First Prev
of 22
Next Last

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

#434 Apr 15, 2013
If the tens of thousands had no contact with JBR, then how can you say they would be a potential match, who remains untested? And further state the foreign DNA belongs to one of those people?

If they had no contact they aren't the killer!

If the foreign DNA doesn't match those who were in contact, then it is most likely an artifact. No killer there!
Anti-K wrote:
Yes, it should be a short list but the short list is a subset of a larger list.
The short list is made up of those known to be in recent contact with the victim leading up to her death and after her death leading up to the autopsy. Most of this list has been tested and not matched. This simply means that the source is someone not on that list.
The larger list is those in Boulder and surrounding area on the night of the crime. How many of those people are in the DNA database? I would venture, not many. Tens of thousands of persons in Boulder and surrounding area on the night of the crime means that there are tens of thousands of potential matches who have never had their DNA submitted to the database and who will never have their DNA submitted to the database. The foreign DNA found on Jonbenet belongs to one of those tens of thousands.

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#435 Apr 15, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
If the tens of thousands had no contact with JBR, then how can you say they would be a potential match, who remains untested? And further state the foreign DNA belongs to one of those people?
If they had no contact they aren't the killer!
If the foreign DNA doesn't match those who were in contact, then it is most likely an artifact. No killer there!
<quoted text>
?
I’m saying that the CODIS DNA sample(s) likely came from someone who was in Boulder or the surrounding area on the night of the crime. That list is made up of tens of thousands of people and that list is a list of possible matches.


AK

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#438 Apr 17, 2013
It is almost a certainty that JBR knew her killer for the following reasons. This, considerably, narrows the prospective DNA donor base.

1. The ransom note writer was familiar with the Ramseys

2. JBR ate pineapple around 30 minutes before being gravely wounded.

3. The perpetrator displayed a certain amount of comfort in the home.

4. Even John, upon finding the body, said: "This is an inside job".

5. Prior abuse. The death is, most certainly, connected with prior abuse. Only someone, with access to JBR, could have been the abuser.

6. If the perp was not a family member, or close friend of the family, the perp was, most certainly,
a psychotic, perverted fiend. Such a person does not stop with one attack. Such a person's DNA would be in a database.

Therefore, the DNA is, most likely, inconsequential to the matter at hand.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#440 Apr 19, 2013
1. The ransom note writer was familiar with the Ramseys – not verified, opinion only, controversial

2. JBR ate pineapple around 30 minutes before being gravely wounded.– meaningless; she could have easily ate it on her own without anyone knowing about it

3. The perpetrator displayed a certain amount of comfort in the home.- agree

4. Even John, upon finding the body, said: "This is an inside job".– john may have been clueless or wrong

5. Prior abuse. The death is, most certainly, connected with prior abuse. Only someone, with access to JBR, could have been the abuser.– no evidence to support claim that death and prior abuse are connected

6. If the perp was not a family member, or close friend of the family, the perp was, most certainly,
a psychotic, perverted fiend. Such a person does not stop with one attack. Such a person's DNA would be in a database.– many such persons are not in the database, maybe most of them. he could have been incapacitated shortly after the murder - death, disease, injury, incarceration; could have left the country; could have changed his evil ways; could have stopped after one attack because the one attack was “personal” and not the act of a psycho or pervert.


AK

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#441 Apr 19, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
1. The ransom note writer was familiar with the Ramseys – not verified, opinion only, controversial
2. JBR ate pineapple around 30 minutes before being gravely wounded.– meaningless; she could have easily ate it on her own without anyone knowing about it
3. The perpetrator displayed a certain amount of comfort in the home.- agree
4. Even John, upon finding the body, said: "This is an inside job".– john may have been clueless or wrong
5. Prior abuse. The death is, most certainly, connected with prior abuse. Only someone, with access to JBR, could have been the abuser.– no evidence to support claim that death and prior abuse are connected
6. If the perp was not a family member, or close friend of the family, the perp was, most certainly,
a psychotic, perverted fiend. Such a person does not stop with one attack. Such a person's DNA would be in a database.– many such persons are not in the database, maybe most of them. he could have been incapacitated shortly after the murder - death, disease, injury, incarceration; could have left the country; could have changed his evil ways; could have stopped after one attack because the one attack was “personal” and not the act of a psycho or pervert.

AK
Here's another one for you.

FBI FACTOID: Child found dead in home. 90% of the time, it's parents or family member.

I've listed about 7 things which suggest familiarity. No one category indicates 100% familiarity, but, taken together, the 7 items present overwhelming evidence of familiarity.

If you really are leaning toward an intruder, you would do yourself a favor by looking heavily at a close acquaintance.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#442 Apr 19, 2013
learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's another one for you.
FBI FACTOID: Child found dead in home. 90% of the time, it's parents or family member.
I've listed about 7 things which suggest familiarity. No one category indicates 100% familiarity, but, taken together, the 7 items present overwhelming evidence of familiarity.
If you really are leaning toward an intruder, you would do yourself a favor by looking heavily at a close acquaintance.
Sadly, statistics only tell us what happens in most cases but not what happened in an individual case.

I think that your list of familiarity could be expanded and I know that a lot of IDI would agree with you on this point.

However, it is possible for someone to become familiar with another person without that person's knowledge. You can follow them around, spy on them, poke through their trash, sneak into their house, peruse public records, etc. The killer could have been familiar with the Ramseys and their home, while remaining completely unknown to them.


