Comments
141 - 160 of 196 Comments Last updated Friday Jul 18

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157
Jun 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point, also don't forget the possibility of transfer. She hadn't had a bath since Christmas Eve afternoon and she was on her floors Christmas morning and the White's floors playing Christmas night, and she played with neighborhood kids during Christmas day. How many opportunities were there in just those three instances to get foreign DNA on herself without any connection to her murder?
Location, location, location, it’s all about locations and we’re talking about DNA found in INCRIMNATING locations.

If DNA transfer happens as easily as SOME seem to believe than jbr should have been transferring mom and dad’s and bro’s DNA all over the place. Yeah, you might find some stranger’s DNA in there somewhere, but most of that transfer is going to be from family and from MOST RECENT CONTACT (most recent contact includes KILLER).

Also, secondary, etc transfer most often results in mixed profiles – you transfer your DNA along with the DNA from some other.

Secondary, etc transfer does occur, but is not likely in this case because of the three specific incriminating locations in conjunction with the failure, despite effort, to link this to any innocent source.


AK

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158
Jun 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Good morning AK,

I think you may be confusing conversations. My point was to what you said and not anything Candy said.

When I said you were making an assumption it was because you said this:“The reasonable conclusion is that DNA-man was not in the group compared, including the database.” Your usage of “DNA-man” ASSUMES an intruder, and EXCLUDES any other means of leaving DNA. To that point I said you are “making an assumption NOT in FACT”.

Sorry for the confusion.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I am making no such assumption. Whether the DNA is artifact or evidence is beside the point:

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159
Jun 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Just a thought on your conversation with L_E since you are basing what you say heavily on “locations” of the DNA – those locations are all locations JBR would have/could have touched when using the bathroom therefore contaminating herself. To deny this means you haven’t had the opportunity to be observant of a 6 year olds toileting habits. Add to that her family’s description of JBR-specific toileting habits.

According to the DNA reports we don’t know that the parents DNA WASN’T all over the place as you put it because the report (or what we have seen of it) omitted Ramsey DNA findings, and I believe many of us would LOVE to know where Ramsey DNA was found!
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Location, location, location, it’s all about locations and we’re talking about DNA found in INCRIMNATING locations.

Secondary, etc transfer does occur, but is not likely in this case because of the three specific incriminating locations in conjunction with the failure, despite effort, to link this to any innocent source.

AK
Heloise

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160
Jun 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

I agree, Dr Seuss. And in fact, IDI should consider it horribly odd if Ramsey DNA wasn't 'all over her' given that Patsy claimed to have put her to bed and changed her into her bed clothes before doing anything else (including washing her hands after a party where she - Patsy - had had contact with many people).

As far as I'm aware, we don't even know that the longjohns belonged to JBR - we do know that there was a bag of other kids' clothing in the house.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

DrSeussMd wrote:
Good morning AK,
I think you may be confusing conversations. My point was to what you said and not anything Candy said.
When I said you were making an assumption it was because you said this:“The reasonable conclusion is that DNA-man was not in the group compared, including the database.” Your usage of “DNA-man” ASSUMES an intruder, and EXCLUDES any other means of leaving DNA. To that point I said you are “making an assumption NOT in FACT”.
Sorry for the confusion.
<quoted text>
The term DNA-man does NOT infer an intruder.
DNA-man is simply the male whose DNA was found on jbr and subsequently added to the CODIS databank – the panty and leggings samples.

Regardless of how one believes that DNA got there (secondary transfer, etc) it still originated from a male person. I call that person DNA-man.

Never say never, but I never say that this DNA is the killer’s DNA, I never say this is an intruder’s DNA. As a rule I say, this DNA represents a person who must be identified and investigated.

Since the DNA in question did, in fact, come from a male and since the term DNA-man simply refers to that male then my conclusion that “DNA-man was not in the group compared, including the database” remains correct.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

DrSeussMd wrote:
Just a thought on your conversation with L_E since you are basing what you say heavily on “locations” of the DNA – those locations are all locations JBR would have/could have touched when using the bathroom therefore contaminating herself. To deny this means you haven’t had the opportunity to be observant of a 6 year olds toileting habits. Add to that her family’s description of JBR-specific toileting habits.

According to the DNA reports we don’t know that the parents DNA WASN’T all over the place as you put it because the report (or what we have seen of it) omitted Ramsey DNA findings, and I believe many of us would LOVE to know where Ramsey DNA was found!
<quoted text>
DNA can only be meaningful as evidence if it is found in an incriminating location, so of course what I say is based heavily on location.

