Colorado CODIS hits from DNA

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#177 Jun 23, 2013
I will come back for this tomorrow. Not enough time today.
Anti-K wrote:
<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

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#178 Jun 23, 2013
I will come back for this post tomorrow too, but I have time for one quick comment pertaining to your first sentence.

As stated, yes, you are right, however the DNA could not be dated (neither the shed DNA nor the blood)and the co-mingling was due to urine when her bladder voided at death (most likely).

More later :)
Anti-K wrote:
<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

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#179 Jun 24, 2013
Hi AK, I haven't had time today to answer like I thought I would, but I did want to correct the DD location to West Monroe, LA, not East as I previously said. Hopefully I can get to all the posts I wanted to respond to - tomorrow!
DrSeussMd wrote:
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.
<quoted text>

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#180 Jun 24, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
Yes, I’ve seen the show. Or, at least a few minutes of a cpl episodes. I liked the little bits of it that I saw, but my allegiance is to Storage Wars!

Thanks for the explanation.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#181 Jun 24, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
I will come back for this tomorrow. Not enough time today.
<quoted text>
No worries.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#182 Jun 24, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
I will come back for this post tomorrow too, but I have time for one quick comment pertaining to your first sentence.
As stated, yes, you are right, however the DNA could not be dated (neither the shed DNA nor the blood)and the co-mingling was due to urine when her bladder voided at death (most likely).
More later :)
<quoted text>
I’ve heard the “can’t be dated” argument a few times, and I’m not impressed by it. If it “can’t be dated” then it can’t be said to be old.

However, this DNA is date-stamped by presumption and by the specific locations, nature of assault and matching samples on separate articles of clothing.

When I say “by presumption” I am referring to a guiding principle behind the search for, collection and analysis of trace evidence: most recent contact. If this wasn’t true than they wouldn’t even bother looking for this kind of evidence. It would be a waste of valuable time and resources.”

I don’t understand explanation for the commingling.
The likely explanation is that the killer used his saliva as a lubricant for the penetration, thus commingling his DNA with his victim’s when she bled from his assault upon her. This mixture stained the inside crotch of the panties.

The subsequent voiding of bladder should have had no real effect.


AK

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#183 Jun 25, 2013
Now see, this is a perfect example of TIVO, or DVRs or whatever electronic device jump starts your viewing experience, LOL. Tape one and watch the other.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I’ve seen the show. Or, at least a few minutes of a cpl episodes. I liked the little bits of it that I saw, but my allegiance is to Storage Wars!
Thanks for the explanation.

AK

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#184 Jun 25, 2013
Not from where I see it.
The Ramseys would have handled the garment (which, by the way, it seems I repeatedly misspelled in a post the other day, LOL) in the following manner:
Once to wash it
Once to move it from the washer to the dryer
Once getting it out of the dryer
Once folding it
Once putting it away in the drawer
Once getting it out of the drawer
And once placing the garment on JBR
Anti-K wrote:
<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).
There is no gentle way to attempt to dress or undress a sleeping child. It is 60+ pounds of dead weight any way you look at it. Who cares if she stirred or woke up? She supposedly was in her own bed.

Apparently this alleged intruder was very caring, enough so to clean her, redress her, and wrap her up in a blanket – allegedly.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
This is all supposition and borderline JMK, and setting limitations around the expectation the intruder was nervous, and I will just say I disagree and leave it at that.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text> 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.”
I will agree that some people shed more than others but I can’t agree with the ‘expectation’ level.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text> 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

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#187 Jun 26, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Not from where I see it.
The Ramseys would have handled the garment (which, by the way, it seems I repeatedly misspelled in a post the other day, LOL) in the following manner:
Once to wash it
Once to move it from the washer to the dryer
Once getting it out of the dryer
Once folding it
Once putting it away in the drawer
Once getting it out of the drawer
And once placing the garment on JBR
<quoted text>
There is no gentle way to attempt to dress or undress a sleeping child. It is 60+ pounds of dead weight any way you look at it. Who cares if she stirred or woke up? She supposedly was in her own bed.
Apparently this alleged intruder was very caring, enough so to clean her, redress her, and wrap her up in a blanket – allegedly.
<quoted text>
This is all supposition and borderline JMK, and setting limitations around the expectation the intruder was nervous, and I will just say I disagree and leave it at that.
<quoted text>
I will agree that some people shed more than others but I can’t agree with the ‘expectation’ level.
<quoted text>
Well said Seuss. Anyone who has ever dressed/undressed a sleeping child would know how much extra effort that takes. Add to that, the urgency of doing such a thing in a situation such as this and you have real problems

The "evidence" was handled by just about everyone that morning and the DNA is nothing more than a red herring, especially since there is also Ramsey DNA there. If the Ramseys didn't do it and THEIR DNA is on there, then you can hardly expect to convict anyone else with the DNA UNLESS they are a total stranger with no ties to anyone in Boulder with no excuse for having DNA on JBR.

