Touch DNA
Charlie Chan

Lihue, HI

#475 Feb 7, 2011
tootlems wrote:
<quoted text>
unpatriotic primate? ROFLMAO
Looks like it's Charlie Chimp or Uncle Chuck.
Which do you prefer?LMAO
Hi Uncle Chan Fan!
Looks like you had another accident!
Go see the Diaper Lady and have your diaper changed...
You are full of excrement!

BTW, it is very childish to call other people names, but that is OK. I know you are just trying to get my attention.

Your IDOL,
Uncle Chuck

Since: Oct 10

Birmingham, AL

#477 Feb 7, 2011
One thing both RDI and IDI have always agreed upon, the crime scene appeared to be that of a sadistic pedophile who raped JonBenet with a paintbrush handle, choked her out with a garrote, and then clubbed her to death like a baby seal.

Now the IDI claim that fingerprints of an unknown male left in the blood on JonBenets panties and on the longjohns where he pulled them down before raping her the night she was murdered, prove he did this crime.

And yet the RDI are sticking with their ridiculous bed wetting caused her mother to kill her and create this elaborate sadistic sexual crime scene as a cover up, complete with an unknown males fingerprints in blood on the victim.

Take your pick.

Since: Oct 10

Birmingham, AL

#478 Feb 7, 2011
Chinaman wrote:
Confucius say Chinaman like kiddie diapers too much
maybe chinaman likes kiddies too much too..........
That's probably how he goes about molesting little girls.
Waits until they poop their diapers and then tells them Uncle Charlie will change those for you.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#479 Feb 8, 2011
Moon Jerk wrote:
One thing both RDI and IDI have always agreed upon, the crime scene appeared to be that of a sadistic pedophile who raped JonBenet with a paintbrush handle, choked her out with a garrote, and then clubbed her to death like a baby seal.
Now the IDI claim that fingerprints of an unknown male left in the blood on JonBenets panties and on the longjohns where he pulled them down before raping her the night she was murdered, prove he did this crime.
And yet the RDI are sticking with their ridiculous bed wetting caused her mother to kill her and create this elaborate sadistic sexual crime scene as a cover up, complete with an unknown males fingerprints in blood on the victim.
Take your pick.
So. SHILL...why the new "hat?" Stating that JonBenet was "clubbed to death like a baby seal" just totally gave you away (as if those of us on the ball didn't already know it was you.) You even went so far as to ask who Shill was when you were called out on it before but the jig is up now.
So...why the ruse?
BTW, not many RDI believe Patsy killed JB over bed wetting so I don't know where you're getting that crap from.
Who said anything about a males "fingerprints in blood?" Are you talking about the fact that the DNA found in the blood in JBs underwear may have come from skin cell DNA? Hmmm...didn't you stance on that used to be that "skin cell DNA wasn't invented yet?" ;)
candy

East Lansing, MI

#481 Jul 15, 2012
This is an article by Angela Williamson of Bode Technology, that explains a lot about touch DNA:

http://www.newenglandinnocence.org/wp-content...

Since: Jul 08

Chicago, IL

#482 Jul 15, 2012
candy wrote:
This is an article by Angela Williamson of Bode Technology, that explains a lot about touch DNA:
http://www.newenglandinnocence.org/wp-content...
Thanks so much for this Candy, read it and added it to my DNA file.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#483 Feb 22, 2013
Touch DNA has linked the Jessica Ridgeway suspect to another attack on a jogger:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/jessica-...
candy

East Lansing, MI

#484 Feb 22, 2013
The suspect who confessed, his touch DNA is all over Jessica Ridgeway, and items she wore, had with her, not just in the 3 places the main touch DNA in the Ramsey case is:

Lopez said Sigg's DNA was linked to "touch" DNA found on Jessica's torso, underwear, water bottle, boots and gloves as well as the clothing of the jogger who was grabbed at Ketner Lake.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/jessica-...
candy

East Lansing, MI

#486 Feb 22, 2013
Some comparisons to the Ramsey case. The touch DNA in the Ridgeway and jogger cases WAS from the killer/ and would be abductor, and that was the ONLY type of DNA on the victim. No semen was found. The suspect strangled Jessica with zip ties and his hands, then dismembered her using a saw in a bathtub at his home. He told his mother he did not rape or torture her. The suspect that did all this is only 17 years old.