Location and Most Recent Contact. These are the basic principles, the very foundation upon which the forensic sciences are built.
Jbr’s DNA was found under her nails and the inside crotch of her panties and mom’s DNA was found on the Barbie night gown, as well as bro’s. So, it isn’t true that we don’t know where Ramsey DNA was found.

Also, I think that we would know if any Ramsey DNA was identified in any incriminating location. If no one else, Kolar would have said so.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Heloise wrote:
I agree, Dr Seuss. And in fact, IDI should consider it horribly odd if Ramsey DNA wasn't 'all over her' given that Patsy claimed to have put her to bed and changed her into her bed clothes before doing anything else (including washing her hands after a party where she - Patsy - had had contact with many people).
As far as I'm aware, we don't even know that the longjohns belonged to JBR - we do know that there was a bag of other kids' clothing in the house.
It doesn’t matter if Ramsey DNA was all over her.“All over her” is meaningless. We need only be concerned about DNA found in incriminating locations.

In fact, they only look for DNA in incriminating locations.
We should not expect Mrs Ramsey’s DNA to be found on the leggings, and no Ramsey’s DNA should be expected to be found commingled with jbr’s blood on the inside of her panties. The former would be understandable, but the latter damnable.


AK

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

And the 2-step is still the favorite dance in Texas!:)
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The term DNA-man does NOT infer an intruder.
DNA-man is simply the male whose DNA was found on jbr and subsequently added to the CODIS databank – the panty and leggings samples.
Regardless of how one believes that DNA got there (secondary transfer, etc) it still originated from a male person. I call that person DNA-man.
Never say never, but I never say that this DNA is the killer’s DNA, I never say this is an intruder’s DNA. As a rule I say, this DNA represents a person who must be identified and investigated.
Since the DNA in question did, in fact, come from a male and since the term DNA-man simply refers to that male then my conclusion that “DNA-man was not in the group compared, including the database” remains correct.

AK

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#165
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Then you ARE saying that DNA man is an intruder because the Ramseys said they were home alone that night.(Location/Most Recent Contact)
Anti-K wrote:
DNA can only be meaningful as evidence if it is found in an incriminating location, so of course what I say is based heavily on location.
Location and Most Recent Contact. These are the basic principles, the very foundation upon which the forensic sciences are built.
Well of course JBR’s DNA was under her own nails!

It IS true that we don’t know ALL of the places that the Ramsey DNA was found.
Anti-K wrote:
Jbr’s DNA was found under her nails and the inside crotch of her panties and mom’s DNA was found on the Barbie night gown, as well as bro’s. So, it isn’t true that we don’t know where Ramsey DNA was found.
Not necessarily, because I don’t think he would jeopardize the case by publishing some facts.

But back to the incriminating location scenario, you just glossed over my saying she could have transferred the DNA there herself.
Anti-K wrote:
Also, I think that we would know if any Ramsey DNA was identified in any incriminating location. If no one else, Kolar would have said so.

AK

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#166
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

That isn’t the “complete” truth.

They would probably not test a shirt for blood if the suspect hadn’t worn that shirt in a month and it could not be tied to the crime scene. However, when testing for DNA on an item already known to be at a crime scene, they NOT ONLY test in incriminating locations, they also test areas best known to collect DNA, like the neck area of a shirt where it has made repeated contact with the body (as opposed to the shirttail of a shirt which was worn outside of the pants.)
Anti-K wrote:
It doesn’t matter if Ramsey DNA was all over her.“All over her” is meaningless. We need only be concerned about DNA found in incriminating locations.
In fact, they only look for DNA in incriminating locations.
Well, if you are going to take BOTH sides of the debate - it’s winner winner chicken dinner, LOL!

Why would it not be expected to find PR’s DNA on the longjohns (leggings)?
After all, she did, according to her, dress her sleeping daughter in them. I would worry far more if her DNA was NOT on them.
Anti-K wrote:
We should not expect Mrs Ramsey’s DNA to be found on the leggings, and no Ramsey’s DNA should be expected to be found commingled with jbr’s blood on the inside of her panties. The former would be understandable, but the latter damnable.

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DrSeussMd wrote:
Then you ARE saying that DNA man is an intruder because the Ramseys said they were home alone that night.(Location/Most Recent Contact)
<quoted text>
Well of course JBR’s DNA was under her own nails!
It IS true that we don’t know ALL of the places that the Ramsey DNA was found.
<quoted text>
Not necessarily, because I don’t think he would jeopardize the case by publishing some facts.
But back to the incriminating location scenario, you just glossed over my saying she could have transferred the DNA there herself.
<quoted text>
No, I’m saying that DNA-man was “not in the group compared, including the database.”

