First Prev
of 22
Next Last
drew

Nottingham, UK

#1 Mar 29, 2007
Seeing that IMO the Ramseys were framed and the killer went to so much trouble to stage the scene etc, is it at all possible that the killer took those panties/bloomies and 'wiped' a 'public' toilet with them? If I'd want to 'frame' someone I would think of something like that -just to really throw you off. The killer HAD to think of DNA otherwise it all wouldn't make sense. It was an inside job for sure. And with a motive and means. But that's just my opinion. The Ramseys had absolute zero to do with this.
ps. I was reading some forum the other day, and a young adult had posted that 'the parents did it!' The poster hadn't a clue about the murder and didn't even know the exact day and year it happened! They were just following the media etc - as usual - and of course what they hear from their parents etc. Too much yakkitty yak and not enough brain-power. IMO
rinkerdinker

Lancaster, WI

#2 Mar 29, 2007
It doesn't appear you have a grasp of the basic concepts of DNA.

The amount found in JonBenet’s panties was a speck of a speck of a speck of the nucleus a human cell. Humans inhabit the earth and everything they come in contact with has the opportunity to be 'contaminated' with minuscule bits and pieces of them.

They did testing on packages of new panties and indeed found such miniscule insignificant amounts of unidentifiable DNA. It would be found in everything from socks to Twinkies if tested. But by far the testing that should have been done was to see how common it is for all children's clothing to have such inconsequential contamination. For example the white pageant dress JonBenet was buried in was purchased used by Patsy and the chances are very real it has cells from that girl who originally wore it, her family, and all the people she came in contact with.

The amount found was a speck of a speck of a speck of the nucleus a human cell. At that it was termed ‘degraded’ as though it had been laundered. There was no report or testing that verified the panties as new, no chemical sizing residue was ever documented or reported. The only words about being ‘new’ were from Patsy who had a stake in staying out of jail and covering up her own wrong doing.

The panties were from Bloomingdales’ said to be purchased on a shopping trip Patsy took with many other women from Charlevoix. Boulder LE originally thought JonBenet had worn home the panties of another girl when she wet her pants and subsequently DNA tested her little Boulder playmates.(Why would they even do this if the panties were brand new?) BUT there were two young girls of age to wear that size on the original trip to NYC and Bloomingdales who have yet to be DNA tested.

As for DNA found under her fingernails it was said the coroner’s office didn’t follow sterile procedure and use disposable clippers or those that had been autoclaved. There was no follow up on the autopsies done previous to JonBenet to see if that DNA provided a match. It’s also possible for DNA to be transferred in a manicure along with a host of fungal and bacterial infections in equipment that isn’t sterilized.

As the ability to ‘extract’ DNA expands it’s necessary for it’s implications to expand as well. It just hasn’t all caught up yet.

The Ramseys know exactly what happened to JonBenet. Her murder is a hoax and the Boulder DA has actively participated in pulling the wool over the eyes of gullible people like you. They arranged with Ramsey attorneys for Patsy’s sister to remove evidence and have to this day refused to investigate same.

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44
pink_ink

Lancaster, WI

#3 Mar 29, 2007
""""" For example the white pageant dress JonBenet was buried in was purchased used by Patsy and the chances are very real it has cells from that girl who originally wore it, her family, and all the people she came in contact with."""" "

Pam Paugh removed three dresses for JonBenet to be buried in.

WHY?

The staging of the crime by Patsy may have originally had JonBenet dressed in one of her pageant dresses. Staging suggests costumes and costume changes. Specifically had she at one time been in one of the dresses Pam Paugh removed? Could that garment have transferred a speck of a speck of cell? YES. Why would Pam Pugh have taken two extras dresses out? This would account for the concept JonBenet had been redressed and was found with her arms in rigor over her head.

The DA and Ramsey attorneys were in direct contact with one another in planning for Pam Paugh to remove items from the crime scene. To this day there remain multiple items that are open to suspicion as valid evidence.

We’re talking ten years later and they DA has looked the other way and refused to investigate valid information that links the Ramseys to JonBenet's death.

Why hasn't John Ramsey been asked about the package that came addressed to JonBenet at his office well after she was dead and buried?

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44
pink_ink

Lancaster, WI

#4 Mar 29, 2007
Why didn't John Ramsey run the package to police? It was for an item duplicate to something he'd asked Pam Paugh to remove from the crime scene. It showed up at his office addressed to JonBenet the first week in January 1997 and he did

N O T H I N G

He knew it wasn't from the killer. He himself likely ordered it when he said he was out walking alone...