The differences is the Ridgeway case, like so many others, was a crime of opportunity, he saw her passing in front of his car, kidnapped her, etc. He didn't know her, no phony ransom note, etc. It appears what prompted his confession to his mother was (unknown to him) a neighbor turned him in as a suspect, and based on that tip, 2 FBI agents showed up at his house to test him for DNA. That DNA test seems to have been the catalyst for him to confess, that he knew it was only a matter of time.
Steve Eller

United States

#489 Feb 26, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Ramsey case was likely a crime of opportunity as well: The intruders saw an opportunity to burgle the Ramsey home while the family was on vacation in Michigan. Unfortunately, they got the Ramsey's date of departure wrong by one day, and a burglary turned into a murder when the burglars were discovered by JonBenet.
Yes all 'six' midget ninja contortionists whose touch DNA were found at the crime scene were attempting to burglarize the Ramsey home and this is what unfolded instead--or NOT.
Steve Eller

United States

#491 Feb 26, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your idiotic attempt at sarcasm notwithstanding, what you, and the "eminent" Chief Kolar, are saying is that because numerous samples of touch DNA were found that NONE of the samples can possibly be meaningful.
Is that right?
I see I've struck a nerve. And while your grandiloquent attempt to paraphrase my thoughts does not quite reach the mark, you are on the right track. The miniscule samples are not all over the garments. In fact only one sample is in two separate areas and this easily could have been the result of transfer which is common. Now while only an idiot would conclude a priori with certainty that NONE of the samples could be meaningful. Only an even more confused person would choose to ignore and avoid for having to account for all of the other touch DNA found at the crime scene in formulating a specious burglary theory that would even mystify Cirque du Soleil.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#492 Feb 26, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what you're saying is that the touch DNA in the Ramsey case may ultimately prove extremely meaningful and should not be dismissed out of hand by Kolar or anyone else. Is that right?
Quote:"may ultimately prove extremely meaningful"

That's just the problem. Who would possibly know that? You CAN'T know that. Only what has happened as of right now, and as of right now, that DNA has not hit on ANYONE alive or dead in CODIS since the DNA was first entered into CODIS in January, 2004.

My theory of the crime is Patsy wrote the note, therefore, this crime is a domestic homicide. Kolar DID NOT "dismiss(ed) out of hand the DNA either, he talked about "the totality of the evidence" of which I am in complete agreement with him about.

Regardless of my theory, I am interested in DNA and touch DNA issues, especially in Colorado. The Austin Rees/Jessica Ridgeway murder is the first case I know of where touch DNA is the only DNA on the victim that was left on land (not retrieved from a body of water). AND I don't know if that's accurate or not, as this touch DNA evidence was introduced at Rees's preliminary hearing. There may be other DNA evidence at his trial, I don't know.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#494 Feb 26, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Ramsey case was likely a crime of opportunity as well: The intruders saw an opportunity to burgle the Ramsey home while the family was on vacation in Michigan. Unfortunately, they got the Ramsey's date of departure wrong by one day, and a burglary turned into a murder when the burglars were discovered by JonBenet.
First of all, how did "they" know the Ramseys were going to be in Michigan? There would be a finite number of people that would know that information, and I assume the police know who all those people are. Second, why didn't Burke hear "them"? His bedroom also was on the second floor. Third, why would some "burglars" turn a 20 to life sentence into the DEATH PENALTY or LWOP, by brutally killing the child, leaving a bogus 2 and a half page ransom note for an ridiculously small amount of money (from a multi-millionaire), and leaving the body behind? They also forgot to steal anything before they left, their supposed original purpose for all of this.
Steve Eller

United States

#500 Feb 26, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Candy, that is the problem. As the "eminent" Steve Eller has observed "only an idiot would conclude a priori with certainty that NONE of the samples could be meaningful."
Almost anything is statistically possible. We can assess the likelihood of anything happening and assign a numerical probability. In the Ramsey case it is theoretically possible that the owner of one of the foreign touch DNA sample is the perpetrator of this heinous crime. And while I am no actuary if I had to assign the probability of that actually being the case, I would assign it somewhere in the numerical vicinity of the same probablity that Bernie Madoff was an honest investor who was framed by his 'alleged' victims. You have to look at this case in its totality. Most of the evidence points directly at the Ramseys, and while I understand why it might be a contrarian's dream to try and defend them, there is no exculpatory evidence supporting them and desperately clinging to miniscule amounts of foreign DNA is tantamount to grasping at straws.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#502 Feb 26, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
The same way they would know the approximate amount of JR's bonus. The same way they would know that the Ramseys had moved to Boulder from the South. Obviously, at least one of the intruders was deep enough in the Ramsey's social circle that they knew things about the Ramsey's personal affairs, such as the approximate time of when they would be vacationing in Michigan.
Get it now?
Yes, I get it, and I believe the police would have all those people's names and DNA. They took DNA from over 220 people in this case.
Steve Eller

