DNA and Krane

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#165 Nov 6, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>An indictment constitutes a charge. Just in case that escaped your attention...
Grand juries issue indictments. District attorneys file charges. The latter has not occurred. You're welcome.:o)

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#166 Nov 6, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The sources I used are accepted sources. This is not mere speculation; it is the professional opinion of credible expert and it is based upon, in large part, the autopsy report.
...
AK
Hi AK,
Accepted sources? By whom? PMPT is NOT an accepted force by any court. Neither is any book that I know of. If you consider PMPT an "accepted source" then the Ramsey family should have been indicted with "Inside the Jonbenet Investigation".

ACCEPTED SOURCES would be anything backed by OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS, such as the auropsy report or the written statements made by Taser,
CC

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#167 Nov 6, 2013
Forcible rape is a form of sexual assault, but all sex assaults are not classified as rapes.
Steve Eller

Union, NJ

#168 Nov 6, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>Grand juries issue indictments. District attorneys file charges. The latter has not occurred. You're welcome.:o)
You are right I absolutely must thank you for vividly demonstrating how the only thing that the Ramsey Apologists have left to cling to are some practically subatomic particles and pseudo semantics. For your reference, it is the clerk who is tasked with formally filing the charges that are submitted by the DA and presented by the Grand Jury. Please go look up what an indictment is and try to remember it longer than AK or at least for five minutes whichever is longer.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#169 Nov 6, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. There is no evidence that supports an intruder, and the DNA does not belong to Patsy, John, or Burke. Therefore, the DNA CANNOT be connected to the crime unless you can prove an intruder.
CC
This surprises me. I thought that everyone accepted that Jonbenet had been sexually assaulted at or near time of death. Are there others who deny this?


AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#170 Nov 6, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. There is no evidence that supports an intruder, and the DNA does not belong to Patsy, John, or Burke. Therefore, the DNA CANNOT be connected to the crime unless you can prove an intruder.
CC
Wow. Bakatari, try to understand what is being said! Good grief. I am not saying that the DNA IS connected to the crime, I am saying that it needs to be sourced to an innocent object or person BEFORE we can say that it is not connected to the crime.

This is the reason that BPD and the DA’s office have spent so much time and money, etc on trying to source it. If it was as you describe, then none of these valuable resources would have been spent on it.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#171 Nov 6, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
Accepted sources? By whom? PMPT is NOT an accepted force by any court. Neither is any book that I know of. If you consider PMPT an "accepted source" then the Ramsey family should have been indicted with "Inside the Jonbenet Investigation".
ACCEPTED SOURCES would be anything backed by OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS, such as the auropsy report or the written statements made by Taser,
CC
We’re not in court.

PMPT has always been accepted as a source. The quotes in PMPT were expert opinions based on the autopsy report.

Kolar has also been accepted as a source. Here’s what he had to say about it,“Experts in their field, physicians and forensic pathologists were consulted from St. Louis, Missouri; Dade County, Florida; Wayne County, Michigan, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to name just a few. They examined the series of photographs that depicted the injuries and came to the opinion that Jonbenet had been subjected to sexual intrusion prior to the INSERTION OF THE FOREIGN OBJECT THAT HAD CREATED THE INJURY AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH. Kolar; p. 63

Also,“[Dr Meyer] observed that there was fresh trauma located at the 7:00 o’clock position at the hymeneal opening. The area was inflamed and had been bleeding, and it appeared to Dr Meyer that A FOREIGN OBJECT HAD BEEN INSERTED INTO JONBENET’S GENITALIA AT OR NEAR THE TIME OF HER DEATH. p. 87-58


AK

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#172 Nov 6, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
This surprises me. I thought that everyone accepted that Jonbenet had been sexually assaulted at or near time of death. Are there others who deny this?

AK
Hi Anti K,
I go by the autopsy report, which is official. It says nothing about a sexual assault.

There is no positive evidence that JB was sexually assaulted at the time of her murder. She might have been sexually assauted days, or weeks prior to her death.

