Let me cut this off before it gets silly. Do you seriously think it impossible to discretely get a stranger’s pubes and dead skin?
The expertise to plant dead skin and a pube? Are you serious?
Read **Pleaonast’**s last post.
How did they plant the touch DNA? The suggestion is absurd.
I have to admit, there was a time that I thought, “Obviously the Ramsey’s are guilty!” But the stories of Elizabeth Smart and Jaycee Dugard have pretty much taken that “obviously” out of my mind.
Sometimes, crazy things happen.
The hair was not found on JonBenet, it was on the blanket that was used to cover her body. “Touch” DNA is essentially skin cells. She could get some under her fingernails by shaking someone’s hand (she was at a party right before she went to bed) and transferred it to her clothes by herself when getting dressed.
Speaking of getting dressed, Patsy Ramsey was wearing the same clothes in the morning when police arrived that she wore to the party the night before.
Too late. Your post is ludicrous for myriad reasons.
[ol]
[li]DNA under fingernails isn’t just dead skin. It’s from scratching at an attacker. I don’t know what to say if you think the family harvested skin from a random male unconnected to the family and shoved it under a child’s fingernails[/li][li]This same DNA is found in blood on the child’s underwear. Cite[/li][li]Years later, technological advances allow for touch DNA analysis of her clothing. Touch DNA matching the previous two samples is found on the child’s longjohns that she’d been wearing to sleep. Cite (including linked CNN article)[/li][/ol]
To recap: unknown male DNA is found in blood in her underpants as well as in skin cells under her fingernails. Neither of these things are “touch DNA”. Even if you assume that the family has somehow procured a blood sample and a skin sample from an unknown male to cover their tracks, then you are assuming they also procured dead skin cells to place on a third garment just in case technology progressed such that a decade later these cells could be identified.
While this does not prove the family was not involved in the technical sense, Dio is correct to assert it is ludicrous that the family could both plant 2 DNA samples as well as a third sample in the event technology progressed in the next 10 years.
You’re going to have to do better than accusations of being happy at the funeral and wearing the same clothes the next day. There is not a shred of physical or circumstantial evidence against this family.
The touch DNA was in the waistband of her longjohns. A pubic hair is still a pubic hair, and it didn’t belong to the Ramseys.
Who gives a fuck what Patsy was wearing the next morning? Maybe she fell asleep in her clothes. Maybe she just picked up what was lying on the floor. That means absolutely dick.
You can’t exp[lain away the DNA. The Ramseys were cleared in 2008. The Boulder DA’s office has not rescinded that. They are entitled to the respect due to victims.
I think that that Patsy’s wearing the same clothes on the next day points to her innocence. Maybe she was exhausted from setting up Christmas morning for her kids and the party and fell asleep on the couch. Maybe she put her clothes on a chair in the bedroom when she went to bed, and put the same clothes on when she woke up. Especially if she went downstairs in her pjs, found the note, and had to hurry to get dressed before the police got there. If she really was involved in killing her daughter or covering it up, it would make more sense that she would change clothes - if she had something to hide, she would think it would be suspicious to be wearing the same clothes. If she was hiding something or doing CYA, I don’t think she would forget to change her clothes before calling the police at 5 AM.
I’m going to ask for a cite on this, please. Everything I have read indicates that the cord used in the garrote (as well as the duct tape used on her mouth) could not be traced to anything inside the house and instead was brought in by an intruder.
Huh. So no lab reports or DNA experts indicating the samples are conclusively from one and the same person. Okay, then.
Are you intimately familiar with the case? Or just going on what’s reported in the media?
Well, yeah. And what Utejas said–it wasn’t just that they had it, it was that JonBenet had scratched that person and had it under her fingernails.
And how would you go about getting a stranger’s pubes, then?
I have read that the reports indicated the hair being discussed was notated as “pubic or auxiliary.” Is it correct to assume this means it wasn’t conclusively determined to be a pubic hair? What’s auxiliary mean? Like from the leg or somewhere other than the head?
