Would a DNA search work for the Jon Benet Ramsey case?

[rajmahal]

May 4, 2018 21:14:00 GMT ijustwantthetruth said:

May 4, 2018 20:57:42 GMT rajmahal said:

There was no reason to cover that up. So stupid if that is what happened-  look at what it did to the family- they became the suspects. If Burke hit his sister with the flashlight, it was a tragic occurrence, definitely out of the norm and violent and horribly tragic, but not actionable. Wouldn't really surprise me as an idea by Patsy to claim an intruder did it. But the death would likely have been construed as tantamount to an accident by Burke because of his young age- no charges would have been filed- he would have been known for the death in their small community and the family would be judged for that, which I'm sure Patsy would have feared big time. I saw Burke deny this theory in an interview after that series aired (Dr Phil I think), I felt he was being truthful, frankly, but how does one know.

Lynn Wood is both Dr. Phil's lawyer, and Burkes. When this was brought up on the Dr. Phil sight, sleuths, and regular posters were asking if there was a deal to make Burke look innocent, and many felt it should have been disclosed about them having the same lawyer, not covered up...... immediately the comment was deleted, and the poster was band from his page. This didn't happen just once, but over and over again. It didn't seem to matter how they asked about the two having the same lawyer, no one was disrespectful they were just asking questions, but would be band/blocked. Many just wanted to know if it were true that they had the same lawyer.   Dr. Phil asked a lot of softball questions.  I would like to see the entire interview before it was edited. I felt he was very unusual in his demeanor. 

         I didn't know this- interesting- Dr. Phil's attorney. Right? I would think they would have mentioned that, I guess they don't have to, but still. It was clear that Burke was raised in a very sheltered fashion and seems to have a lot of fear and anxiety. His life has been hellish from an early age. All those weirdos and National Inquirer articles, stalkers I'm sure, death threats I'm sure, people that vilify his family and idolize his dead sister, all to completely bizarre extremes. If he did do it, and has had pressure his entire life not to say so, he can feel free to purge that later on when John Ramsey has passed away.SaveSave

[ijustwantthetruth]

May 5, 2018 6:33:19 GMT rajmahal said:

May 4, 2018 21:14:00 GMT ijustwantthetruth said:

Lynn Wood is both Dr. Phil's lawyer, and Burkes. When this was brought up on the Dr. Phil sight, sleuths, and regular posters were asking if there was a deal to make Burke look innocent, and many felt it should have been disclosed about them having the same lawyer, not covered up...... immediately the comment was deleted, and the poster was band from his page. This didn't happen just once, but over and over again. It didn't seem to matter how they asked about the two having the same lawyer, no one was disrespectful they were just asking questions, but would be band/blocked. Many just wanted to know if it were true that they had the same lawyer.   Dr. Phil asked a lot of softball questions.  I would like to see the entire interview before it was edited. I felt he was very unusual in his demeanor. 

         I didn't know this- interesting- Dr. Phil's attorney. Right? I would think they would have mentioned that, I guess they don't have to, but still. It was clear that Burke was raised in a very sheltered fashion and seems to have a lot of fear and anxiety. His life has been hellish from an early age. All those weirdos and National Inquirer articles, stalkers I'm sure, death threats I'm sure, people that vilify his family and idolize his dead sister, all to completely bizarre extremes. If he did do it, and has had pressure his entire life not to say so, he can feel free to purge that later on when John Ramsey has passed away.SaveSave

Yes, Lin Wood, who represented John and Patsy Ramsey, and Burke, is also Dr. Phil's attorney. I would be surprised if Burke ever discloses anything. If it was Burke, his parents did such a terrible injustice to him, and his life. 

[ijustwantthetruth]

May 5, 2018 6:18:14 GMT olympias said:

May 5, 2018 5:21:57 GMT orly57 said:

You claim there is ZERO evidence, but you refuse to watch a very well done document-series on the subject, which provides a TON of strong evidence. You seem like a very reasonable person.

I am a very reasonable person, hence why I didn't watch the show. The "forensic doctor" they used to carry the burke experiments is the same one who testified for the defense of casey anthony for money with very dubious arguments, in other words, the credibility is ZERO. 

That seems to be a very unfair and unreasonable statement. Every single forensic expert for both sides are paid! In addition, even if you take out what part Dr. Spitz played in the investigation, all the other evidence was very compelling. It doesn't seem like you want to listen to anything that might point to a family member, which if the case, that in itself is an injustice towards finding the truth about what happened to little Jonbenet. 

[orly57]

May 5, 2018 6:18:14 GMT olympias said:

May 5, 2018 5:21:57 GMT orly57 said:

You claim there is ZERO evidence, but you refuse to watch a very well done document-series on the subject, which provides a TON of strong evidence. You seem like a very reasonable person.

I am a very reasonable person, hence why I didn't watch the show. The "forensic doctor" they used to carry the burke experiments is the same one who testified for the defense of casey anthony for money with very dubious arguments, in other words, the credibility is ZERO. 