Remember, JB was found fully clothed. If you can source anything reliable that says she was sexually assaulted at the time of her murder, please bring it on.
CC

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#173 Nov 6, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
We’re not in court.
PMPT has always been accepted as a source. The quotes in PMPT were expert opinions based on the autopsy report.
Kolar has also been accepted as a source. Here’s what he had to say about it,“Experts in their field, physicians and forensic pathologists were consulted from St. Louis, Missouri; Dade County, Florida; Wayne County, Michigan, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to name just a few. They examined the series of photographs that depicted the injuries and came to the opinion that Jonbenet had been subjected to sexual intrusion prior to the INSERTION OF THE FOREIGN OBJECT THAT HAD CREATED THE INJURY AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH. Kolar; p. 63
Also,“[Dr Meyer] observed that there was fresh trauma located at the 7:00 o’clock position at the hymeneal opening. The area was inflamed and had been bleeding, and it appeared to Dr Meyer that A FOREIGN OBJECT HAD BEEN INSERTED INTO JONBENET’S GENITALIA AT OR NEAR THE TIME OF HER DEATH. p. 87-58

AK
PMPT was written by the Ramsey supporters, and cannot be considered any more an "acceptable source" than Inside the Jonbenet Ramsey Investigation by ST.

Actually, I tend to think that ST's version is far more acceptable than PMPT.

An acceptable source is something that can be supported with FACTUAL evidence.
CC

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#174 Nov 7, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Anti K,
I go by the autopsy report, which is official. It says nothing about a sexual assault.

There is no positive evidence that JB was sexually assaulted at the time of her murder. She might have been sexually assauted days, or weeks prior to her death.
The autopsy report notes injuries consistent with sexual assault. The presence of blood indicates JonBenet was sexually assaulted near the time of death.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#175 Nov 7, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
PMPT was written by the Ramsey supporters, and cannot be considered any more an "acceptable source" than Inside the Jonbenet Ramsey Investigation by ST.
Actually, I tend to think that ST's version is far more acceptable than PMPT.
An acceptable source is something that can be supported with FACTUAL evidence.
CC
Acceptable sources have different meanings for different people as you well know Bakatari There are those who take the word of the prime suspects as gospel truth when in fact, that just cannot, by nature of the case, be taken as all truth. Testimony must be considered more carefully depending on the stake in the outcome by those testifying and judged accordingly

Much of the sources of old are outdated but the basics remain and you are quite right about support with factual evidence although the sources of those involved i.e. Kolar, Thomas, etc. may carry more weight than some others who write books or declare their opinions.

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#176 Nov 7, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Bakatari, try to understand what is being said! Good grief. I am not saying that the DNA IS connected to the crime, I am saying that it needs to be sourced to an innocent object or person BEFORE we can say that it is not connected to the crime.
This is the reason that BPD and the DA’s office have spent so much time and money, etc on trying to source it. If it was as you describe, then none of these valuable resources would have been spent on it.

AK
Hi AK,
The contributor of the alleged DNA will never be matched or found. Still, we cannot say that it is evidence until we can prove it to be.

Being that there is no evidence that supports an intruder, I would say that the alleged DNA only proves that the contributor's DNA contacted the items where it was found, sometime in history. Until there is sufficient evidence of an intruder, we should conclude that there was no intruder.
CC

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#177 Nov 7, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Acceptable sources have different meanings for different people as you well know Bakatari There are those who take the word of the prime suspects as gospel truth when in fact, that just cannot, by nature of the case, be taken as all truth. Testimony must be considered more carefully depending on the stake in the outcome by those testifying and judged accordingly
Much of the sources of old are outdated but the basics remain and you are quite right about support with factual evidence although the sources of those involved i.e. Kolar, Thomas, etc. may carry more weight than some others who write books or declare their opinions.
Hi Cap,
I agree.
I think Lou Smit, and the poster who went by the pseudo of "Jameson" did a great job in pulling the wool over some people's eyes.