United States

#503 Feb 26, 2013
candy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I get it, and I believe the police would have all those people's names and DNA. They took DNA from over 220 people in this case.
They know this Candy. It is all over but the shouting. This is their way of shouting. They just don't 'understand' that the Ramseys did it.
Steve Eller

United States

#505 Feb 26, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the evidence does NOT point at the Ramseys. Where in the world do you get the idea that it does, from Steve Thomas?
Hmmm...Steve Thomas? No. The GRAND JURY? YES!

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#508 Feb 26, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
The grand jury gave you this idea? Have you ever even met the grand jury?
BTW: I asked you a question on the previous page and you seemed to have omitted answering it.
One more time:
Do you concede the possibility that at least one of these touch DNA samples could be from an intruder who brutally murdered JonBenet?
A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
I thought Steve answered your question by stating it is, statistically, possible that one of those miniscule DNA samples belongs to an intruder.

You ask what evidence points to a Ramsey.

1. Child's body found in home. Statistics point to likelihood of
family member being involved.

2. No credible evidence of an intruder.

3. Evidence that shows staging. In other words, this was not a kidnapping.

4. The body being cleaned, dressed and covered. Evidence of someone who cared.

5. Items used from the house in the commission of this crime.

6. Ransom note displays knowledge of Ramseys and lay of house. It's either a Ramsey or a close acquaintance.

7. Ramsey behavior. Lawyering up. Avoiding police, etc. etc.

8. Patsy Ramsey handwriting, grammar, etc., similar to ransom note
author.

9. Pineapple ingested by victim within hour of death when parents say victim was put to bed asleep.

10. Patsy Ramsey's fingerprint on dish that has pineapple in it and the pineapple is matched to that found in victim's UGI tract.

11. Ramsey's demanding police files and their previous statements before agreeing to interview.

12. John wanting to fly out of Boulder when his little girl's body is discovered.

Need I go on?
Steve Eller

United States

#509 Feb 26, 2013
learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought Steve answered your question by stating it is, statistically, possible that one of those miniscule DNA samples belongs to an intruder.
You ask what evidence points to a Ramsey.
1. Child's body found in home. Statistics point to likelihood of
family member being involved.
2. No credible evidence of an intruder.
3. Evidence that shows staging. In other words, this was not a kidnapping.
4. The body being cleaned, dressed and covered. Evidence of someone who cared.
5. Items used from the house in the commission of this crime.
6. Ransom note displays knowledge of Ramseys and lay of house. It's either a Ramsey or a close acquaintance.
7. Ramsey behavior. Lawyering up. Avoiding police, etc. etc.
8. Patsy Ramsey handwriting, grammar, etc., similar to ransom note
author.
9. Pineapple ingested by victim within hour of death when parents say victim was put to bed asleep.
10. Patsy Ramsey's fingerprint on dish that has pineapple in it and the pineapple is matched to that found in victim's UGI tract.
11. Ramsey's demanding police files and their previous statements before agreeing to interview.
12. John wanting to fly out of Boulder when his little girl's body is discovered.
Need I go on?
You will have to go on ad infinitem for him because he is unable to process any information that is sensible and derived from logic and fact.
Steve Eller

United States

#510 Feb 26, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
The grand jury gave you this idea? Have you ever even met the grand jury?
BTW: I asked you a question on the previous page and you seemed to have omitted answering it.
One more time:
Do you concede the possibility that at least one of these touch DNA samples could be from an intruder who brutally murdered JonBenet?
A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
I have answered your questions repeatedly and as for the latest, no I have not met the Grand Jury but fortunately it did not preclude me from LEARNING and ACCEPTING that the duly and legally formed Grand Jury investigating this case for THIRTEEN months came to the conclusion that the Ramseys were responsible for the death of JonBenet.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Patsy vs Burke 6 hr berrytea333 134
Missy Bevers 8 hr stoned luck aka ... 7
Today Show: JonBenet Ramsey case lies 8 hr Jolamom 74
Identity Problems 8 hr Jolamom 34
Jonbenet... 12 hr stoned luck aka ... 112
Fleet White depo article (Mar '07) Sun candy 376
Suspect Randy Simons! (Dec '07) Sat robert 261
More from around the web