There is a lot more evidence than the forensic doctor. Of course, you wouldn't know that because you won't watch it. Before forming an opinion, particularly one that you state as a fact, you need to read, watch, and listen to all the information. Only then can you formulate an educated opinion. The cobweb evidence is powerful. The missing flashlight fit the head injury like a puzzle piece. The train track fit the "stun gun injury" like a puzzle piece. The pineapple in her stomach. Patsy's background conversation during the 911 call. The ridiculous and absurdly long demand letter written on Patsy's stationary (indicating it was written inside the house by a kidnap per with way too much time on his hands). The fact that ransom kidnappers left a body. None of these things require you to trust the forensic doctor. You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to watch it if you are going to opine on it. Otherwise you just seem ignorant and close minded. Watch it, and we can have an actual, educated discussion on the matter.

[olympias]

May 5, 2018 15:53:09 GMT ijustwantthetruth said:

May 5, 2018 6:18:14 GMT olympias said:

I am a very reasonable person, hence why I didn't watch the show. The "forensic doctor" they used to carry the burke experiments is the same one who testified for the defense of casey anthony for money with very dubious arguments, in other words, the credibility is ZERO. 

That seems to be a very unfair and unreasonable statement. Every single forensic expert for both sides are paid! In addition, even if you take out what part Dr. Spitz played in the investigation, all the other evidence was very compelling. It doesn't seem like you want to listen to anything that might point to a family member, which if the case, that in itself is an injustice towards finding the truth about what happened to little Jonbenet. 

it is not unreasonable, Dr. Spitz tells people what they want to hear. What evidence do you speak of? Burke staring at pineapple? That's not evidence. 

[teigh]

May 5, 2018 5:21:57 GMT orly57 said:

May 5, 2018 5:18:07 GMT olympias said:

I don't need to, it was a salacious documentary with an angle. 

You claim there is ZERO evidence, but you refuse to watch a very well done document-series on the subject, which provides a TON of strong evidence. You seem like a very reasonable person.

IMHO, I thought the CBS series was an interesting and professional documentary. I really do believe it all made sense when you look at the case objectively. I think it is awful at what is speculated but sometimes a spade is simply a spade and I believe what is presented is what happened with slight variations. 

[orly57]

May 5, 2018 18:11:15 GMT olympias said:

May 5, 2018 15:53:09 GMT ijustwantthetruth said:

That seems to be a very unfair and unreasonable statement. Every single forensic expert for both sides are paid! In addition, even if you take out what part Dr. Spitz played in the investigation, all the other evidence was very compelling. It doesn't seem like you want to listen to anything that might point to a family member, which if the case, that in itself is an injustice towards finding the truth about what happened to little Jonbenet. 

it is not unreasonable, Dr. Spitz tells people what they want to hear. What evidence do you speak of? Burke staring at pineapple? That's not evidence. 

Staring at the pineapple??? Please stop. You really have no clue. If you don't know about something then dont comment. You are embarrassing yourself.

[ijustwantthetruth]

May 5, 2018 18:11:15 GMT olympias said:

May 5, 2018 15:53:09 GMT ijustwantthetruth said:

That seems to be a very unfair and unreasonable statement. Every single forensic expert for both sides are paid! In addition, even if you take out what part Dr. Spitz played in the investigation, all the other evidence was very compelling. It doesn't seem like you want to listen to anything that might point to a family member, which if the case, that in itself is an injustice towards finding the truth about what happened to little Jonbenet. 

it is not unreasonable, Dr. Spitz tells people what they want to hear. What evidence do you speak of? Burke staring at pineapple? That's not evidence. 

I didn't say anything about the pineapple.  Maybe if you allowed yourself to be objective and watch the CBS series you'd see what evidence about which I'm speaking.  Please read what I wrote, you can remove Dr. Spitz completely out of the show, and still have a compelling case. It's very unreasonable to expect experts not to get paid for their time and work they put into a case, no matter who it is. I'm starting to get the feeling this family could confess, and you wouldn't see it as truth. Det. James Kolar is a very upstanding officer, with an impeccable record,  read his book if you don't want to watch the show. He also came to the same conclusion. He was a detective on the case. 

[fringetoast]

People always reference the DNA in the underwear as coming from the manufacturer- but that presupposes that the underwear came straight out of a brand new packet.

Where is the evidence that the underwear was brand new straight out of a packet?

[sycamore]

May 5, 2018 21:39:10 GMT fringetoast said:

People always reference the DNA in the underwear as coming from the manufacturer- but that presupposes that the underwear came straight out of a brand new packet.

Wear is the evidence that the underwear was brand new straight out of a packet?

very good point!

[teigh]

May 5, 2018 21:25:45 GMT ijustwantthetruth said:

May 5, 2018 18:11:15 GMT olympias said:

it is not unreasonable, Dr. Spitz tells people what they want to hear. What evidence do you speak of? Burke staring at pineapple? That's not evidence. 

