Actual Proof?

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#22 Oct 14, 2013
How can you think you know so much about this case and not know what went on with FW so that you continue to libel him?

Ask yourself this:
What did FW have to do with the Wolf case?
What did FW have to do with the Miller case?
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> Shouldn't it be also be a red flag that Fleet White, in his deposition, became afflicted with a sudden bout of amnesia? It's surprising he remembered his own name!
Heloise

UK

#24 Oct 14, 2013
There is an excellent textbook on forensic science that blows the DNA evidence out of the water. Unfortunately it costs a fortune and it is really more an academic work than a general interest work so it won't become a case classic but I posted the link somewhere on here for anyone who is feeling flush..

There was also a DNA expert on Tricia's podcast who pointed out the many fallacies of the DNA exoneration. Link can be found on Websleuths or FFJ.

Regarding the famous co-mingling, I am not remotely scientifically adept, but I can tell you what happens when you drop a liquid on a carpet (for example): things already in the carpet will become co-mingled with the liquid.

And, of course, if the DNA did belong to a perp, that wouldn't actually prove the Ramseys weren't involved or that they had no knowledge of the crime.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#25 Oct 14, 2013
Heloise wrote:
There is an excellent textbook on forensic science that blows the DNA evidence out of the water. Unfortunately it costs a fortune and it is really more an academic work than a general interest work so it won't become a case classic but I posted the link somewhere on here for anyone who is feeling flush..
There was also a DNA expert on Tricia's podcast who pointed out the many fallacies of the DNA exoneration. Link can be found on Websleuths or FFJ.
Regarding the famous co-mingling, I am not remotely scientifically adept, but I can tell you what happens when you drop a liquid on a carpet (for example): things already in the carpet will become co-mingled with the liquid.
And, of course, if the DNA did belong to a perp, that wouldn't actually prove the Ramseys weren't involved or that they had no knowledge of the crime.
Hi there Heloise,

The DNA has been used as a crutch in this case which is a shame. DNA is so very useful in so many cases, both to include and exclude people when it is a DNA case.

Sadly, this is not a DNA case and those who say it IS a DNA case will be left with little explanations that are viable once and IF the DNA report is ever released. For those who swear by the DNA solving this case, when the report shows an abundance of Ramsey DNA, there will be a lot of scrambling and if you think the ramblings are double speak now, just wait until and IF the DNA report is released and the Ramseys continue to appear as the guilty parties.

The tunes will change.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#26 Oct 14, 2013
Excellent points Heloise, all three of them.
They "know" about the DNA expert on WS/FFJ and the podcast, and they have read it / heard it / heard about it, and they still come here with their 'anyone but a Ramsey' posts.
Heloise wrote:
There was also a DNA expert on Tricia's podcast who pointed out the many fallacies of the DNA exoneration. Link can be found on Websleuths or FFJ.
Regarding the famous co-mingling, I am not remotely scientifically adept, but I can tell you what happens when you drop a liquid on a carpet (for example): things already in the carpet will become co-mingled with the liquid.
And, of course, if the DNA did belong to a perp, that wouldn't actually prove the Ramseys weren't involved or that they had no knowledge of the crime.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#28 Oct 14, 2013
Good morning,

Of course you are right! And to think the name of the thread is "Actual Proof" - LOL.
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Good morning Seuss,
Every time the Ramseys are in a bit of a "bind" as they may just be if the GJ documents get released, FW and every other human on the planet gets brought up either for distraction or in "some" cases, just to suck up to Candy LOL ANY opportunity to slam FW or ST will be pounced on and "some" will suck up immediately to distract from the Ramseys
SOMETHING/S must have been brought to the GJ's attention to vote to indict the Ramseys. We don't know what it is, but it certainly wasn't FW, Santa McReynolds, JMK, JAR, Gigax, or anyone else that has been thrown around that required any more questions. It was THE RAMSEYS who were indicted by a GJ; nobody else.
I'm hoping, as much as, or even more than the GJ testimony being released, that the DNA report becomes public and then all will realize that those drops of unknown DNA are AMONG the large amounts of Ramsey DNA. I don't know who they think they are kidding with all this DNA stuff, but it isn't those who know that there is a BIG reason the report isn't released
In the interim, FW and the rest will continue to be thrown around to try and deflect from the real truth about what happened that night. Here's a hint: It wasn't an intruder
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#29 Oct 14, 2013
Weren't there seven different unknown male DNA profiles at the crime scene as well as a female's? Two on the rope of the garrote, a couple of partial profiles under her nails as well as a partial female DNA profile that they think was probably her own? And the aforementioned touch DNA on her undies and longjohn bottoms. How shall we account for all of those? A small foreign faction for sure.