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44
drew

Nottingham, UK

#5 Mar 29, 2007
rinkerdinker said:

The amount found was a speck of a speck of a speck of the nucleus a human cell. At that it was termed ‘degraded’ as though it had been laundered

Thank you rinkerdinker. That is EXACTLY what I wanted to know. The, as I was saying, the panties could have been laundered (washed). Many thanks.
drew

Nottingham, UK

#6 Mar 29, 2007
oooops sorry I said about them being washed elsewhere.
Tired Of Censorship

Since: Nov 06

Palo Alto, CA

#7 Mar 29, 2007
drew wrote:
Too much yakkitty yak and not enough brain-power. IMO
And the same can be said for your "theory" of wiping a public toilet!
drew

Nottingham, UK

#8 Mar 29, 2007
Tired Of Censorship wrote:
<quoted text>
And the same can be said for your "theory" of wiping a public toilet!
I was merely asking. It wasn't a theory!
pink_ink

Troy, ID

#9 Mar 29, 2007
These are the two women with daighters on that trip.

"The first trip was a mother-daughter trip with my mother Nedra Paugh, my sister Pam Paugh, friends Susan F**** from Charlevoix, Michigan, and her daughter and a friend of Susan's, Ms. K****** I believe was her name, and her daughter, and JonBenet and myself."

The 2000 interviews in Atlanta revealed there were no other panties from a size 10-12 set of Bloomies found in the home after a ten day search. That surprises many people but the info is all in the Police Files. There remains two women with daughters on that trip to Bloomingdale's who may have been the source for those borrowed panties. As the last 'public' swabbing was done on the housekeeper's daughter I fail to see how that DNA suddenly morphed into a male specimen, unless that is more official involvement in the hoax/conspiracy of murder to cover up an accidental death. Many swabbings were done on JonBenet's playmates but none on young girls from Charlevoix. JonBenet had a history of wetting her pants and borrowing undies from somebody else to wear home. Did that happen on the trip to New York?

It's the daughters of Susan F**** and Lisa K****** who need to be swabbed. Note Lisa K****** has remarried and it's believed her daughter has the surname of her first husband.
drew

Nottingham, UK

#10 Mar 29, 2007
IMO The Ramseys were framed. I think a female did the killing and so can somebody please explain how a female would 'get' and 'plant' male DNA on the panties? Thanks in advance. And yes I know absolutely zero on the subject of DNA. That's why I am asking how a she would get male dna.
pink_ink

Troy, ID

#11 Mar 29, 2007
The amount of dna found was not an amount that could have been 'planted', it was too scant. it was a speck of a speck of the nucleus of a human cell.
drew

Nottingham, UK

#12 Mar 30, 2007
Ok. Thanks. A speck of a speck of degraded DNA is absolutely 100% MALE? There is absolutely no possibility that they were laundered after a female had worn them and, as I said before about a 'clever' intruder who wanted to throw people off the trail, and perhaps let a male touch them? I know this sounds ridculous but I can't ask any other way.
Henrietta McPhee

Bristol, UK

#13 Mar 30, 2007
Discussing DNA in the Ramsey case is a bit like discussing the theory of relativity.

A doctor on the Court TV crimelibrary JonBenet forum recently posted that a better word for degraded DNA would be 'incomplete' DNA.

I agree with drew that there is something distinctly fishy about female DNA in the Ramsey case. The JonBenet forum poster sissi has the same sort of theory. The DNA in the blood spots is male, unless I'm very much mistaken.

One thing that did come out about the Ramsey case Grand Jury, in about 1998, was that Ariana Pugh was asked by the Grand Jury to be DNA tested. There must have been some reason for that. It wouldn't have been done just for fun. The trouble is the transcript of that Grand Jury is secret and has never been made public. We don't know the reasoning behind that decision.

It has been suggested that the DNAX, which Boulder police chief Mark Beckner suddenly revealed during the Chris Wolf libel case a few years ago, could be female DNA, even though that DNAX was not on the clothes or body of JonBenet.

I have always agreed with Detective Tom Bennett that the DNA in the Ramsey case may not come from the killer, and also Detective Lou Smit, who once said that if that DNA is ever identified then that person has some explaining to do. As other people have mentioned on this forum there are technological advances in DNA detection all the time.

The forensic significance of the DNA is that some people believe it's the only way JonBenet's murderer will ever be caught without a confession.

I also agree with drew that the planting of DNA is a possibility in the Ramsey case. The murderer of JonBenet was a clever criminal who had planned to mislead and confuse the police and FBI. He succeeded in doing that.

The JonBenet panties business in the Ramsey case is another massive and complex subject. To cut a long story short I believe the murderer put those oversized panties on JonBenet after the murder in order to confuse and avoid forensic detection. Don't tell Jameson about that theory. She'll have an apoplectic fit.