Also, I don’t feel it’s safe to assume the DNA under the nails was from scratching someone. Lots of things get caught under one’s nails in the course of a day. Doesn’t anyone clean out their own nails? It’s not all your own skin cells under there. Our hands come into contact with all sorts of things that can be picked up under our nails. Further, it’s been widely reported that the handling of that evidence was pretty sloppy. Contamination is most certainly a potential if that is to be believed.
There’s too many oddities to the crime and its investigation to say anything conclusively, I’d say. Which is why the case remains unsolved and likely always will be. Give it a rest already, Sherlock
So she scratched something random…and got that same guy’s pubes on her as well? WTF?
Also, just a fast summary for the TLDR crowd from page 33 of the previously posted 37 page report from several years back.
Here are things that point to an intruder:
Plus more if you read the cite.
So what part of this points to anything but an intruder? Surely the only part of this that doesn’t connect is the $118,000 ransom note. While this is not the exact amount of John Ramsey’s Christmas bonus, it is effectively equal. In combination with the above, surely this points to an intruder with either knowledge of the family OR access to their finances (people do leave bank receipts lying around).
While the ransom note is a bit hard to reconcile, it is not unreasonable. Someone either who knew the family well enough or stalked them well enough would have known they were going to a Christmas party and would be away for several hours. Anyone entering the home, as there were clear signs that someone did, would have had free access to both observe the layout of the home and practice a ransom note then compose the one actually left behind. It is 100% speculation, but it seems quite possible that the family came home from the party to a home that wasn’t empty.
Speculation aside, here is what we have in facts: a small child who was garroted to death, hit in the head with a baseball bat (also found outside, hidden), and, so it seems, zapped with a stun gun.
The speculation about a mother attacking her daughter for wetting the bed or some sort of attack by the brother simply isn’t consistent with an expertly constructed garrote, which was the actual cause of death. The “accident/coverup” angle just doesn’t play. The attack itself, which includes duct tape and cord brought into the house from an outside source, must have been premeditated to some degree. Even more than that, for the family to have done it, they would have had to have planted three different types of the same male DNA on three different garments, created countless signs that an intruder had broken in using boots they didn’t own, and done it all without sustaining any types of defensive wounds.
If there weren’t a ransom note, we’d all be talking about these poor people as the victims in the whole deal. Instead the note seemed a little too specific to the family, but given the immense weight of the physical and circumstantial evidence, it seems as if the specificity of the note should point to either someone they knew well or a stalker who came to know them well. No leaps of logic are required to think of how a killer might have written the note. To think these people are guilty requires more than just leaps of logic but leaps of what is physically possible. I quite honestly don’t see how someone who’s read the details of the crime from an unbiased source could see this as anything other than a tragedy caused by an intruder.
Who are you calling Sherlock? The whole thread? 
I think the most significant sample is a blood sample in her underwear Cite. It is fairly impossible to think of any way this could have been placed there in the course of a day. Even less so when you consider that the touch dna found on her longjohns matched this sample.
Well, mostly anyone that says anything so definitive as to who is and is not responsible in JBR’s death. If Dio wants to assert that under the former Boulder DA, the Ramseys were no longer under suspicion, I won’t argue with that. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.
That cite does not indicate that the samples are a match. DNA evidence, particular small degraded and mixed samples, is very often not conclusive. I don’t think it’s obvious at all to say that most definitely Person X, Y, or Z did not commit the crime. Especially, when those persons had definite access to the child. Whether the Ramseys had anything to do with the death of their daughter is impossible to know at this point, considering how poorly the investigation was carried out. We can speculate all we like, but we’re simply bystanders.
In this case, the samples are a match (read the CNN link). The full profile was entered into CODIS in 2003, and both samples matched the touch DNA discovered in 2008. You should actually read the cites and familarize yourself with the evidence before you comment any further. What part of “they were CLEARED” do you not understand?
Obviously, no amount of exculpatory evidence is going to be enough to dissuade some people believing what they want to believe, regardless of the fact that thir own theory has ZERO evidence to back it up.
Aliens!
Case closed.
Can someone who knows elaborate on the blood in the underwear, please? So there was some blood…how much? What does “mixed sample” mean?