Having read a couple of articles about touch DNA and transference patterns, I find it hard to believe that any jury could convict on that evidence alone. Also, if you read about mosaicism and chimerism,(not sure of spelling) it would be difficult to convict on ANY DNA evidence if that was the perp's only connection to the crimescene. I was really shocked to learn that DNA is not completely foolproof. Reliable to a certain extent, yes, but foolproof--no.
Taylur

Jefferson City, MO

#30 Oct 14, 2013
I've never been able to get a solid answer, so maybe someone on here can help me out. Does anyone know who actually gave DNA to the police and who did not? Specifically who refused?
Taylur

Jefferson City, MO

#31 Oct 14, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Good morning,
Of course you are right! And to think the name of the thread is "Actual Proof" - LOL.
<quoted text>
The title is a bit comical. Stone cold actual proof is not going to be easily found amoungst this case from what it sounds like!

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#32 Oct 14, 2013
Just Wondering wrote:
Weren't there seven different unknown male DNA profiles at the crime scene as well as a female's? Two on the rope of the garrote, a couple of partial profiles under her nails as well as a partial female DNA profile that they think was probably her own? And the aforementioned touch DNA on her undies and longjohn bottoms. How shall we account for all of those? A small foreign faction for sure.

Having read a couple of articles about touch DNA and transference patterns, I find it hard to believe that any jury could convict on that evidence alone. Also, if you read about mosaicism and chimerism,(not sure of spelling) it would be difficult to convict on ANY DNA evidence if that was the perp's only connection to the crimescene. I was really shocked to learn that DNA is not completely foolproof. Reliable to a certain extent, yes, but foolproof--no.
According to Foreign Faction, "There are six unique and unidentified genetic profiles – five male profiles and one female profile."(Kolar, 2012)

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#33 Oct 14, 2013
I don't think the intention is to convict on DNA alone, especially as in this case where 17 years later there is no match. In cases like this – it is not a DNA case, and had it been treated that way from the beginning it might have gone to trial. Well, actually Hunter would have had to actually sign the indictment from the GJ. But a circumstantial case could have been won.

It would be very hard to convict if the DNA alone was there (since it cannot be dated) and the person had an alibi elsewhere.

The same thing for DNA not there, and person not there.

IMO, mosaics and chimeras are not applicable to this case.
Just Wondering wrote:
Weren't there seven different unknown male DNA profiles at the crime scene as well as a female's? Two on the rope of the garrote, a couple of partial profiles under her nails as well as a partial female DNA profile that they think was probably her own? And the aforementioned touch DNA on her undies and longjohn bottoms. How shall we account for all of those? A small foreign faction for sure.
Having read a couple of articles about touch DNA and transference patterns, I find it hard to believe that any jury could convict on that evidence alone. Also, if you read about mosaicism and chimerism,(not sure of spelling) it would be difficult to convict on ANY DNA evidence if that was the perp's only connection to the crimescene. I was really shocked to learn that DNA is not completely foolproof. Reliable to a certain extent, yes, but foolproof--no.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#34 Oct 14, 2013
I think there is a list floating around about who was tested or at least who gave DNA and I don't remember anyone refusing. Pretty much everyone who was associated with the Ramseys and their families were all tested, everyone JBR would have come in contact with on her last day was tested or DNA was given. I am unaware of the minor children that the Ramsey kids played with if they were tested or not. I suspect their parents were given swabs and asked to volunteer their kids DNA, but thqat is just a hunch of mine, certainly not a fact.
Taylur wrote:
I've never been able to get a solid answer, so maybe someone on here can help me out. Does anyone know who actually gave DNA to the police and who did not? Specifically who refused?

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#35 Oct 14, 2013
More from Foreign Faction:
"DNA testing involving fingernail scrapings from both hands revealed JonBenet’s genetic profile on both sides. In addition to JonBenet’s profile, scrapings from the left fingernails revealed unidentified male #1. The right fingernails indicated that two further unique profiles were present, unidentified male #2, and a unique unknown female profile.(JonBenet could not be excluded as a contributor.)" (Kolar, 2012)

If JonBenet could not be excluded as a contributor to this "unique unknown female profile," then the profile is hardly unique. Kolar also uses the term "unique" to describe the male DNA profiles, from JonBenet's fingernail clippings and the crotch of her underwear. The 1997 DNA lab report (screen capture) displays no unique markers among the male DNA profiles. The markers are consistent from one male profile to the next.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#36 Oct 14, 2013
From Webster's dictionary online:

unique adjective \yu&#775;-&#712;n& #275;k\
—used to say that something or someone is unlike anything or anyone else

