JonBenet Ramsey Update

[Ally]

Far be it from me to agree with Tom but when someone is decrying the lack of logical rebuttal in his opposition and they then respond with a childish grammar nitpick and no logical rebuttal of their own, they sort of bury their own case.

[Tom_Wescott]

No, Jonathan's correct in that 'disclude' isn't a word. I should have used 'discount'. However, since my point was sound, Prof. John had only my grammar as a recourse for attack.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[cappuccina]

It's akshuallee a werd meeening tooo eksclude or shutte outte...

[Tom_Wescott]

Note to Jordan: See what I was talking about now?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

'Disclude'?

[Tom_Wescott]

The DNA evidence Roy is referring to is so miniscule that it could not at all be said to belong to her murderer. There are a 1000 ways it could have been transferred to her clothes and such a small amount actually points away from it having come from her murderer and towards the conclusion that it's presence there is mundane in nature.

You have to disclude the DNA and look at the more reliable evidence in the case, such as the circumstances of the crime itself, the crime scene, the note, etc.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Because the same unknnown male DNA has now been found on another piece of clothing the victim was also wearing at the time, the long johns. (2008 click here)

There have been different District Attorneys over time. And someone said Mary Lacy, who was DA in 2008 when this new discovery was made, is biased. But that's irrelevant, isn't it. This is science.

That's all I was trying to point out here. New evidence.

Roy

Yes it's science but it doesn't absolutely point to her killer. I would have been more impressed if the touch DNA was found on the rope that strangled her.

Jon Benet was wearing those clothes to a party that night. A party with several other children and people. For "touch" DNA, all that would have had to have happen is someone either a child or an adult grabbed Jonbenet about the waist, either to play or to lift her up and give her a hug. Their DNA is scrapped off on her long johns, she hugs back, then later, she goes to the bathroom removes her long johns and transfers it to her underwear.

This is the same kind of "science" that used to get people dinged on gunshot residue. Test them for gunpowder residue and if they match, they are guilty. Until of course it was realized, years later, that gunpowder residue is EVERYWHERE in police cars, in police examination rooms and there was risk of tainted transfer just by contact.

While I find the DNA evidence interesting and it puts up a point to ponder, what happens years down the road if that DNA is identified as being from someone at the party? Are they automatically guilty of following her and murdering her?

[Jonathan H]

See what I mean, Roy?

You present a devastating counter-argument and the response is to be practically offended that you have dared to challenged Buff-orthodoxy.

[ChainzCooper]

Uhm....ok dont know really what to say...I wasn't really looking for great knowledge just another perspective. Theres no need to get into arguments we can agree to disagree on here can't we?

[Roy Corduroy]

The unknown male DNA found in the underpants was was discussed in this 2006 article, which was before the new development. (click here)

Of it, this was said -

"Another view of the DNA in JonBenet's underpants has been offered by the prosecutor who ran the original grand jury investigation into the murder that yielded no indictments when it was ended in 1999.

Michael Kane conjectured in 2002 that the male DNA in JonBenet's underwear might not be critical evidence and could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture."

But that theory no longer holds water.

Because the same unknnown male DNA has now been found on another piece of clothing the victim was also wearing at the time, the long johns. (2008 click here)

There have been different District Attorneys over time. And someone said Mary Lacy, who was DA in 2008 when this new discovery was made, is biased. But that's irrelevant, isn't it. This is science.

That's all I was trying to point out here. New evidence.

Roy

[Irelandsown37]

Hi Jordan,

Yes, you're absolutely right about it being a forum of free exchange. I'm just finding myself more annoyed by ignorance as of late so am choosing to be more selective in my battles. Regarding the Ramsey case, it is beyond dispute that the weight of the evidence points to an inside job and precludes an intruder, so either JonBenet was not murdered at all, but accidentally killed and the rest was a cover-up to indicate an intruder; or she was murdered by her mother, Patsy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

After reading many articles I came to pretty much the same conclusion... with the District Attorney's office stonewalling the police investigation by running interference for Team Ramsey lawyers. I guess having deep pockets helps.. as per the OJ Simpson debacle.

[Jonathan H]

To Jordan

You're being misled. There is nothing substantial forthcoming.

As usual, Tom is holding a weak hand, one which he unfairly and arrogantly blames on me and Roy -- the utter bastards -- for not revealing.

Well, he has to have some excuse, however lame, for why he would conceal from you his great knowledge and wisdom of this case.

[ChainzCooper]

Tom,
Ok but if you reconsider just let me know. I'm willing to listen.
Jordan

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jordan,

Yes, you're absolutely right about it being a forum of free exchange. I'm just finding myself more annoyed by ignorance as of late so am choosing to be more selective in my battles. Regarding the Ramsey case, it is beyond dispute that the weight of the evidence points to an inside job and precludes an intruder, so either JonBenet was not murdered at all, but accidentally killed and the rest was a cover-up to indicate an intruder; or she was murdered by her mother, Patsy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChainzCooper]

Tom,
Ok, but I mean this is a forum where all thoughts are supposed to be welcome considering its an unsolved case right? I would love to hear your opinion.
Jordan