He could be an intruder, the killer, or he could be uninvolved and his DNA innocently transferred. Regardless of who he is or how his DNA ended up on the victim, he was “not in the group compared, including the database.”

Yes, I believe that DNA-man is the killer, but I don’t KNOW that. I could be wrong. However, I do know that DNA-man is someone who needs to be identified and investigated. If he’s cleared, than good. At least that would be one mystery solved.

But, NONE of this is relevant to the original point: DNA-man’s DNA is “not in the group compared, including the database.” It doesn’t matter if he is guilty or if he is innocent, his DNA as “not in the group compared, including the database.”


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#168
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DrSeussMd wrote:
Then you ARE saying that DNA man is an intruder because the Ramseys said they were home alone that night.(Location/Most Recent Contact)
<quoted text>
Well of course JBR’s DNA was under her own nails!
It IS true that we don’t know ALL of the places that the Ramsey DNA was found.
<quoted text>
Not necessarily, because I don’t think he would jeopardize the case by publishing some facts.
But back to the incriminating location scenario, you just glossed over my saying she could have transferred the DNA there herself.
<quoted text>
Her DNA was also found commingled with an unidentified male’s DNA, inside her panties, in her blood. Mom’s DNA as on the Barbie nightgown, Burke’s DNA was on the Barbie nightgown.

So, we do know that Ramsey DNA was identified and we know where it was found. Just as we know where Ramsey fingerprints were found, and where Ramsey fibers were found. Could any of these have been found elsewhere? Sure; why not?

However, this is not the sort of information that a Thomas, or a Kolar, etc would keep secret. There is absolutely nothing that shows that either of these persons were concerned about jeopardizing the case “by publishing some facts.”


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DrSeussMd wrote:
That isn’t the “complete” truth.
They would probably not test a shirt for blood if the suspect hadn’t worn that shirt in a month and it could not be tied to the crime scene. However, when testing for DNA on an item already known to be at a crime scene, they NOT ONLY test in incriminating locations, they also test areas best known to collect DNA, like the neck area of a shirt where it has made repeated contact with the body (as opposed to the shirttail of a shirt which was worn outside of the pants.)
<quoted text>
Well, if you are going to take BOTH sides of the debate - it’s winner winner chicken dinner, LOL!
Why would it not be expected to find PR’s DNA on the longjohns (leggings)?
After all, she did, according to her, dress her sleeping daughter in them. I would worry far more if her DNA was NOT on them.
<quoted text>
If DNA transfer happened as easily and frequently as some seem to believe than we should expect to find Mrs Ramsey’s DNA on the leggings.

However, DNA transfer does not happen as easily and frequently as some seem to believe. So, although we should not be surprised if Mrs Ramsey’s DNA was found on the leggings, we should not expect it.

Transfer is more likely to occur if the contact is aggressive and/or sustained. Nervous/sweaty persons are more likely to shed than others. A person’s shedder status can be but is not always affected by hand washing and some people just naturally shed more/less than others.

One person will leave behind their DNA, and another will not; so, we should not expect to find her DNA, but we should not be surprised to find her DNA. IOWS, it could be there, but it might not be there.


AK

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Now you are cookin' with peanut oil!
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
... or he could be uninvolved and his DNA innocently transferred.

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

For anyone attempting to pull leggings on a sleeping (dead weight) child, one WOULD expect DNA to be on the garmet because of having to grip the garmet tightly, so it is NOT surprising at all.

DNA could also have transferred from the garmet being folded up (against itself) and stored at the bottom of the evidence box with other items on top of it weighing it down (or not). I am not saying this happened, just that it is possible.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
If DNA transfer happened as easily and frequently as some seem to believe than we should expect to find Mrs Ramsey’s DNA on the leggings.
However, DNA transfer does not happen as easily and frequently as some seem to believe. So, although we should not be surprised if Mrs Ramsey’s DNA was found on the leggings, we should not expect it.
Transfer is more likely to occur if the contact is aggressive and/or sustained. Nervous/sweaty persons are more likely to shed than others. A person’s shedder status can be but is not always affected by hand washing and some people just naturally shed more/less than others.
One person will leave behind their DNA, and another will not; so, we should not expect to find her DNA, but we should not be surprised to find her DNA. IOWS, it could be there, but it might not be there.