The DNA has bought the Ramseys much needed and craved for "they must be innocent" remarks from the public at large which they got. Unfortunately the public in general is not aware of all the other circumstances.

The DNA will forever be their get out of jail free card unless more information is revealed.

I personally believe that little by little, more information about this case will leak out.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#188 Jun 26, 2013
Justice, ENOUGH! Please!
You are doing nothing but maligning an innocent person by coming on here every few months and bringing up the same crap about this INNOCENT person who happened to have the same last name as JonBenet.

It is libel because you have NOTHING to prove otherwise and you are doing it intentionally. If the guy in NJ is talking about you to other people it is because he thinks you are a whack job! JR did NOT have an illigitimate son no matter what you think. Please take your conspiracy and insanity someplace else and quit jeoparadizing the case threads here with your nonsense.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#189 Jun 26, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Justice, ENOUGH! Please!
You are doing nothing but maligning an innocent person by coming on here every few months and bringing up the same crap about this INNOCENT person who happened to have the same last name as JonBenet.
It is libel because you have NOTHING to prove otherwise and you are doing it intentionally. If the guy in NJ is talking about you to other people it is because he thinks you are a whack job! JR did NOT have an illigitimate son no matter what you think. Please take your conspiracy and insanity someplace else and quit jeoparadizing the case threads here with your nonsense.
Rarely, if EVER, do illigitimate children, especially secret children and black sheep children, carry the same last name as their father, IF they are being kept secret.

I would tend to "assume" that JR, being the womanizer that he is/was, would be "careful" about making babies and certainly with all that has been researched, if he had an illigitimate child, they would have uncovered that, especially if there was an "angry" illigitimate child. An "angry" illigitimate child would have come forward immediately to make the Ramseys look bad

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#190 Jun 26, 2013
Good thoughts, and also the forensic accountant would have found annual payments when going through the Ramsey financials.

I don't know what this poster wants, 15 minutes, or revenge cause this Bill guy "did her wrong", LOL. Maybe it is just anything which leads away from what really happened. It is all too reminiscent of Jackie Dilson and Chris Wolfe - women scorned.
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Rarely, if EVER, do illigitimate children, especially secret children and black sheep children, carry the same last name as their father, IF they are being kept secret.
I would tend to "assume" that JR, being the womanizer that he is/was, would be "careful" about making babies and certainly with all that has been researched, if he had an illigitimate child, they would have uncovered that, especially if there was an "angry" illigitimate child. An "angry" illigitimate child would have come forward immediately to make the Ramseys look bad

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#191 Jun 26, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Not from where I see it.
The Ramseys would have handled the garment (which, by the way, it seems I repeatedly misspelled in a post the other day, LOL) in the following manner:
Once to wash it
Once to move it from the washer to the dryer
Once getting it out of the dryer
Once folding it
Once putting it away in the drawer
Once getting it out of the drawer
And once placing the garment on JBR
<quoted text>
There is no gentle way to attempt to dress or undress a sleeping child. It is 60+ pounds of dead weight any way you look at it. Who cares if she stirred or woke up? She supposedly was in her own bed.
Apparently this alleged intruder was very caring, enough so to clean her, redress her, and wrap her up in a blanket – allegedly.
<quoted text>
This is all supposition and borderline JMK, and setting limitations around the expectation the intruder was nervous, and I will just say I disagree and leave it at that.
<quoted text>
I will agree that some people shed more than others but I can’t agree with the ‘expectation’ level.
<quoted text>
All the other handling you bring up is superfluous. We’re talking about two very specific locations believed to be “used” by her attacker to pull the leggings down and then up and possibly by Mrs Ramsey to put them on.

Of course you can dress or undress a sleeping child with care and attention so as to not wake them. Yes, I am speaking from experience. Regardless, the point is that a parent laying a sleeping child to bed and a killer bent on murder and assault are likely going to handle matters (persons/clothing, etc.) in very different ways. Obviously; right?

I don’t agree that cleaning or redressing or what-have-you is necessarily indicative of “caring.” These could be the acts of someone, for example, wishing to disguise his actions/motivation, they could have been done out of forensic concern; etc.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#192 Jun 26, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said Seuss. Anyone who has ever dressed/undressed a sleeping child would know how much extra effort that takes. Add to that, the urgency of doing such a thing in a situation such as this and you have real problems
The "evidence" was handled by just about everyone that morning and the DNA is nothing more than a red herring, especially since there is also Ramsey DNA there. If the Ramseys didn't do it and THEIR DNA is on there, then you can hardly expect to convict anyone else with the DNA UNLESS they are a total stranger with no ties to anyone in Boulder with no excuse for having DNA on JBR.
The DNA has bought the Ramseys much needed and craved for "they must be innocent" remarks from the public at large which they got. Unfortunately the public in general is not aware of all the other circumstances.
The DNA will forever be their get out of jail free card unless more information is revealed.
I personally believe that little by little, more information about this case will leak out.
We’re talking about DNA not associated with anyone that was there that morning or otherwise related to the handling of the body – those persons were included in the 200 plus compared.