: very special or unusual

: belonging to or connected with only one particular thing, place, or person

~~~~~~~~~~

As I understand it, every single DNA profile is unique to the sole contributor from whom it came, with only one possible exception--identical twins, triplets, etc.

I believe Kolar was pointing that out by using the adjective "unique": whether the profile is complete or not, it can only come from one person. Therefore it is unique--with the possible exception of twins, etc.

That's how I read it, anyway.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#37 Oct 14, 2013
They call a DNA profile unique because there is less than a billion to one chance that two complete DNA profiles will match each other.

However, they often say a person's DNA is unique to them. Is is most likely a misuse of the term.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#39 Oct 14, 2013
No sunshine, RW was not the killer of JBR -(today must be libel day on the board)

Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus!
sunshine wrote:
Most murders are committed for either love or money or both....I believe Jonbenet was murdered over a dispute about money. A dispute between John Ramsey aka "the small foreign faction" and his good friend who also happened to be his financial manager that "represented that small foreign faction". It would not be the first time that a dispute between someone and their friend who happened to be their financial turned into a murder case. Jonbenet was just a pawn and I'm still waiting for John Ramsey to show some guts and tell the world who this killer is....he's been nothing but a coward to this point...end of story.

Since: May 11

AOL

#41 Oct 14, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
No sunshine, RW was not the killer of JBR -(today must be libel day on the board)
Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus!
<quoted text>
Hi Doc:D
wonder why none of the IDI ever discuss the fact that JBR was previously molested? Is that supposed to be besides the point? Does that just come with the territory when a child's found murdered?
Where I come from, molestation of a child is taboo and a good reason to murder if the child knows her/his molester..in this case, for years and years IDI go on about money, revenge, this friend or that being 'jealous' of JR, and never consider or explain the FACT that JB was molested over a period of at LEAST 3 days! If IDI can come up with an explanation for PREVIOUS MOLESTATION, I'll listen, but otherwise their theories are just too stupid to entertain. This was ANYTHING BUT about money, hence the measly ransom. LOL

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#42 Oct 14, 2013
Sure, and thanks for asking!

If they were never a suspect and some poster is trying to make them one, the person being talked about is being libeled.

If the POLICE have cleared them and some poster is trying to make them a suspect again, or for the first time, the person being talked about is being libeled.

If you were a grownup, it wouldn't sound ridiculous. Slander and Libel are serious matters.

sunshine wrote:
<quoted text>
Help me out here suess....can u please let me know which suspects are libel suspect and which ones are not??? I want to make sure I only talk about the suspects that are not libel....lol..."libel suspects"...if u only knew how ridiculous u really sound...

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#43 Oct 14, 2013
Hi RT!

I agree with you. They don't bring it up because they cannot argue it with any modicum of intelligence. You see, if they admitted it were true, they would have to look at their precious Ramseys without their rose-colored glasses on and it would be the same ugly view that we RDI have seen all these years.

But you know this ;)

Chances are if push came to shove, they would find a reason to argue "for" sexual abuse.
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Doc:D
wonder why none of the IDI ever discuss the fact that JBR was previously molested? Is that supposed to be besides the point? Does that just come with the territory when a child's found murdered?
Where I come from, molestation of a child is taboo and a good reason to murder if the child knows her/his molester..in this case, for years and years IDI go on about money, revenge, this friend or that being 'jealous' of JR, and never consider or explain the FACT that JB was molested over a period of at LEAST 3 days! If IDI can come up with an explanation for PREVIOUS MOLESTATION, I'll listen, but otherwise their theories are just too stupid to entertain. This was ANYTHING BUT about money, hence the measly ransom. LOL

Since: May 11

AOL

#46 Oct 14, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Hi RT!
I agree with you. They don't bring it up because they cannot argue it with any modicum of intelligence. You see, if they admitted it were true, they would have to look at their precious Ramseys without their rose-colored glasses on and it would be the same ugly view that we RDI have seen all these years.
But you know this ;)
Chances are if push came to shove, they would find a reason to argue "for" sexual abuse.
<quoted text>
ain't it the truth? I'm on another forum where the subject came up and now I am loathed by them for pointing out the facts..one poster in particular is telling her friends DNA was found under JBR's nails that belonged to the killer and therefor, the Ramsey's didn't do it and shame on anyone that thinks they did. Disgusting liars who only care about the living and thinking well of themselves for supporting the "poor Ramseys" who share their values and pose as Christians. Makes me sick. Poor JONBENET, for having the family she had!
candy

East Lansing, MI

#47 Oct 14, 2013
sunshine wrote:
<quoted text>
So now show us where RW was ever cleared by the police....if u can not the everyone will see who is making the most ridiculous statements....if u can not show where RW has ever been cleared by police then according to your ridiculous statement RW is fair game....and by the way could you also show us where RW has ever one a libel defamation suit against anyone...ill bet you can't show us neither....:)
Seuss doesn't know what the hell she is talking about, and you should know better than to even ask her about anything like that.

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
Divine Secrets/lLittle Altars Everywhere/ (Apr '17) 4 min Anonymous 43
Checking on JonBenet during the night (Aug '15) 14 min Anonymous 99
John Andrew Ramsey Said What?? (Nov '16) 5 hr HJT 266
What is the best source of information? (Jan '17) 8 hr Logic101 47
News New DNA tests planned in Jon Benet Case (Mar '17) 10 hr Logic101 13
What is the significance of Burke's drawing? (May '17) 13 hr Blue Bottle 12
There was Slim Fast Everywhere (May '17) 17 hr Anonymous 35