Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The then-partial profile they used in early 1997 to clear suspects was not the touch DNA, though.
Previously posted: The DNA that was submitted to the CBI lab on December 30, 1996 (noted as evidence in a willful homicide, family kill) DID result in a report that cleared John and John Andrew Ramsey as well as John's brother, Jeff.
Then how to explain that the DNA from his saliva ended up mixed with two spots of JBR's blood in the child's underwear?
The original DNA could not even be identified as male until 2003 with better testing. John, John Andrew Ramsey, and Jeff? should not have been cleared by the DNA results available at that time. Although they may also have been cleared by other means besides DNA, such as alibi. Just because a very small (trace) DNA was found does not mean it belongs to the killer. It might - or it might not. If there is a match to a suspect, you have found the killer. If there is no match, where the DNA came from is unknown. This case is not like there was a good amount of blood or semen was available to test. The original DNA from under the fingernails was used up in the first round of testing and is no longer available.
Beckner in his AMA stated the CBI believed the unknown male DNA was either sweat or saliva. It is such a small amount they could not determine which it is. A factory worker could have left a trace of either. JBR could have transferred the DNA by touching a foreign object, then her panties.
Match the DNA to a suspect, and it is case closed. Until then psychopaths such as Michael Helgoth should have been more strenuously investigated, not cleared.
One strange behaviour by the Ramseys was their total lack of concern regarding the passing of the time the "kidnappers" were supposed to call. As if they did not expect a call.
Another strange behaviour was the distancing between John and Patsy Ramsey the morning of the 26th.
How people actually react in real life under severe stress, could be totally different from a Hollywood movie, so how much can we read into this behaviour?
The original DNA could not even be identified as male until 2003 with better testing. John, John Andrew Ramsey, and Jeff? should not have been cleared by the DNA results available at that time. Although they may also have been cleared by other means besides DNA, such as alibi.
Many people besides the above (Linda Hoffman Pugh, the friend who played Santa Claus, the Fernies, the Whites, etc) were cleared as suspects from DNA testing (not alibis). The tests were given on at least three dates in January of 1997 (Fleet and Priscilla White were tested more than once). Someone posted a list of that somewhere here.
From another site: The earliest tests located have very few loci - - still, it appears that a certain locus that was a clear set of two numbers could be used to eliminate someone if their locus was not the same. One locus could eliminate, perhaps, but no match for the DNA could take place using just that one locus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graywhiskers
Beckner in his AMA stated the CBI believed the unknown male DNA was either sweat or saliva. It is such a small amount they could not determine which it is. A factory worker could have left a trace of either. JBR could have transferred the DNA by touching a foreign object, then her panties.
We shouldn't be surprised that rumors like that came from him. Beckner, as has been mentioned before, made an astounding number of errors. Woodward's book has pages of them.
There was a poster here who followed suspects such as Oliva pretty closely; here's one of his/her posts about Oliva:
Quote:
Originally Posted by meibomius
1. You are citing as a source the suspect, a convicted felon and paranoid schizophrenic.
2. What he said was, "They told me I'm clear." He didn't mention DNA specifically.
3. What Moriarty said was that he had provided DNA and it didn't match evidence in the case. She did not list a source. No one does.
4. It has been stated in 2016 after his recent arrest that he has not been eliminated as a suspect. From the Denver Post, quoting Boulder city spokeswoman Sarah Huntley:One-time JonBenet Ramsey murder suspect held on child porn charges
...I read somewhere that his DNA was on file from his 1991 Oregon conviction, so I would think they could just compare that to the Ramsey case DNA. I couldn't put my finger on a source right now, but it certainly makes sense that his DNA would already be in the system, and I also think whether they got fresh DNA or used the data previously on file is trivial. Whatever evidence there is, it's not good enough to eliminate Oliva (especially if there was more than one perpetrator, which some people believe, though I doubt it).
The bottom line is that Beckner made specific reference to Oliva as not being eliminated, in response to the 2002 Moriarty piece the previous night that said he had been cleared. And in 2016, the official word is the same. Whereas the statements that he has been cleared by DNA come anonymous sources or the suspect himself.
Given the Boulder authorities' inclination to apply a different standard to the Ramseys as suspects, it would not surprise me one bit if a very unreliable or inconclusive level of match for JR would be enough for them to say it could be John's, and a similar level of unreliable or inconclusive level of match for Oliva would lead them to decide he's not worth pursuing. That's pretty much been the story of the whole investigation, a double standard on what evidence means.
One strange behaviour by the Ramseys was their total lack of concern regarding the passing of the time the "kidnappers" were supposed to call. As if they did not expect a call.
Another strange behaviour was the distancing between John and Patsy Ramsey the morning of the 26th.
How people actually react in real life under severe stress, could be totally different from a Hollywood movie, so how much can we read into this behaviour?
No matter who did it, that is very strange behavior. If they really had found a ransom note telling them that their child would be beheaded and they had to answer the phone at a certain time, they would have been glued to that phone. They would have been nervously awaiting that call, checking the clock. That's IF they really believed the note and still thought they could save her.