I didn't say anything about the pineapple.  Maybe if you allowed yourself to be objective and watch the CBS series you'd see what evidence about which I'm speaking.  Please read what I wrote, you can remove Dr. Spitz completely out of the show, and still have a compelling case. It's very unreasonable to expect experts not to get paid for their time and work they put into a case, no matter who it is. I'm starting to get the feeling this family could confess, and you wouldn't see it as truth. Det. James Kolar is a very upstanding officer, with an impeccable record,  read his book if you don't want to watch the show. He also came to the same conclusion. He was a detective on the case. 

I'm the one who made a comment about the pineapple. If anyone looks at that video you can clearly see a little boy who could not answer an easy question about what he saw cause the sight of it caused him to playback in his head what happened. That's why he said, "oh" after a few minutes. Yet he never said what it was and his fingerprints were all over it. In addition, he knew everything in that picture except for the one most important item. We all know the importance of the pineapple and so does Burke.

Nobody wants to hear about a little boy killing his sister but that appears to be what happened especially when you factor in the parents odd behavior.

[ijustwantthetruth]

May 5, 2018 21:39:10 GMT fringetoast said:

People always reference the DNA in the underwear as coming from the manufacturer- but that presupposes that the underwear came straight out of a brand new packet.

Wear is the evidence that the underwear was brand new straight out of a packet?

 They were a size 12 way too big for Jonbenet. Trying to remember, I think Lin Wood handed the pack over to the police.  It is also possible of it being re-packaged at the store where it was purchased. People open packages all the time to see the size, and then the store will repackage them. 

[fringetoast]

May 5, 2018 22:05:44 GMT ijustwantthetruth said:

May 5, 2018 21:39:10 GMT fringetoast said:

People always reference the DNA in the underwear as coming from the manufacturer- but that presupposes that the underwear came straight out of a brand new packet.

Wear is the evidence that the underwear was brand new straight out of a packet?

 They were a size 12 way too big for Jonbenet. Trying to remember, I think Lin Wood handed the pack over to the police.  It is also possible of it being re-packaged at the store where it was purchased. People open packages all the time to see the size, and then the store will repackage them. 

I've trawled through the interwebs... there's no conclusion on whether they had been washed or straight from the package. 

www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?7107-The-Huge-(Girls-Size-12-14)-quot-Bloomies-quot-Underwear-on-JonBenet-Modeled-By-Six-Year-Old/page16

www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-oversize-bloomies.htm

When people say 'well this could have happened or that could have happened.'- yes anything is possible but if that's the logic, then equally it can be said that the DNA was from the intruder.

[ijustwantthetruth]

May 5, 2018 22:35:19 GMT fringetoast said:

May 5, 2018 22:05:44 GMT ijustwantthetruth said:

 They were a size 12 way too big for Jonbenet. Trying to remember, I think Lin Wood handed the pack over to the police.  It is also possible of it being re-packaged at the store where it was purchased. People open packages all the time to see the size, and then the store will repackage them. 

I've trawled through the interwebs... there's no conclusion on whether they had been washed or straight from the package. 

www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?7107-The-Huge-(Girls-Size-12-14)-quot-Bloomies-quot-Underwear-on-JonBenet-Modeled-By-Six-Year-Old/page16

www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-oversize-bloomies.htm

When people say 'well this could have happened or that could have happened.'- yes anything is possible but if that's the logic, then equally it can be said that the DNA was from the intruder.

The problem is, is that Patsy acknowledges she bought the underwear for her niece. So if we're to believe her they were new. Lin Wood and Patsy Ramsey gave the district attorney a hard time during the questioning of this. The intruder theory would be so much easier to believe if Patsy and John didn't act so guilty, weird, and contradicting themselves through the investigation.

[fringetoast]

May 5, 2018 22:37:48 GMT ijustwantthetruth said:

May 5, 2018 22:35:19 GMT fringetoast said:

I've trawled through the interwebs... there's no conclusion on whether they had been washed or straight from the package. 

www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?7107-The-Huge-(Girls-Size-12-14)-quot-Bloomies-quot-Underwear-on-JonBenet-Modeled-By-Six-Year-Old/page16

www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-oversize-bloomies.htm

When people say 'well this could have happened or that could have happened.'- yes anything is possible but if that's the logic, then equally it can be said that the DNA was from the intruder.

The problem is, is that Patsy acknowledges she bought the underwear for her niece. So if we're to believe her they were new. Lin Wood and Patsy Ramsey gave the district attorney a hard time during the questioning of this. The intruder theory would be so much easier to believe if Patsy and John didn't act so guilty, weird, and contradicting themselves through the investigation.

The DNA found in the panties was found elsewhere on her clothes. This is what ultimately cleared the Ramseys.


www.nbcnews.com/id/25608543/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/family-cleared-jonbenet-ramseys-death/#.V-Ch8D4rJhA

"recent testing was conducted on a different area of the girl's clothing, and it matches previous DNA tested from the child’s panties in 1997."