Who did you think killed JonBenet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dna found on the waist band of the tights she was wearing and on the underwear she was wearing when she died all came from the same unknown Hispanic male. DNA doesn't lie. Her fingernail marks on her neck prove she was strangled with the garrote before the fatal blow to the head.

From what I understand though, touch DNA can be from manufacturing. It doesn't tell the whole story, as in when transfer occurred.

The same DNA was found under her fingernails. Clearly the guy wore gloves. His saliva is the DNA they found mixed in with her blood in her underwear.

Where did you hear that this touch DNA was found under her fingernails? As I understand it this scant DNA was found on her panties and her pajamas. First I've heard about them finding any DNA under her fingernails. If she was conscious and clawing at the rope around her neck you would expect there to be some of her own skin under her nails. As far as I am aware that was not found.

I did a couple of searches "DNA under JonBenet's fingernails"...turns out the instrument used to take the samples from her underwear and fingernails at autopsy was likely contaminated.....which is appalling but hardly surprising given everything else that went wrong during the investigation of this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dna found on the waist band of the tights she was wearing and on the underwear she was wearing when she died all came from the same unknown Hispanic male. DNA doesn't lie. Her fingernail marks on her neck prove she was strangled with the garrote before the fatal blow to the head.

From what I understand though, touch DNA can be from manufacturing. It doesn't tell the whole story, as in when transfer occurred.

They already tested pajamas from stores and such in order to compare the quantity found in her clothing to what could be found from manufacturing or the store. The DNA present on the new clothes was much weaker and only a small fraction of what was found on JB's clothing. The possibility still exists it could have come from mishandling of pieces of evidence, although I imagine they were able to exclude most of the people who handled it. The most plausible scenario about the DNA given the investigation is that her waistband and underwear were touched by an unknown male. That doesn't tell the whole story, but given the questions that remain about that night, it certainly makes the DNA profile the most important unsolved lead in the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dna found on the waist band of the tights she was wearing and on the underwear she was wearing when she died all came from the same unknown Hispanic male. DNA doesn't lie. Her fingernail marks on her neck prove she was strangled with the garrote before the fatal blow to the head.

From what I understand though, touch DNA can be from manufacturing. It doesn't tell the whole story, as in when transfer occurred.

The same DNA was found under her fingernails. Clearly the guy wore gloves. His saliva is the DNA they found mixed in with her blood in her underwear.

Where did you hear that this touch DNA was found under her fingernails? As I understand it this scant DNA was found on her panties and her pajamas. First I've heard about them finding any DNA under her fingernails. If she was conscious and clawing at the rope around her neck you would expect there to be some of her own skin under her nails. As far as I am aware that was not found.

The dna under her fingernails and in her underwear was not touch dna. The touch Dna came from the leggings.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682463/DNA%20Evidence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dna found on the waist band of the tights she was wearing and on the underwear she was wearing when she died all came from the same unknown Hispanic male. DNA doesn't lie. Her fingernail marks on her neck prove she was strangled with the garrote before the fatal blow to the head.

From what I understand though, touch DNA can be from manufacturing. It doesn't tell the whole story, as in when transfer occurred.

The same DNA was found under her fingernails. Clearly the guy wore gloves. His saliva is the DNA they found mixed in with her blood in her underwear.

Where did you hear that this touch DNA was found under her fingernails? As I understand it this scant DNA was found on her panties and her pajamas. First I've heard about them finding any DNA under her fingernails. If she was conscious and clawing at the rope around her neck you would expect there to be some of her own skin under her nails. As far as I am aware that was not found.

The dna under her fingernails and in her underwear was not touch dna. The touch Dna came from the leggings.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682463/DNA%20Evidence

Former Boulder DA investigator Tom Bennett stated in 2004: "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said."It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze.... You can`t just jump to conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer." full article http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DC&p_theme=dc&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_field_label-0=Section&s_dispstring=%22took%20over%20the%20Ramsey%20case%20two%20years%20ago%22%20AND%20section(all)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22took%20over%20the%20Ramsey%20case%20two%20years%20ago%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date&xcal_useweights=no(registration required)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Questions for the folks who are convinced the parents did it:
- how old were you when she died?
- how much TV coverage did you watch about the case back then?