So, as far as we currently know, that DNA did come from a stranger, and therefore someone with no excuse.

And, it simply isn’t true that “the ‘evidence’ was handled by just about everyone that morning.”


AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#193 Jun 26, 2013
My experiences with dressing/undressing sleeping children seems to have been much different than others! Other than dead wright (not a problem, kids just aren’t that heavy), they’re pretty easy to manipulate and move around, unlike awake children who are resisting or awkward because of play, or temperament, or distraction, etc.

One of the reasons that dressing/undressing a child can sometimes be awkward or difficult is because we care, we don’t want to hurt them. It’s the same reason why a struggling, resistant child can be hard to control, we don’t; want to hurt them. A person intent on assault and murder has no such qualms.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#194 Jun 26, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Now see, this is a perfect example of TIVO, or DVRs or whatever electronic device jump starts your viewing experience, LOL. Tape one and watch the other.
<quoted text>
Here (western Canada) we call it a PVR (personal video recorder). We pvr everything, except the hockey game which we must watch live. Right now I have every episode of Bates Motel recorded, but I have not watched a single second of any of them! So, probably not a good idea to start recording anything new!
:)


AK
ritas

Sophia, WV

#196 Jul 25, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
seems the DNA owner is not a career criminal...maybe the DNA owner wasn't much older than JB and has yet to commit a crime? Or one of the many adults that helped JB in the bathroom?
There's no way of knowing whether that DNA got there innocently or not without knowing the owner of it. Too bad the Ramseys weren't more forthcoming and helpful to the police by telling them everyone and everywhere JB came in contact with.
The Ramseys, if they had nothing to hide, should have cooperated with the authorities.

As a parent and grandparent, I know that young children are apt to hold onto the toilet seat when they are seated on the commode. How far fetched is it to believe that touch DNA could have been transferred from the seat to her hands and then to her undies when she wiped back to front (her hands touching the crotch of her panties) and then to her waist band as she pulled up her undies?

I am not very familiar with touch DNA, but this sounds plausible to me. And, people do cough on toilet seats as well. Many diseases are contracted from toilet seats. Why not DNA? DNA can be explained away, I think. But the ransom note is concrete.

Since: May 11

AOL

#198 Aug 2, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
My experiences with dressing/undressing sleeping children seems to have been much different than others! Other than dead wright (not a problem, kids just aren’t that heavy), they’re pretty easy to manipulate and move around, unlike awake children who are resisting or awkward because of play, or temperament, or distraction, etc.
One of the reasons that dressing/undressing a child can sometimes be awkward or difficult is because we care, we don’t want to hurt them. It’s the same reason why a struggling, resistant child can be hard to control, we don’t; want to hurt them. A person intent on assault and murder has no such qualms.

AK
however rough you may be with your sleeping child, you still have to handle the clothing and specifically the ankle cuffs of longjohn's you're pulling over the feet. Should be a wealth of touch DNA on JBR's longjohn cuffs..if only they'd looked.
Anonymous

Sophia, WV

#199 Aug 8, 2013
Did Jonbenet wear her long johns underneath the black leggings that day? I read it was six degrees when they returned home that night. Had Patsy dressed her warmly? Could she have worn them to the party and come in contact with the dna when she sat on a commode? Many children do sit on the toilet seat and they will use their hands to balance themselves and to help themselves up and down off the commode. Could her underwear and her hands have come into contact with urine as well as skin cells left on the seat by someone's rear? Of course, she used her hands to pull up her undies and long johns. So if she had skin cells from someone else on her hands, would that then transfer to the long johns and be responsible for the touch dna found on them? Has anyone contemplated this? And is it at all possible? Anyone know? Would love a reply to this specifically.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#201 Sep 10, 2013
Read it and weep pro Rams. Figures current as of July, 2013:

"CBI has received 113,240 DNA samples from felony arrestees. From these samples, 92,696 have been tested and entered into the felony arrestee database resulting in 628 "hits" FOURTEEN (14) of which were homicides. Another technology tool that is assisting with clearing cold cases is the new AFIS system CBI is using."

That's a WHOPPING 0.015 percent of cold DNA "hits" that even match to a homicide. AND NONE OF THE 14 HAS MATCHED THE JONBENET RAMSEY HOMICIDE.

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
Ramsey VS Spitz lawsuit (radio show) 1 min KCinNYC 1
Burke Ramsey VS CBS and The Experts, and Critic... 20 min KCinNYC 16
When did Garnett say 'the world will know'? 42 min KCinNYC 4
John Ramsey vs CBS, Experts, Critical Content P... 44 min KCinNYC 3
How safe was Boulder in 1996? (Feb '11) 5 hr Just Wondering 61
Upside down note; tiara in basement (Sep '16) 7 hr Texxy 228
Bed room, Train room, Locked room.. Back room (Jun '10) 7 hr Texxy 6
More from around the web