I'm still not clear how no oversized panties were ever found by the police at the JonBenet crime scene and yet a packet of oversized panties of the same type turned up somehow, and somewhere, later on.

The Ramsey Grand Jury prosecutor Bruce Levin seemed to be questioning Patsy about female DNA in the Atlanta Boulder police interview in 2000. I don't have a high regard for the honesty and integrity of Bruce Levin but I don't think he would have been asking those questions to Patsy about female trace evidence in JonBenet's panties just for fun:

3 Q. That on occasion JonBenet may go
4 over to a friend's house, I think you talked
5 about the White's daughter Daphne, and they
6 could go swimming or do something and she
7 might leave her underwear there, get a clean
8 pair from a friend and then be laundered,
9 returned, you would do the same for her
10 girlfriends who may have been -- got wet
11 from swimming or doing, got dirty playing
12 outside. Do you recall saying that?
13 A. Not specifically.
14 Q. Do you recall that occurring then?
15 A. Probably did. I can't say for
16 sure, but --
17 Q. Okay. What I am interested in is
18 whether or not you have a recollection as to
19 whether or not any of the Bloomi panties,
20 and I certainly wouldn't want to pin you
21 down to the day or the week, all right, but
22 do you ever recall any of the Bloomi panties
23 from November to the time of JonBenet's
24 murder being left at a friend's house and
25 then returned to you?
0111
1 A. No.

Since: Mar 07

South Jordan, UT

#14 Mar 30, 2007
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/nebula/9337/p...

Look, guys, I've told you once and I'm not going to tell you again ... grown folks ARE talking here.
drew

Hemel Hempstead, UK

#15 Mar 30, 2007
Thank you Henrietta for explaining and now I understand better (albeit a degraded better!)
I have read transcripts of Patsy and whilst reading them, have found her to have been a bit 'intimidated'- is that the right word - no maybe confused because the questions were always IMO being interrupted or suddenly changed. That is why I felt that sometimes she didn't know if she was Arthur or Martha! It would have been extremely tiring to have gone through those lines of questioning only to have someone 'object' and 'interrupt' etc. But then again, I would try to catch someone off guard by throwing anything at them.
She just didn't do it. IMO

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#16 Mar 30, 2007
Daniel Lawrence wrote:
http://www.geocities.com/Area5 1/nebula/9337/pamela_paugh.jpg
Look, guys, I've told you once and I'm not going to tell you again ... grown folks ARE talking here.
Link doesn't work.
Yacky

Phoenix, AZ

#17 Mar 30, 2007
Dna planted would have been so much more.
Cami

Halifax, Canada

#18 Mar 30, 2007
Why would someone plant a miniscule amount of degraded DNA? That just defies logic to me anyway.

The dna was mixed with JB's blood, which was fresh, yet it's degraded. How did that happen? How did the male dna degrade yet JB's didn't?

The dna is also, only 80% complete so IMO it's useless in the Ramsey case without strong supporting evidence of guilt. The standard for human identification is 13 Loci. The Ramsey dna has 10 Loci.
Henrietta McPhee

Bristol, UK

#19 Mar 30, 2007
Cami wrote:
Why would someone plant a miniscule amount of degraded DNA? That just defies logic to me anyway.
The dna was mixed with JB's blood, which was fresh, yet it's degraded. How did that happen? How did the male dna degrade yet JB's didn't?
The dna is also, only 80% complete so IMO it's useless in the Ramsey case without strong supporting evidence of guilt. The standard for human identification is 13 Loci. The Ramsey dna has 10 Loci.
Someone would want to plant a miniscule amount of DNA in order to mislead the police. Rather like the Ramsey case hoax ransom note.

Degraded DNA is a scientific technical term which really means, in plain English, incomplete.

The DNA in the Ramsey case is good enough to be accepted by the CODIS DNA database. The only trouble is CODIS is far from comprehensive. There is talk of a backlog of 500000 samples waiting to be processed, which doesn't inspire confidence.

There is no evidence that the prime suspects in the Ramsey case have ever been DNA tested, let alone entered into CODIS. It's rather like that in the Dr Jeffrey MacDonald case, and in the Michigan OCCK murders.
mydearwatson

AOL

#20 Mar 30, 2007
if the dna material was frozen, it will degrade. the minute amount was likely added to jbr's blood spots with a syringe.

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? 2 hr robert 1,218
Note attends lectures at Duquesne University 6 hr Note 22
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) 15 hr Bunny 7,488
Suspect John Steven Gigax (Apr '11) Mon 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