I was 24 in 1996. I watched some of the coverage. I remember having long conversations with my dad about the case; he was a retired cop. He was absolutely convinced the parents were involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dna found on the waist band of the tights she was wearing and on the underwear she was wearing when she died all came from the same unknown Hispanic male. DNA doesn't lie. Her fingernail marks on her neck prove she was strangled with the garrote before the fatal blow to the head.

From what I understand though, touch DNA can be from manufacturing. It doesn't tell the whole story, as in when transfer occurred.

The same DNA was found under her fingernails. Clearly the guy wore gloves. His saliva is the DNA they found mixed in with her blood in her underwear.

Where did you hear that this touch DNA was found under her fingernails? As I understand it this scant DNA was found on her panties and her pajamas. First I've heard about them finding any DNA under her fingernails. If she was conscious and clawing at the rope around her neck you would expect there to be some of her own skin under her nails. As far as I am aware that was not found.

The dna under her fingernails and in her underwear was not touch dna. The touch Dna came from the leggings.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682463/DNA%20Evidence

Former Boulder DA investigator Tom Bennett stated in 2004: "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said."It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze.... You can`t just jump to conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer." full article http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DC&p_theme=dc&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_field_label-0=Section&s_dispstring=%22took%20over%20the%20Ramsey%20case%20two%20years%20ago%22%20AND%20section(all)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22took%20over%20the%20Ramsey%20case%20two%20years%20ago%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date&xcal_useweights=no(registration required)

If you read all of it and watched Monday's special on A &E you would know all the DNA is from the same unknown Hispanic male. Normal DNA under fingernails, and in her underwear mixed with her blood. The touch DNA is in 2 spots of her leggings. That is 6 places that this unknown Hispanic males DNA is on her or her clothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Questions for the folks who are convinced the parents did it:
- how old were you when she died?
- how much TV coverage did you watch about the case back then?

I was 24 in 1996. I watched some of the coverage. I remember having long conversations with my dad about the case; he was a retired cop. He was absolutely convinced the parents were involved.

well then I guess that settles it. Case closed. An ex-cop who had nothing to do with the investigation and knew only what the media reported says the parents did it so that must be the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dna found on the waist band of the tights she was wearing and on the underwear she was wearing when she died all came from the same unknown Hispanic male. DNA doesn't lie. Her fingernail marks on her neck prove she was strangled with the garrote before the fatal blow to the head.

From what I understand though, touch DNA can be from manufacturing. It doesn't tell the whole story, as in when transfer occurred.

The same DNA was found under her fingernails. Clearly the guy wore gloves. His saliva is the DNA they found mixed in with her blood in her underwear.

Where did you hear that this touch DNA was found under her fingernails? As I understand it this scant DNA was found on her panties and her pajamas. First I've heard about them finding any DNA under her fingernails. If she was conscious and clawing at the rope around her neck you would expect there to be some of her own skin under her nails. As far as I am aware that was not found.

The dna under her fingernails and in her underwear was not touch dna. The touch Dna came from the leggings.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682463/DNA%20Evidence

Former Boulder DA investigator Tom Bennett stated in 2004: "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said."It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze.... You can`t just jump to conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer." full article http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DC&p_theme=dc&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_field_label-0=Section&s_dispstring=%22took%20over%20the%20Ramsey%20case%20two%20years%20ago%22%20AND%20section(all)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22took%20over%20the%20Ramsey%20case%20two%20years%20ago%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date&xcal_useweights=no(registration required)

If you read all of it and watched Monday's special on A &E you would know all the DNA is from the same unknown Hispanic male. Normal DNA under fingernails, and in her underwear mixed with her blood. The touch DNA is in 2 spots of her leggings. That is 6 places that this unknown Hispanic males DNA is on her or her clothing.

