Well, according to Benford’s Law, 30.1% of all bonuses will have a first digit of ‘1’.
Some people seem to be under the impression that the unidentified DNA is the only DNA found on the body. It wasn’t. Patsy Ramsey dressed her and put her to bed. Her DNA is all over the clothes and body. John Ramsey carried the body up from the basement, his DNA is all over the body.
Suppose a kid is at a party - she trips over something and falls, a man reaches out to break her fall, his DNA gets under her fingernails. Later that night the kid scratches an itch and some DNA gets transferred to her panties. This is hardly an unlikely scenario. It doesn’t require any planting of evidence.
DtC sounds a lot like DA Mary Lacy. She came into office absolutely convinced that an intruder killed JonBenet, and never wavered from that position. Just like she was convinced that the CU football team was a bunch of rapists terrorizing the town. Just like she was convinced that a pathalogical liar who was in Alabama on the night of the murder was the killer.
Can you show me a citation that the DNA on the clothes matches the DNA in the blood? I’m not saying it doesn’t, but I haven’t seen where it does.
That Crime Library website that everyone is citing is a biased piece. It is completely one-sided and I don’t know why people are acting like it’s some sort of objective evidence.
Indeed I can: CNN
Can you quote the part where it says that the DNA from the blood matches the DNA from the clothes?
Also, missed my edit window: What do you think is biased about the piece? Nobody is citing the piece for anything other than facts about the crime scene, which I have yet to see disputed. Is something factually incorrect about that piece?
That gonna do it for ya?
It is the seventh paragraph which reads in its entirety:
Tests conducted in March revealed that new DNA collected from a pair of long johns matched a sample previously taken from the child’s panties.
But how does a piece of his hair that’s either a pubic hair or an armpit hair get onto her blanket?
How many hairs akin to pubic hairs were found? If it was just one, how likely is that, if someone has had intimate contact with the body and left it in a hurry?
This unlinked piece of what apears to be editorial carping or somebody’s blog is supposed to convince me of what?
now that you’re back, what do you have to say about UTejas’s consessions regaridng my points? Agree? Disagree?
Wow. Y’all are really doing some acrobatic contortions around the physical evidence to try to hold onto your belief that the Ramseys are guilty.
From the CNN link.
Wouldn’t they have been able to determine this by simply asking her parents? Or was the girl in the habit of dressing herself without her parent’s knowledge?
It was on the blanket covering her body, and her vaginal area had been wiped clean with a cloth.
So, the “intruder” was angry enough at one point to beat her with a baseball bat, but composed enough to clean her down fairly thoroughly, it seems, and also sit down and write a detailed ransom note that was totally pointless?
The touch DNA was found in the waistband of the longjohns when her body was found. It is not known whether the DNA was placed there while the long underwear was being removed, or when it was being put back on.
How calm do you have to be to wipe a vagina?
The note was probably written before the killing, not afterward.
I don’t think there is any meaningful difference between saying a piece of evidence does not exclude either the parents or an intruder and saying there is no evdience against the parents. anything consistent with an intruder can’t be held as evidence against the parents.
What is your basis for saying Crime Library is biased? Just because it doesn’t say what you want it to say doesn’t mean it’s biased.