The distancing between the Ramseys too. Most couples would have been together, comforting each other. But they were in separate rooms as if they were uncomfortable being together, maybe even some anger or discomfort in being with each other. But that's not as bad as having no concern about the important life or death phone call.
The original DNA could not even be identified as male until 2003 with better testing. John, John Andrew Ramsey, and Jeff? should not have been cleared by the DNA results available at that time.
An interesting short clip about the DNA, testing that was available in early 1997, the cleared suspects, and how the BPD withheld some of this information from the D.A.'s office for months. No wonder Lacy was so upset.
No matter who did it, that is very strange behavior. If they really had found a ransom note telling them that their child would be beheaded and they had to answer the phone at a certain time, they would have been glued to that phone. They would have been nervously awaiting that call, checking the clock. That's IF they really believed the note and still thought they could save her.
The distancing between the Ramseys too. Most couples would have been together, comforting each other. But they were in separate rooms as if they were uncomfortable being together, maybe even some anger or discomfort in being with each other. But that's not as bad as having no concern about the important life or death phone call.
These two points, along with a few others, are what makes me firmly in the RDI camp.
Extraordinary behaviour...
My list is roughly:
Not interested in the pending phone call
Staying distant from each other that morning
John wanting to fly out that very night
Patsy in the same clothes
Not talking with the police and 'lawyering up'
The ransome note
John saying he didn't touch the note
Etc
Those are the off the chart reactions that no apologist or excuse maker can explain away to me.
Don't forget John casually flipping through his mail like it was a normal morning. (I know, he was looking for another ransom note or other communication from the kidnappers, sure)
I don't know what happened that night, but I know the Ramsey's do, and they are guilty of something.
[quote=StuartGotts;60027804]These two points, along with a few others, are what makes me firmly in the RDI camp. Extraordinary behaviour...
To a few peoplewho can't produce real evidence
My list is roughly: Not interested in the pending phone call
Well if they wrote the note, they would just as readily have shown extraordinary interest in the phone call to make the note look more real.
Staying distant from each other that morning
Meaningless.
John wanting to fly out that very night Patsy in the same clothes
Already explained, numerous times
Not talking with the police and 'lawyering up'
They did talk to police, and if you were a murder suspect you would lawyer up too
The ransome note
John saying he didn't touch the note
Etc Those are the off the chart reactions that no apologist or excuse maker can explain away to me.
Those are great big yuuuuuge giant nothing burgers. They are based purely on your very personal beliefs about how other people "should or would behave" in an extremely rare and stressful situation that you have never been in, and in which you might react quite differently than others. And you're groping for these straws because there's no convincing evidence they committed the crime
No matter who did it, that is very strange behavior. If they really had found a ransom note telling them that their child would be beheaded and they had to answer the phone at a certain time, they would have been glued to that phone. They would have been nervously awaiting that call, checking the clock. That's IF they really believed the note and still thought they could save her.
The distancing between the Ramseys too. Most couples would have been together, comforting each other. But they were in separate rooms as if they were uncomfortable being together, maybe even some anger or discomfort in being with each other. But that's not as bad as having no concern about the important life or death phone call.
Some of what we've read may come from the media, books like Steve Thomas's, and the Vanity Fair article, which contained a lot of inaccurate information and/or sensationalism.
From a previous post: Det. Linda Arndt made observations about other officers which were not based in fact. She made note in one of her police reports that the Ramseys weren't "acting right," although the other police reports contradict this statement. (Included in her report was second hand information, which she may have concluded from talking to an officer who mentioned it to another officer.) This was picked up by Bardach in the Vanity Fair article:
"French told colleagues that he had been struck by how differently the two parents were reacting. While John Ramsey, cool and collected, explained the sequence of events to him, Patsy Ramsey sat in an overstuffed chair in the sunroom sobbing. Something seemed odd to French, and later he would recall how the grieving mother's eyes stayed riveted on him. He remembered her gaze and her awkward attempts to conceal it--peering at him through splayed fingers held over her eyes."
This of course was picked up and publicized on wire services, newspapers, radio, Internet and TV broadcasts. Bardach went on to write in her article some statements attributed to French that he himself never made.
Det. French's actual reports (Woodward lists the police record # of each):
"Patsy is loosing (sic) her grip at the scene."
"John Ramsey would break down and start sobbing at the scene."
"Every time the phone rings, Patsy stands up and just like takes a baseball bat to the gut and then gets down on her knees and she's hiding her head and crying as soon as the phone rings and it's like a cattle prod."
There are many excerpts from the BPD reports in the book, including many statements made to officers by the Ramsey's friends, e.g. "Patsy was literally in shock. Vomiting, hyperventilating." -Woodward, WHYD
It may not say anything about the Team Ramsey but their attorney for over 20 years, L. Lin Wood is, imho, Bat sh@t crazy! A QAnon conspiracy theorist who thinks VP Pence will face a firing squad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
