be shed and this sample was distinct from anyone tested is a big indicator that someone else could have been involved in her death.

    As far as whether the Houcks destroyed the remaining DNA by testing it, it appears that a large amount of touch DNA was found on Jonbenet, and if they need to perform more testing at another lab, they have the material to do it.

  10. #115
    Elite Member Wiseguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    Maybe you're right, I never heard/read that - always heard it was inconclusive or that she couldn't be ruled out. All I know is that it looks extremely similar when viewed side by side.
    Really? I've looked at the link you posted and don't think the writing from Patsy looks anything like the ransom note. They are completely different styles.

    Quote Originally Posted by CornFlakegrl View Post
    Well, I don't know that much about DNA but it's impossible that dna from inside her underwear and on her outer long johns were from the same factory worker or other random source.

    And the DA says they were a match which means some unknown person touched her. Why would they lie?

    I will say that if the original dna was so badly degraded that gives me pause. The dna left by the killer would have been hours old. Unless the CO pd screwed it up before testing.
    Add to that the DNA from underneath her fingernails. She had her own skin underneath her nails (poor baby was trying to get the garrote from her neck) as well as unknown DNA which (once again) did not have a match with any of the Ramsey family.

    Patsy and John both passed lie detector tests and had no police record at all.

    If we heard this case today, with no trial by media, with no inaccurate information from the Boulder police, there would be no doubt. We would all hear how the crime scene photos identified a break in, how DNA evidence found an unknown male committed the crime and how the poor parents had their little 6 year old murdered in their own home.

    Also, why are people surprised that the Ramsey's left their home? I would not want to continue living in a house where my child was murdered. Also, the Ramsey family were receiving death threats. Why would they stay?? I don't see anything remotely unusual about the Ramsey family's behaviour after the death of their daughter. They had been through the worst grief a family can suffer and then had the police and the media incorrectly point the finger at them. How were they supposed to behave?? It remains a gross miscarriage of justice.


  11. #116
    Elite Member cmmdee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Eva's Love Den
    Posts
    25,572

    Default

    I think it was the family.

  12. #117
    Elite Member Trixie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    exiled and ostrich sized
    Posts
    16,643

    Default

    This thread makes me glad I never got involved in researching this case.
    These people don't give a fuck about YOU or us. It's a message board, for Christ's sake. ~ mrs.v ~
    ~"Fuck off! Aim higher! Get a life! Get away from me!" ~the lovely and talented Miss Julia Roberts~



  13. #118
    Elite Member Brookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the "D"
    Posts
    20,814

    Default

    ^You and me both.
    Life is short. Break the Rules. Forgive Quickly. Kiss Slowly. Love Truly.
    Laugh Uncontrollably. And never regret ANYTHING that makes you smile.

    - Mark Twain

  14. #119
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    50,858

    Default

    jeebus, how can people still care this much?
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  15. #120
    Elite Member ManxMouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lemuria
    Posts
    7,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post
    jeebus, how can people still care this much?
    I think a lot of it is just how impossible this crime seems like it would have been to pull off and get away with, no matter who did it. It's one of those things that I just want to KNOW what really happened. Personally, when I die I want everything I've ever wondered about to be revealed to me. Like what the hell happened to my great-aunt's diamond ring that I lost somewhere....and what happened to JonBenet and also whether the West Memphis 3 in Arkansas are really guilty or not. Fascinating mysteries, in my opinion (well, the lost ring not so much).
    Santa is an elitist mother fucker -- giving expensive shit to rich kids and nothing to poor kids.

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 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
  •