Bode Technologies claimed to have found TDNA on the longjohns, now there are claims that DNA was found on the garrote, the ligatures, and elsewhere. This is without any official Bode report being released.

PMPT is not worth reading, because of the bias, yet we find people accepting the "information" from it as a "reliable source"
CC

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#178 Nov 7, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Cap,
I agree.
I think Lou Smit, and the poster who went by the pseudo of "Jameson" did a great job in pulling the wool over some people's eyes.......

CC
Hi Bakatari,

I agree but what is the most telling is the fact that there was a need to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. That alone, is evidence of something very wrong and very "cover up" INNOCENT people don't have a need to dupe anyone

I don't understand what others think (and I'm being serious) about being lied to and why they think they were lied to? I just would think that people would have been disgusted. They are not and as adamant as ever, backing up the very people who duped them

Amazing

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#179 Nov 7, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
I think the evidence shows that the victim was sexually assaulted at or very near point of death. I think the evidence suggests that the missing end of the paint brush was used for the assault (penetration).
As with Kolar’s version of the DNA, I choose to accept prior abuse as being true for the sake of discussion. In fact, I am not convinced one way or the other. Regardless, here on topix I accept prior abuse as being true. So, now it’s true. But, I am not aware of any evidence that connects that prior abuse to the murder.
I would not argue that the abuse is NOT connected to the murder, maybe it was. There just any evidence to show that.
Could it be coincidence? Of course! Jonbenet could have been abused by one person and later killed by another. Why not? Persons being abused or who have been abused do not somehow become impervious to later acts of violence. Prior or current abuse does not grant the abuser exclusivity. So, yes, it could be coincidence. It wouldn’t even be the strangest or even the unlikeliest one, and there is no evidence to show otherwise.
Yes, I think that the perpetrator of the prior abuse should be identified (and worse).
I certainly don’t think that there was any sex ring or pedophile thing involved either way. I’m not even convinced that this was sexually motivated.
I’m curious as to which book you are referring.
...
AK
The Pedophile-Ring Gang use Stephen Singular's book on this as their bible. Since you say you don't connect the prior sexual abuse to the abuse on the night of the murder, I thought you are on that bandwagon.

That's because it's so improbable that a child who had the level of supervision JonBenet had would be sexually abused by one person before the night of the murder and yet a completely unrelated intruder comes in and does something even more diabolical to the child, including murder, I can't imagine how you can make that argument with a straight face.

I swear, AK, how you can find all these elements of this crime--the ACTUAL BODY OF EVIDENCE--don't lead to the Ramseys, I can't understand with any explanation but that you don't want to admit the truth.

The general body of evidence:

The Ramseys in the house all have no alibi by their own admission; Patsy's and John's fibers were on the body, ligature, clothing of the child, in the paint tray where she was strangled, with Patsy's paintbrush; Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple and glass of tea; their DNA was on the gown next to the body; Patsy's handwriting, pad, pen, familiar language patterns, inside info in the ransom note; the Ramseys obstructed the investigation at every turn, lied to LE, lied to the public, and still refuse to help LE TO THIS DAY; THE CHILD WAS BEING MOLESTED BEFORE THE NIGHT SHE WAS KILLED.

And the Grand Jury saw the evidence, the interviews, questioned witnesses, spent over a year going over the case...AND VOTED TO INDICT BOTH PARENTS.

There is NO evidence that any intruder was in the home that night.

And you still think this is all some intruder's doing?

I'm done. I give up debating this with Intruderists because you DO NOT look at the body of evidence, but argue nano-particles of DNA--and that's ALL YOU HAVE.

With the odds you present using your "DNA evidence of an intruder", you may as well argue it was Alien X4681Z97507 from Planet Intruder in the Ramsey Galaxy.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#180 Nov 7, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Bakatari,
I agree but what is the most telling is the fact that there was a need to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. That alone, is evidence of something very wrong and very "cover up" INNOCENT people don't have a need to dupe anyone
I don't understand what others think (and I'm being serious) about being lied to and why they think they were lied to? I just would think that people would have been disgusted. They are not and as adamant as ever, backing up the very people who duped them
Amazing
Dan Caplis said it best regarding Lacy being fooled by Tracey: "You have to want to be fooled."