This kid had been around a ton of people that day. She could have had her hands sneezed or coughed on and then transferred the DNA from that cough/sneeze onto her leggings and underwear when she went to the bathroom. The problem that I have with this is that the DNA is sooo scant. If she was awake and fighting an intruder you would think that she would have the intruder's skin cells under her nails. If an intruder was aggressively assaulting her and leaving his DNA behind why did he leave such an itty bitty small amount?

I think that this was inadvertent contamination. Somebody sneezed or coughed at the autopsy or while tagging the evidence. Or they used contaminated instruments (that had been used on another corpse) to take samples from JonBenet.

Did they examine an hispanic male's body on/around the same time that they examined JonBenet's body? If so - that is where this evidence came from. Surely they have the records from the medical examiner's office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dna found on the waist band of the tights she was wearing and on the underwear she was wearing when she died all came from the same unknown Hispanic male. DNA doesn't lie. Her fingernail marks on her neck prove she was strangled with the garrote before the fatal blow to the head.

From what I understand though, touch DNA can be from manufacturing. It doesn't tell the whole story, as in when transfer occurred.

The same DNA was found under her fingernails. Clearly the guy wore gloves. His saliva is the DNA they found mixed in with her blood in her underwear.

Where did you hear that this touch DNA was found under her fingernails? As I understand it this scant DNA was found on her panties and her pajamas. First I've heard about them finding any DNA under her fingernails. If she was conscious and clawing at the rope around her neck you would expect there to be some of her own skin under her nails. As far as I am aware that was not found.

I'm pretty sure the doc "Who Killed The Pageant Queen?" says that there was DNA in the underwear and under fingernails that were from an "unknown white male".

[Anonymous]

Hispanic male?

I suspect either the Ramsey's or neighbors had contractors or a handyman or landscaper who fixated on the little girl. Easy for someone with legitimate access to a home/property to get inside. I know lots of people whose homes were robbed shortly after they had contractors doing work in their homes. Easy to pick up a spare key or leave a window unlocked.

The parents didn't do it. Cops always fixate on them and miss other obvious clues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hispanic male?

I suspect either the Ramsey's or neighbors had contractors or a handyman or landscaper who fixated on the little girl. Easy for someone with legitimate access to a home/property to get inside. I know lots of people whose homes were robbed shortly after they had contractors doing work in their homes. Easy to pick up a spare key or leave a window unlocked.

The parents didn't do it. Cops always fixate on them and miss other obvious clues.

This is laughable. Have you read the three-page ransom letter? You really think their gardener sat down in their house and drafted that thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hispanic male?

I suspect either the Ramsey's or neighbors had contractors or a handyman or landscaper who fixated on the little girl. Easy for someone with legitimate access to a home/property to get inside. I know lots of people whose homes were robbed shortly after they had contractors doing work in their homes. Easy to pick up a spare key or leave a window unlocked.

The parents didn't do it. Cops always fixate on them and miss other obvious clues.

This is laughable. Have you read the three-page ransom letter? You really think their gardener sat down in their house and drafted that thing?

With handwriting that looked just like Patsy Ramsey's handwriting. What a wacky coincidence that was, right?

[Anonymous]

It was not the parents. It was a peodophile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hispanic male?

I suspect either the Ramsey's or neighbors had contractors or a handyman or landscaper who fixated on the little girl. Easy for someone with legitimate access to a home/property to get inside. I know lots of people whose homes were robbed shortly after they had contractors doing work in their homes. Easy to pick up a spare key or leave a window unlocked.

The parents didn't do it. Cops always fixate on them and miss other obvious clues.

This is laughable. Have you read the three-page ransom letter? You really think their gardener sat down in their house and drafted that thing?

With handwriting that looked just like Patsy Ramsey's handwriting. What a wacky coincidence that was, right?

why why why do people keep obsessing over this note and saying it looks JUST LIKE Patsy's? It didn't. She was mostly cleared. On a scale of 1-5 with 5 being no match, she was a 4.5. That means it was very unlikely to be her writing. Seriously, watch the documentary mentioned a few pages back. The detective who worked the case said there's no way it was the parents who wrote it and no way it was written after she died.

[Anonymous]

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/jonbenet-ramseys-brother-burke-smiles-as-he-recalls-case-w438909

Creepy