AK

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Whenever moisture and DNA is involved on a garment, co-mingled DNA can occur. There is nothing spectacular about that.
Anti-K wrote:
Her DNA was also found commingled with an unidentified male’s DNA, inside her panties, in her blood. Mom’s DNA as on the Barbie nightgown, Burke’s DNA was on the Barbie nightgown.
That is naďve and misleading to think (and state) ALL of the DNA found has been reported in the public arena.
Anti-K wrote:
So, we do know that Ramsey DNA was identified and we know where it was found.
Naďve again if you think Steve Thomas published everything he knew at the time his book was published, or if you think Kolar has published all he knows.
Anti-K wrote:
Just as we know where Ramsey fingerprints were found, and where Ramsey fibers were found. Could any of these have been found elsewhere? Sure; why not?
However, this is not the sort of information that a Thomas, or a Kolar, etc would keep secret. There is absolutely nothing that shows that either of these persons were concerned about jeopardizing the case “by publishing some facts.”

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173
Jun 23, 2013
 
DrSeussMd wrote:
Now you are cookin' with peanut oil!
<quoted text>
Now you are cookin' with peanut oil? Sorry, but I’m not familiar with that phrase. Where does that come from? I’ve heard “now you’re cookin,’” but, with peanut oil?

Curious. And, I appreciate your sense of humor!


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174
Jun 23, 2013
 
DrSeussMd wrote:
For anyone attempting to pull leggings on a sleeping (dead weight) child, one WOULD expect DNA to be on the garmet because of having to grip the garmet tightly, so it is NOT surprising at all.
DNA could also have transferred from the garmet being folded up (against itself) and stored at the bottom of the evidence box with other items on top of it weighing it down (or not). I am not saying this happened, just that it is possible.
<quoted text>
When you say “expect” it sounds like it MUST be there (something is wrong if it isn’t!), but this isn’t the case. It COULD be there, it MIGHT be there, but it is NOT necessarily going to be there.

A few things to consider:
Ramsey would have handled the garment ONCE, an intruder TWICE (pull down, pull up).

If any tightness of grip or degree of force were required, than it would have been required by both Ramsey and a theorized intruder with the distinction being that Ramsey would have been trying to not disturb the child and would have dressed her in a gentle-as-possible and caring fashion while an intruder would not have cared either way.

Before putting the leggings on jbr, Ramsey would have removed what jbr was already wearing, possibly shedding DNA on that garment, leaving little/nothing to shed on the leggings. An intruder, believed (by some) to have been wearing gloves (which he removed to make contact with the genital area; so one theory goes) possibly would have had a greater amount of cells available for shedding because the gloves cause the hands to sweat. As well, an intruder would have been, to some degree,“nervous,” while Ramsey would have been “calm.”

Regardless, studies done clearly show that some people just naturally shed more/less than others. One person will leave behind their DNA, and another will not; so, we should not EXPECT to find Ramsey’s DNA. It could be there, but it might not be there.

And, that’s the end of this story.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#175
Jun 23, 2013
 
DrSeussMd wrote:
Whenever moisture and DNA is involved on a garment, co-mingled DNA can occur. There is nothing spectacular about that.
<quoted text>
That is naďve and misleading to think (and state) ALL of the DNA found has been reported in the public arena.
<quoted text>
Naďve again if you think Steve Thomas published everything he knew at the time his book was published, or if you think Kolar has published all he knows.
<quoted text>
Foreign male DNA commingled in blood inside the panties of a sexual assault victim is compelling evidence.

Additional Ramsey DNA may have been identified, but that is mere speculation. There is no evidence to support the claim.

I don’t think that Thomas or Kolar published everything that they knew. However, I do think that they published everything that they considered to be suggestive of Ramsey involvement.
.

Sorry for the delay in replying.


AK

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176
Jun 23, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

3

Thank you for seeing the humor I intended :)

From where I come from, the expression is "now you're cookin' with gas", but the peanut oil comment is from a TV show called Duck Dynasty...it is a silly but very clean-humored show about a family who makes duck calls by hand and turned it into a multi-million dollar business - and in the process - never lost their sense of "roots" or down home values. It is on the A&E channel, and is filmed in East Monroe, Louisiana. Phil, the patriarch of the family says it all the time.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are cookin' with peanut oil? Sorry, but I’m not familiar with that phrase. Where does that come from? I’ve heard “now you’re cookin,’” but, with peanut oil?
Curious. And, I appreciate your sense of humor!

AK

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

23 Users are viewing the JonBenet Ramsey Forum right now

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
"Mr Ramsey Listen Carefully!" New book released... 2 hr Undrtheradar 14
Note-odd detail? 2 hr Undrtheradar 221
I know what really happened to JoneBEnnet 18 hr Biz 69
Snow Prints? 18 hr Biz 34
Sid Wells mother complains (Mar '08) Mon candy 26
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) Mon OneWhoCares 7,453
Before I Die Mon Biz 5
•••
•••