And that does not explain why the early sample had the DNA comingled with her blood, BTW what you report shows how silly the Chinese clothing manufacturer as source of the DNA was.
And the fact that what you say here is so silly is one os the many reasons the police and the authorities have not dismised the DNA evidence as much as you wish it to be.
Bill James, who wrote about this case in his book “Popular Crime” (he feels it was an outside intruder looking to get a quick $118,000 from the father) says the CBS show is an incredible piece of trash with fantastic leaps of faith presented by evidence. A real bad police job from the start (not sealing off the place) that got even worse, with the father trying to take control of the investigation.
…ya see? That wasn’t so hard. Although the extract you chose to highlight wasn’t very helpful. Millions of Americans pray. The relevant section of your cite was:
Which doesn’t seem out of character for the man:
He seems to be an equal opportunity “prayer” who routinely prayed with suspects before interviewing them. As an atheist I don’t think that is right. But if he routinely prayed with suspects then why was praying with the Ramsey’s problematic?
You just don’t get it. Nobody knows how or when that DNA got on her body or clothing. Nobody knows who that DNA belongs to it. That makes it nearly worthless as evidence. It does cast doubt on anyone accused of the crime without otherwise conclusive evidence. That’s it.
Yes, sometimes they don’t get it right, no one is 100% correct all the time.
They get it right a lot more often than lynch mobs do.
The general public has no particular expertise or skill in determining innocence or guilt which is exactly why the general public needs to STFU and stop trying people in the court of public opinion.
…I don’t quite think you know how this evidence thing works.
There’s no conclusion to be drawn from unknown DNA. It could have been left on her by anybody, anytime before or after her demise. It doesn’t have to be the DNA of someone who was in contact with her either, they could have transferred it from someone else. Given other evidence of a person’s guilt, and it’s not their DNA, they’ll try to use it to cast doubt, and if the evidence against them is weak it would probably work. If they identify the DNA and it’s someone that could have been in contact with the girl before or after she was killed, or had their DNA transferred by someone who had that contact, that would cast substantial doubt unless other evidence ties them to the crime. DNA by itself is just DNA, it’s left by humans everywhere.
…I’m not suggesting we draw a conclusion from “unknown DNA.” I’m suggesting that unknown DNA found at a crime scene under the fingernails and on the underwear of the victim is not “nearly worthless as evidence”. Crime labs around the world are not going to suddenly throw up their arms and declare “DNA is just DNA! ITS LEFT BY HUMANS EVERYWHERE!!!” And close their doors in a huff. That isn’t how it works.
Nope, I do get it. Even after the DA, that was accused with very little reason of being fruit loops, was out of the case and not controlling the FBI lab; the labs did their job and the authorities now have not considered it nearly worthless as they continue to consider the family to not had been involved for the other logical reason that the family DNA was not found commingled* with her blood (in 2 or more different places) and then under her fingernails. There are several logical issues that the ones that want to ignore the DNA evidence are recklessly dropping. The main one is that the progress of the science has made possible to now get a better profile to the male that had access to several pieces of her underwear and handled her body. Another one is that DNA is not the only reason why an intruder was not dismissed.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/27/jonbenet.dna/
Speaking about the show, it is clear that they had a predetermined conclusion, just about par for the course for a network that also takes Bigfoot seriously.
I thought we were talking about JonBenet Ramsey, not the Lindbergh kidnapping. :rolleyes:
John Douglas’s book on unsolved crimes ends with the Ramsey case and it’s transparent that he used the previous cases to set up his opinion on the former. He does make several points about the crime scene that make it unlikely the parents were involved (mostly, that even horrid parents who kill their child can’t help but make the body “comfortable”; Charlie Lindbergh was dumped in a heap in the forest, and JonBenet was not “arranged” as a parent would have done).
Short take: everything goes to hell when parents or family get in the way of an investigation, no matter how pure their motives.
But it’s still a case hardly anyone would care about were it not a super-pretty little white girl.
I didn’t say that. You know the circumstances in this particular case leave doubt as to how the DNA got on her body.
I think everyone got your point the first time you thickly laid it on.
This has nothing to do with the labs. It has to do with determining how the DNA got onto her in the first place. Unknown DNA, plus a lack of conclusive evidence are the reasons an intruder is often dismissed, but there’s no reason to exclude an intruder as long as there’s no conclusive evidence of a family member killing her anyway. If you were placing odds on who killed the girl, or making docutainment, then meager evidence of an intruder might point to family involvement. That’s not at all the same thing as proof. And actual legal investigators shouldn’t be dismissing any piece of evidence unless in can be proven invalid.
Not by the FBI, and not by the police, that if you noticed decided to ignore that evidence early or were not aware of it until later.
The issue at hand though is that better evidence is being ignored or dismissed cavalierly by the ones making the show to reach a predetermined or *popular *conclusion.
It just looks more and more like the usual shows that do pander to the cherished ignorance of many.
All this after Nancy Grace, the consummate scab-picker, has left HLN. However can she profit from this exhuming of JonBenet?
Yeah, I could tell from the torch mobs.
To spread another layer, you realize that a shitty pseudo-documentary about a case that would be forgotten is being intensely debated as if it mattered in the least. It’s important to you all, or a surprise, that a TV show is cranked for maximum eyeballs and ad revenue over sticking with the tired facts of a child murder from 20 years ago? Why is this one worth so much attention, and two hours of TV time (and your watching it), over the other 1,500 or so from that year alone?
Pretty-pretty lil’ white girl from an upscale family, that’s why. Being used to generate ad revenue.
Puke.
i’m with you on this one. i did find it a creepy. panties is not on my favourite word list and it was said so very many times, way too many times.
undies, knickers, bloomers, underpants, under garment, all okay. panties, not so much.
Keep in mind, the underpants that JB was found in weren’t even hers. They were several sizes too large. Patsy eventually claimed that she had bought those pants for her niece, who wore that size (at the time). Somehow they ended up in JB’s drawer …
In my opinion, the DNA on the clothes is less important than the DNA on the poop that was on JB’s stuff. Normal ten-year olds do not smear their poop on stuff.
As for the pineapple - it’s important because JB ate some of it just before she died (the pineapple in her stomach was undigested.) Plus, Burke’s fingerprints were on the pineapple bowl, even though all of the Ramsey’s denied having anything to do with it. So we know he was lying about that.
If the Ramsey’s didn’t make the pineapple, then you have the murderer in the kitchen making pineapple-in-milk snack exactly the way Burke liked it. Meanwhile, the kids are running around, Patsy’s packing, someone is wrapping and rewrapping presents - no one notices the snack time? Yeah, it’s a big house but it’s not Buckingham Palace. It just doesn’t make sense.
And then there’s Burke acting all squirrelly when someone asks him about the pineapple. He’s clearly got some sort of issues with it.
Anyway - Burke has decided to sue. It were really smart, he’d just shut the hell up. The more he talks, the worse he looks.
The ransom letter is the most telling clue. It has several of Patsy Ramsey’s peculiar spellings and turns of phrase. One good analysis here.
That letter ties the murderer to the Ramsey household in my opinion. As for who killed JonBenet I think the likely answer is her brother, although we will never be certain.
You must not know that the Star and the Globe. They also thought that they could get around posting “news” with no evidence, they had to settle with the family then.