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#181 Nov 7, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>The autopsy report notes injuries consistent with sexual assault. The presence of blood indicates JonBenet was sexually assaulted near the time of death.
Hi M2,

That is YOUR interpretation of the official autopsy report. I don't see ANYTHING in it that says JBR was "Sexually assaulted", or "Probably sexually assaulted" at the time, or near the time of her death.

Again, JBR was found fully clothed with the only discrepancy being the over sized panty. There is no evidence that she was even undressed before or at the time of her murder. IF there was, then she had to be re-dressed, without any discrepancy, except for the over sized panty.

What evidence to you think shows that JBR was probably sexually assaulted at the time of her murder?
CC

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#182 Nov 7, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Bakatari,
I agree but what is the most telling is the fact that there was a need to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. That alone, is evidence of something very wrong and very "cover up" INNOCENT people don't have a need to dupe anyone
I don't understand what others think (and I'm being serious) about being lied to and why they think they were lied to? I just would think that people would have been disgusted. They are not and as adamant as ever, backing up the very people who duped them
Amazing
Hi Cap,
I think that about half of the IDIs here are here just for argument sake, and will be IDI just because they love to argue whether right or wrong. I think the other half who actually believe the propaganda of the pro Ramsey machine are ignorant.

What the pro Ramsey people need to do, is somehow create an intruder who doesn't leave footprints in the snow.
CC

Since: May 11

AOL

#183 Nov 7, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi M2,
That is YOUR interpretation of the official autopsy report. I don't see ANYTHING in it that says JBR was "Sexually assaulted", or "Probably sexually assaulted" at the time, or near the time of her death.
Again, JBR was found fully clothed with the only discrepancy being the over sized panty. There is no evidence that she was even undressed before or at the time of her murder. IF there was, then she had to be re-dressed, without any discrepancy, except for the over sized panty.
What evidence to you think shows that JBR was probably sexually assaulted at the time of her murder?
CC
I guess Jane Harmer's power point presentation of JonBenet's privates wasn't enough for you. I guess you need her to be lying naked and exposed to prove previous molestation. With that kind of thinking, I guess you expect women that have been raped to forever walk around without their pants on so you'll know they were assaulted.
This entire case, and it's cover up, is based on the FACT that JBR was PREVIOUSLY MOLESTED. It's all about this awful reality and you IDIs better face it or talk about bullies in football or Miley Cyrus' twerking nonsense.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#184 Nov 7, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>Hi M2,

That is YOUR interpretation of the official autopsy report. I don't see ANYTHING in it that says JBR was "Sexually assaulted", or "Probably sexually assaulted" at the time, or near the time of her death.

Again, JBR was found fully clothed with the only discrepancy being the over sized panty. There is no evidence that she was even undressed before or at the time of her murder. IF there was, then she had to be re-dressed, without any discrepancy, except for the over sized panty.

What evidence to you think shows that JBR was probably sexually assaulted at the time of her murder?
CC
Hello,CC...

The presence & location of blood leads me to believe JB was sexually assaulted near the time of death. From the autopsy report:

"On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood."

"A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present in the skin of the fourchette and the vestibule."

"A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault."

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
JonBenet Ramsey File- Miscellaneous 55 min robert 11
The head blow, just a thought. (Mar '15) 59 min robert 63
John Ramsey vs. CBS, Critical Content,Experts 2 hr robert 9
Social Anxiety Disorder 2 hr KCinNYC 12
Eyes of Jon Benet (Apr '17) 2 hr Let It Snow 17
strange things. 2 hr heatherk79 17
Radio Show on JonBenet (Aug '11) 2 hr Let It Snow 187
More from around the web