AK

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#443 Apr 19, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
?
I’m saying that the CODIS DNA sample(s) likely came from someone who was in Boulder or the surrounding area on the night of the crime. That list is made up of tens of thousands of people and that list is a list of possible matches.

AK
Boulder or the surrounding area? Why do you try and soft-pedal and/or obfuscate the obvious truth?

The person would have had to have been IN THE HOME to kill JBR, not merely "in the surrounding area".

{{{sigh}}}

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#444 Apr 20, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
Boulder or the surrounding area? Why do you try and soft-pedal and/or obfuscate the obvious truth?
The person would have had to have been IN THE HOME to kill JBR, not merely "in the surrounding area".
{{{sigh}}}
There’s no obfuscation.

This all goes back to Candy’s point, I quote: THEY HAD TO BE IN BOULDER AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME, it shortens the LIST as to who could have committed this crime, and it's MOST UNUSUAL it's never been matched, if you're betting it's an intruder's DNA.
The list – I am using Candy’s term – is composed of about three hundred thousand people.

How far away from the Ramseys house could a person drive in an hour? I have NO idea. From here, I could be out of the city in less than ten minutes if I drove in the right direction. So, I say “and surrounding area” to account for someone who was living maybe up to an hour drive away from the house. I’m pretty much saying the exact same thing that Candy’s saying.


AK

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#445 Apr 20, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
There’s no obfuscation.
This all goes back to Candy’s point, I quote: THEY HAD TO BE IN BOULDER AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME, it shortens the LIST as to who could have committed this crime, and it's MOST UNUSUAL it's never been matched, if you're betting it's an intruder's DNA.
The list – I am using Candy’s term – is composed of about three hundred thousand people.
How far away from the Ramseys house could a person drive in an hour? I have NO idea. From here, I could be out of the city in less than ten minutes if I drove in the right direction. So, I say “and surrounding area” to account for someone who was living maybe up to an hour drive away from the house. I’m pretty much saying the exact same thing that Candy’s saying.

AK
Ok thanks for the explanation. I just read back a couple of posts, I am not on the board much anymore and I didn't realize you were specifically relating to Candy's post and the "generality" of what DNA comprises the bulk of the database.

To your other point, Marc Klass always says with missing kids that the 'getaway' formula is a mile a minute, so I don't see where this would be any different.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#446 Apr 20, 2013
No worries.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#449 Apr 27, 2013
learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's another one for you.
FBI FACTOID: Child found dead in home. 90% of the time, it's parents or family member.
I've listed about 7 things which suggest familiarity. No one category indicates 100% familiarity, but, taken together, the 7 items present overwhelming evidence of familiarity.
If you really are leaning toward an intruder, you would do yourself a favor by looking heavily at a close acquaintance.
Reasons in support of a stranger as intruder/killer:
2 ˝ pages of handwriting: Although the author did take steps to discourage identification; for example, using materials from the house, using a sharpie, printing instead of writing; 2 ˝ pages of handwriting and linguistic evidence seems like a lot for someone to create if they were inside any reasonably constructed suspect circle. This speaks to me of someone who was confident that his handwriting and/or written work would never be looked at or considered.

DNA testing: So far, despite concerted effort and over 200 samples compared, no one has been matched to the panty/leggings CODIS samples. These 200 samples represent person known to have been or who could have been in recent contact with the victim up to the time of collection of said samples.

Investigation of persons known to family: Persons close to the family, business associates, etc. were investigated or looked at to determine if investigation was worthwhile and these investigations resulted in no reasonable suspect being revealed.

No conclusive evidence: While it can be said the killer had some familiarity with the Ramseys and/or the interior of the Ramsey home, the killer could have been familiarized himself with them and their home without their knowledge.

No motive: The Ramseys et. al know of no one who could have been motivated to commit this crime against them.
For these reasons I think that the killer was not someone that the Ramseys were familiar with and contend that an intruder was more likely a stranger to them.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#451 Apr 28, 2013
I know someone with degrees in engineering and physics who has done such calculations. I have his work but am not at liberty to share, I have the calculations for a simple fall, an enhanced fall, being slammed against an object and being struck with an object such as a golf club or bat (something that could be swung with speed).

If this child was injured by accident then it was a very strange accident and it involved being struck with an object with force and speed.


AK
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#452 Apr 28, 2013
I am amazed at some of the ingenious things I learn on this thread, in particular about what can happen when being struck with force and speed.
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#453 Apr 28, 2013
Anti-Krist wrote:
<quoted text>
For these reasons I think that the killer was not someone that the Ramseys were familiar with and contend that an intruder was more likely a Stranger to them.

AK
Sandy Stranger.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#454 Apr 29, 2013
BrotherMoon wrote:
<quoted text>
Sandy Stranger.
LOL. Okay, I guess I set myself up for that one!
:)
...

AK

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 22
Next Last

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
Note-odd detail? 12 min berrytea333 1,215
Note attends lectures at Duquesne University 4 hr berrytea333 14
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) 9 hr Bunny 7,485
Suspect John Steven Gigax (Apr '11) 16 hr JimmyWells 147
Wine cellar door...many questions Oct 18 Blackstone Again 13
Fleet, Priscilla White denied official Ramsey e... (Jan '14) Oct 17 candy 198
Jonbenet's "Secret Santa..." Oct 17 Legal__Eagle 65

JonBenet Ramsey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE