Parents had no motive and no history of violence or mental illness that would suggest they were
capable or predisposed to do such a thing.

Evidence of intruder at basement window - leaves and "popcorn" dragged into house, glass on floor, suitcase moved as possible "step"

Ransom note - too long and clear to have been written in a panic AFTER the crime, I think it was
written before. I can explain why an intruder might, (wasting time while he waited for the family to
be down for the night) - but why a parent? Who would plan to kill their child and leave a note with
a body? In my theory, the note was a red herring, a "joke", by a very sick person like Ted Bundy
and Danny Rollins.

Ransom note - the handwriting doesn't match either parent. On a scale of 1-5 with 5 being "no way", John is a 5 and Patsy a 4.5.

Stun gun was used - parents had no access to any stun gun, never had any interest in one.

Child taken to basement - if a parent wanted to abuse or punish a child, why go to the clutered basement? Why not just use the bedroom?

Garotte - not a weapon used by parents

Cord - didn't match anything in the house, couldn't be linked to parents in any way.
sexual molestation - no history of pedophilia in that house at all and when parents DO kill their
children, less than 1% sexually assault them

DNA mixed with JonBenét's blood in her panties is unmatched but not from parents

Dark fibers on JonBenét's clothing and on her genitals doesn't match anything in the Ramsey house. Same with colored fibers on the tape.

Body was not left in "peaceful pose" as children usually are when killed by parents. She was left in a moldy room, on the floor, not "tucked in", the garotte remained n her neck, arms thrown over head...

Tape, part of staging, didn't match anything in the house - source roll never found, no one can link the tape to the parents.

Boot print and palm print in room with body don't match the Ramseys

Ramseys cooperated with police - called them and gave them full control over the house, signed over 100 consent forms allowing the BPD to access private records, repeatedly allowed themselves to be interrogated - marathon type interrogations.

Character witnesses - No one can cite a time when the Ramseys were anything but loving parents.
Family, friends, the older children in particular - all defend the parents. (Exceptions being Judith
Thomas and Linda Hoffmann-Pugh who started out defending them then made THOUSANDS of
dollars by "switching sides" and selling information to the tabloids.)

Ramseys passed polygraphs given by some of the best men in the country - and the results have NOT been disputed by any authority - - they won't accept them but won't contest them either.

Judge Julie Carnes and DA Mary Keenan's public statements that say clearly that the evidence points toward an intruder, not a domestic situation.

So I would not be thinking of 'exculpatory evidence' but would start out with intruder and have a very high standard before switching directions.

Now as to the items listed:
Some might be 'soft' but others are highly valuable.

Male dna found on a female victim is highly indicative of the identity of her assailant. It may not be clear and absolute proof, but it sure is strong evidence. You can bet that if the dna matched any of the Ramsey males they would have been arrested immediately and charged.

Absence of any one particular item from the crime scene can always be a problem but absence of: cord and tape and stun gun seems cummulatively powerful.

Lou Smit's "freebie" to DA-Hunter was 'the note was written before the crime, because afterwards the perpetrator would have been too excited to even sit down'. Yet, this 'freebie' based on years of experience and direct observation of perpetrators is somehow considered unreliable. I would certainly weight the lengthy note as fairly good exculpatory evidence. And certainly would think it absurd to write such a lengthy note after some sort of 'accident'.

I would include on the list the presence of the sack and rope. I just can't see the parents going out at two in the morning to obtain some weird paper sack and absurdly useless length of rope to put up in the JAR/Guest Room as some sort of subtle decoration of the crime scene.

>>Exculpatory Evidence - as I see it
>>Parents had no motive and no history of violence or mental illness that would suggest they were capable or predisposed to do such a thing.

this does not exclude them from being capable of covering up an accident – in fact it would tend to back that up as they obviously value their image as a strong, respectable and loving family. All the more reason to attempt to protect that.

>>Evidence of intruder at basement window –

>> leaves and "popcorn" dragged into house,

The window had been broken for months, There is no saying when they may have blown in or been transferred around by the numerous people known to have been in the basement area just before the murder

>>glass on floor,

The glass had been around since John broke the window months previously. It could have been missed in the clean up and disturbed recent to the killing. It’s ridiculous to call it evidence. I had a broken window in my classroom in mid March 2002. It was carefully cleaned up at the time – yet I found a large (about 3 inches) shard of glass last Wednesday when I was doing some filing.

>>suitcase moved as possible "step"

Conflicting reports of Fleet White admitting to moving this case

>>Ransom note - too long and clear to have been written in a panic AFTER the crime, I think it was written before. I can explain why an intruder might, (wasting time while he waited for the family to be down for the night) - but why a parent? Who would plan to kill their child and leave a note with a body? In my theory, the note was a red herring, a "joke", by a very sick person like Ted Bundy and Danny Rollins.

A stranger/intruder had no way of knowing that the family would find the note. The chances were very much in favour of the family finding the missing child long before the note. If the parents had killed their child and were unable to get the body out of the house, then they would have some very hard explaining to do if their daughter’s dead body was merely found in the basement. A fake ransom note would act as a red herring in that case – to confuse the situation.

>>Ransom note - the handwriting doesn't match either parent. On a scale of 1-5 with 5 being "no way", John is a 5 and Patsy a 4.5.

Patsy cannot be excluded either. There are also experts who say she IS a match

>>Stun gun was used - parents had no access to any stun gun, never had any interest in one.

The stungun is one UNPROVEN theory for explaining some marks on her body. It has not been proved and will not be proved unless her body is exhumed

>>Child taken to basement - if a parent wanted to abuse or punish a child, why go to the clutered basement? Why not just use the bedroom?

Burke was sleeping nearby. The basement offered a remote and private place to stage the crime.

>>Garotte - not a weapon used by parents

That is true and it is one of the reasons that I cannot believe they did this. The only reason that I can think of parents using a garrotte would be to hide evidence of strangulation by a different method.

>>Cord - didn't match anything in the house, couldn't be linked to parents in any way.

>>sexual molestation –

I’m sure that many people could find a length of string in a drawer at home. The cord could have been used in its entirety – that would explain the excessive length of the cord which was extended and tied loosely round her wrists.

>>no history of pedophilia in that house at all and when parents DO kill their children, less than 1% sexually assault them

Not every ‘parents-did-it’ theory suggests that they are paedophiles. Some experts suggest that the sexual assault was staging to make it look like a paedophilia job.

>>DNA mixed with JonBenét's blood in her panties is unmatched but not from parents

It has also been dismissed by experts who say it is contamination and may come from more than one source. That DNA is degraded. If JonBenet had scratched her assailant, the DNA would have been good.

>>Dark fibers on JonBenét's clothing and on her genitals doesn't match anything in the Ramsey house. Same with colored fibers on the tape.

The police have suggested that the dark fibres match John Ramsey’s shirt. He did submit his clothes for a year after the killing and therefore there is no proof that the clothing he did submit were the garments that he was actually wearing.

>>Body was not left in "peaceful pose" as children usually are when killed by parents. She was left in a moldy room, on the floor, not "tucked in", the garotte remained n her neck, arms thrown over head...

John Ramsey found the body and he testified that she was indeed tucked up. It is unclear why you keep saying otherwise. If the garrotte and cord round the wrists were staging then it would have been essential for them to be lest in situ

>>Tape, part of staging, didn't match anything in the house - source roll never found, no one can link the tape to the parents.

The Ramseys would have had difficulty leaving the house with her body, but it would have been very much easier to slip out unnoticed and conceal a small roll of duct tape and even some cord in a neighbour’s garbage.

>>Boot print and palm print in room with body don't match the Ramseys

This is also disputed. Re the leaked BPD article last year which stated that the boot print belonged to Burke and the palm print to Melinda.

Also, neither of these can be dated. They could have been there for some time prior to the murder. The mould on the floor couldn’t have grown so fast or it would surely have taken over the entire neighbourhood by now.

>>Ramseys cooperated with police - called them and gave them full control over the house, signed over 100 consent forms allowing the BPD to access private records, repeatedly allowed themselves to be interrogated - marathon type interrogations.

The Ramsey refused unconditional police interviews for four months after the murder by which time they were able to answer “I do not recall” to many important questions.

>>Character witnesses - No one can cite a time when the Ramseys were anything but loving parents. Family, friends, the older children in particular - all defend the parents. (Exceptions being Judith Thomas and Linda Hoffmann-Pugh who started out defending them then made THOUSANDS of dollars by "switching sides" and selling information to the tabloids.)

Some friends have come out in support of them. Strangely, their closest friends did not. The RST suggest they were 'got at' by the police. Now why would the closest friends be the ones most likely to be taken in by dirty police tactics? The people who did support them tended to be people who knew them superficially and/or previously. Susan Stine was the exception and she was almost obsessive in her defence of them. The murder enabled her to move into the very heart of the Ramsey inner circle – a position she had not previously occupied.

>>Ramseys passed polygraphs given by some of the best men in the country - and the results have NOT been disputed by any authority - - they won't accept them but won't contest them either.

The Ramseys refused to take FBI administered polygraphs – even although their grievance was with the inefficient Boulder Police Department. They passed their own privately commissioned polygraphs – on a third attempt. The first polygrapher has never spoken publicly about the reasons for failure to ‘pass’ earlier attempts. He remains silent and endures slurs that it was his own ‘errors’ – despite being a very highly respected polygrapher – and indeed the Ramsey first choice of polygrapher.

>>Judge Julie Carnes and DA Mary Keenan's public statements that say clearly that the evidence points toward an intruder, not a domestic situation.

Julie Carnes did not have all of the evidence and her report read like a High School essay on the Ramsey case. It also now seems clear that Mary Keenan has a biased viewpoint which may be based on her perception of women as victims.

********
Jameson, none of the evidence that you have touted would convince me of the Ramseys innocence – apart from the use of garrotte as a weapon. That is what keeps me off the fence. I also think that the paltry sum of $118,000 points away from Patsy Ramsey and that she would be far more likely to ask for something dramatic like $118 million. If the stungun were proved then that would also be compelling evidence and if I were running the campaign to clear their names, I would be pushing for an exhumation before it is too late.

If they have questions, I expect they will do it.

But I can tell you for a fact that the grave has not been disturbed in the past year - not in the past 4 months.

I figure the investigators have proof enough with the photos and Doberson tests.

"they obviously value their image as a strong, respectable
>and loving family. All the more reason to attempt to
>protect that.

They don't seem that concerned about that to me - - they have stood back many times and just watched their name be smeared. I have been there, it hasn't been #1 concern at all.
>mid March 2002. It was carefully cleaned up at the time –

"A stranger/intruder had no way of knowing that the family
>would find the note. The chances were very much in favour
>of the family finding the missing child long before the
>note."

Nope - the note was in a place where it certainly WOULD be found before the body.

"Patsy cannot be excluded either. There are also experts who say she IS a match"

Those experts were hired by Darnay Hoffman, they did a half-ass job and their reports were discounted and discredited by the federal jusge, Julie Carnes.

"The stungun is one UNPROVEN theory for explaining some
>marks on her body. It has not been proved and will not be
>proved unless her body is exhumed.

Seems the investigators who matter are not going to exhume the body - - or they would have by now. That indicates they think the question has been answered - - by the pig tests.

"Burke was sleeping nearby. The basement offered a remote
and private place to stage the crime."

The bedrooms may as well have been miles apart. I have been in the house and a parent would NOT have felt the need to go downstairs to do anything that was done to JBR - - don't forget, she was subdued somehow to remove her from her room - - moving her was, IMO, was far more risky.

"The cord could have been used in its entirety – that would explain the excessive length of the cord which was extended and tied loosely round her wrists.

There was not a full package used - - that we know for sure - - the length is wrong and the factory end - - only one was at the Ramsey house. Two in the package.

On the DNA - "It has also been dismissed by experts who say it is
>contamination and may come from more than one source. That
>DNA is degraded. If JonBenet had scratched her assailant,
>the DNA would have been good.

The DNA IS good. Trust me.

......have to go but someone else can finish....

They don't seem that concerned about that to me - - they have stood back many times and just watched their name be smeared. I have been there, it hasn't been #1 concern at all.

What was that again that John wrote in DOI, page 341?

I determined to go on fighting for our reputation -- and for JonBenet. I couldn't imagine bringing another child into our family without battling with all I had to restore our good name.

All he has, see that? I have no doubt he meant it, that the Ramsey family would literally do anything, spend any amount of money even if it were spent on propagating falsehoods to preserve their good name.

Accident scenarios do not work. I've been over ALL the possible accidedent scenarios I've seen and they don't work.

The problem with these theories is the dual nature of the murder methods. It cannot be determined based on autopsy which attack came first, however it CAN be determined that there was a short span of time between them AND that there was blood flow to BOTH injuries which means that she was NOT DEAD when BOTH the headwound and strangulation ocurred.

John killed her accidentally with his hands and used the garrote to cover up the accidental strangulation.

-Had this ocurred there would have been no blood flow in the neck wounds because she would already have been dead. There would also have been no need for the additional head wound.

Patsy hit her accidentally when she caught John molesting her.

-Had this ocurred she would have a head wound that would not have appeared fatal. At some point during the staging JonBenet woke and fought off the strangulation. If she awoke they would no longer need to stage the murder because they would know that she had survived the head trauma. Also this scenario implies that Patsy helped her husband cover the murder, even though moments earlier she had attempted to strike him for molesting JB.

Patsy accidentally hit her, or she struck her head on the bathtub and they thought she was dead and staged the murder to cover.

-Same problem as above. At some time JB awoke and fought off the attack, if she woke up, why would they continue to strangle her?

The head wound alone was fatal, therefore the strangultion must have ocurred not long after the headwound, or before, because JB would not have had the strength to claw at the garrote if she was nearly dead from the head wound.

This means that there was very little time from the time of the "accident" to the use of strangulation as a staging method.

It seems unlikely that a person who is suddenly confronted with a mortally wounded child would make the decision and posess the ability to formulate a cover-up plan as quickly as required under this scenario.

Had the injury to the head not broken the skin and not bled, then why would the parents assume that she was dead? If she was knocked out from the blow but it did not appear to have badly wounded her they would assume that she was simply knocked unconscious and attempted to revive her. If on the other hand it did not knock her unconscious, and there was no blood or breaking of the skin, why would they assume she had been mortally wounded?

I know what John wrote - and I know he wants the family name to be cleared - - but I also know that was not as important to him as working with the authorities to find the killer.

There are so many things I have chosen not to share, private conversations witht he Ramseys and with others. I have not always agreed with what others have said and done, I have kept confidences and will continue to - - but I will say this much.... the Ramseys would like the family name cleared but it was never the driving force behind what they were doing. They had other priorities.

To me, the biggest question regarding an accident is why the accident itself would not have been dealt with in a call for an ambulance. So, because that is the most glaring question, accident theories that evolve seem to be forced to include a motive for covering up said accident. Speculators have pondered and come up with (a) maintaining reputation/image and/or (b) covering up sexual abuse.

The Ramseys historically have called the doctor for every minor illness, bump, or bruise involving JonBenet. Why wouldn’t they call an ambulance to save their daughter’s life if an accidental blow to her head occurred on Christmas night?

IF the blow to the head occurred first and was an accident, surely the family would do whatever they could to save her life before considering anything else. Surely the loss of her life would take priority over saving their reputation/image.

If the head blow occurred because someone was angry about some perversion that was going on, swung a weapon at the offender and missed, hitting JonBenet, surely the family would do whatever they could to save her life before considering anything else. If the family were to be motivated by reputation/image to cover up the perversion and the accident, would they really take all the time necessary to decide on a plan of action (while she is still alive), then apply a garrotte (while she is still alive) and strangle the remaining life out of her, just to maintain their reputation/image? Does that seriously sound like a reasonable theory? The family would not sacrifice her life to keep that secret hidden. The loss of their daughter’s life would be far more devastating than the embarrassment of incest.

JonBenet was still ALIVE for both the garrotting and the head blow.

If the garrotte was part of the “perversion”, and someone came upon the scene – while she was still alive – and swung a weapon at the offender and missed, hitting JonBenet, wouldn’t that someone immediately call an ambulance? The garrotting is what caused her death. So, if the head blow occurred accidentally as a result of the perverted individual being caught, why would the family conspire to finish her off with more/the garrotting – after the head blow?

What we seem to be asked to believe is that reputation/image was a motive for MURDER (not an accident causing death, but pre-meditated murder).

The break in the window was in the top part of the window. It is unlikely this debris (leaves, packing popcorn) would have blown up and in through the window.

The glass had been around since John broke the window months previously. Conflicting reports of Fleet White admitting to moving this case

There was glass on the suitcase. The suitcase was not there when the window was broken in the late summer. Fleet White did not move the suitcase under the window from another part of the basement.

A stranger/intruder had no way of knowing that the family would find the note.

A stranger/intruder would have had no problem figuring out an obvious place to leave the note where it would be found first thing in the morning. The spiral stairs led to the kitchen, where most people go first thing in the morning – for coffee, juice. The note could have been left on a kitchen counter or on JB’s bed. Sooner or later, the family was going to find JB missing and the intruder left the note in a place where it was highly likely the family would find it.

Patsy cannot be excluded either. There are also experts who say she IS a match

I don’t think there is anyone who says Patsy’s writing is a “match”. “Cannot be excluded” sounds like the most incriminating an expert could come up with.

The stungun is one UNPROVEN theory for explaining some marks on her body. It has not been proved and will not be proved unless her body is exhumed

The body does not have to be exhumed to provide reasonable testimony regarding the skull fracture and its medical implications. For the same reason, the body does not have to be exhumed to provide reasonable testimony and expert opinion that a stun gun was used. There are photographs, an autopsy report, tests that show the same markings, measurements, etc that provide a reasonable conclusion a stun gun was used.

It has also been dismissed by experts who say it is contamination and may come from more than one source. That DNA is degraded. If JonBenet had scratched her assailant, the DNA would have been good.

How did the DNA get mixed with her blood in the panties? What experts are saying "it is contamination" and which experts are saying it "may come from more than one source"? What difference does it make if it was degraded? The fact that the DNA is eligible for CODIS means there's sufficient genetic material for "individuality" and statistical assessment against data in CODIS.

The police have suggested that the dark fibres match John Ramsey’s shirt. He did submit his clothes for a year after the killing and therefore there is no proof that the clothing he did submit were the garments that he was actually wearing.

The police use a variety of tactics and in this case were hoping to press for a confession (because they didn't have the evidence). The fibers changed to BLACK for this police questioning (from dark blue). Sound fishy to you? There is no MATCHING OF FIBERS in the testing/comparing of fibers unless the fabric is "one of a kind".

The mould on the floor couldn’t have grown so fast or it would surely have taken over the entire neighbourhood by now.

But it was confined to that room and there seems to be some basis in fact for determining those prints were there from very close to the time of the crime. Charlie Brennan's unnamed source names Melinda for the palmprint and Burke for the boot print while investigators still active in the case say otherwise. Should CB have retracted that statement and couldn't be bothered? We don't know. Whose word should we believe?

The debris could have come in at any time. The basement wasn't neat. Wet muddy leaves might have suggested that they'd come in very recently. However, bear in mind that John himself fiddled with the window that morning. They could have blown in then. If he was guilty of staging, he could even have pulled them in himself - as he could also have caused the 'disturbance' in the window well. He had opportunity.

There was glass on the suitcase. The suitcase was not there when the window was broken in the late summer. Fleet White did not move the suitcase under the window from another part of the basement.

Oh were you there? I have read an account somewhere that suggests he did admit to moving the suitcase. Right now I cannot recall where that was or how reliable it was. So I'll keep my mind open. Remember too that John was in the basement - tampered with the window and had opportunity.
A stranger/intruder had no way of knowing that the family would find the note.

A stranger/intruder would have had no problem figuring out an obvious place to leave the note where it would be found first thing in the morning.

Why then did the Ramseys themselves think it was odd that the intruder would 'know' the routine?

I don’t think there is anyone who says Patsy’s writing is a “match”. “Cannot be excluded” sounds like the most incriminating an expert could come up with.

I can think of two experts who are certain Patsy wrote the note and who would be willing to say so.

For the same reason, the body does not have to be exhumed to provide reasonable testimony and expert opinion that a stun gun was used. There are photographs, an autopsy report, tests that show the same markings, measurements, etc that provide a reasonable conclusion a stun gun was used.

The stungun marks are disputed by experts. I disagree that photographic evidence would suffice. Exhumation is the ONLY way to positively prove or disprove the stungun and since the intruder theory weighs so heavily on it, if I were a juror, I would not accept photographs as 'proof'.

How did the DNA get mixed with her blood in the panties?

Why_Nut has already explained this. If you bled on the table and I shed some skin cells where you bled, then our DNA would get mixed. That's fairly simple stuff Margoo. Come on. Living people don't have degraded DNA. They shed a skin cell - that cell has a full DNA profile. Dirty toilet seats are a great source of mixed DNA. My toddler climbs up onto the loo and her underwear presses against the pan as she pees. Often she drips on the seat as she's climbing off. Imagine a party with 23 people - a week or so after a previous party with a hundred people. How many drips? How many skin cells? Remember too that Linda Hoffman Pugh phoned Patsy to say that she couldn't come and help her clean up after the party on 23rd. Patsy was run off her feet. I don't think that cleaning toilets would have been her first priority.

What experts are saying "it is contamination" and which experts are saying it "may come from more than one source"? What difference does it make if it was degraded?

see above

The fact that the DNA is eligible for CODIS means there's sufficient genetic material for "individuality" and statistical assessment against data in CODIS.

The fact that *someone* is saying that it is codis certified does not IMO mean that it is good enough quality to incriminate anyone. Last week, I endeavoured to find a definition for 'CODIS certified'. Every result I found gave me the same definition - that it is a mark of the quality of the lab who is analysing the sample i.e it is the LAB and it's procedures which are certified by CODIS. I found nothing which suggested the term referred to the quality of the DNA itself.

The police use a variety of tactics and in this case were hoping to press for a confession (because they didn't have the evidence).

Are you privy to the tactics of the police on this particular occasion? The RST certainly want us to believe that it was a police 'tactic' on this occasion - because the police declined to show the evidence to their suspects.

The fibers changed to BLACK for this police questioning (from dark blue). Sound fishy to you? There is no MATCHING OF FIBERS in the testing/comparing of fibers unless the fabric is "one of a kind".

Actually, I do know a little about this and I know that many blacks are 'composite blacks' which look a different colour until they are microscopically examined. Again, we the public do NOT know all of the police evidence (as we should not). I shall reserve judgement on the fibres too.

But it was confined to that room and there seems to be some basis in fact for determining those prints were there from very close to the time of the crime.

Margoo, if you go by jameson, then you have a mould which grows so fast that the footprint could ONLY have been made a short time before the murder - thus dating it. However, what about that mould? That room was a place the family claimed not to visit very often. We have heard NOTHING about mould being a problem. We have heard NO claims that LHP had to go down there on a weekly basis to keep the mould under control or that they had to get 1st Preservation Ltd in to treat the mould problem in the basement. I have mould growing in a corner of my classroom and it isn't pleasant. I worry about spores. It's a powdery mould and it needs to be cleaned off with regularity.

A while back, Why_Nut posted some photos of the basement room showing the mould. One of the photos was a crime scene photo and the other was taken some time after the murder. Under magnification, it was clear that the mould had not changed in any noticeable way. I find little pieces of datable evidence like this pretty useful in sifting out the facts from the spin.

Charlie Brennan's unnamed source names Melinda for the palmprint and Burke for the boot print while investigators still active in the case say otherwise. Should CB have retracted that statement and couldn't be bothered? We don't know. Whose word should we believe?

Where there is contradiction, I reserve judgement. The article about the palmprint and the shoeprint and the body hair have not been officially disputed - nor has Lin Wood threatened to sue anyone. Read what you will into that.

Fleet may have moved the suitcase inches - not from one part of the basement to another. Why would you ask if I was there? I am using the same information you have. A stranger/intruder could rely on certain odds of them finding the note at some point and FOR SURE THEY WERE GOING TO FIND JB MISSING FROM HER BED (not shouting, emphasis).

>A stranger/intruder would have had no problem figuring out
>an obvious place to leave the note where it would be found
>first thing in the morning.
>
>Why then did the Ramseys themselves think it was odd that
>the intruder would 'know' the routine?

What do you mean the Ramseys thought he would know the routine?

>
>I don’t think there is anyone who says Patsy’s writing is a
>“match”. “Cannot be excluded” sounds like the most
>incriminating an expert could come up with.
>
>I can think of two experts who are certain Patsy wrote
>the note and who would be willing to say so.

You said a "match". I said "cannot be excluded". We know about Darnay's hired guns.

>
>For the same reason, the body does not have to be exhumed to
>provide reasonable testimony and expert opinion that a stun
>gun was used. There are photographs, an autopsy report,
>tests that show the same markings, measurements, etc that
>provide a reasonable conclusion a stun gun was used.
>
>The stungun marks are disputed by experts. I disagree
>that photographic evidence would suffice. Exhumation is the
>ONLY way to positively prove or disprove the stungun and
>since the intruder theory weighs so heavily on it, if I were
>a juror, I would not accept photographs as 'proof'.

What experts are disputing the stun gun - recently - since the tests were done? There are 4 or 5 who ARE NOT disputing the marks are consistent with the stun gun. Dr. Meyer, who did the autopsy, Sue Kitchen, CBI investigator and Dr. Robert Deters (pathologist) also agreed the marks were consistent with a stun gun. Deters concurw with Dobersen: "...but he didn't think the body had to be exhumed. Nothing more would be learned by examining the skin tissue'" Doberson, Kitchen, and Deters all had EXPERIENCE with stun gun deaths and the corresponding marks. PMPT pb 349, 431
>
>How did the DNA get mixed with her blood in the panties?
>
>Why_Nut has already explained this. If you bled on the
>table and I shed some skin cells where you bled, then our
>DNA would get mixed. That's fairly simple stuff Margoo.
>Come on. Living people don't have degraded DNA. They shed
>a skin cell - that cell has a full DNA profile. Dirty
>toilet seats are a great source of mixed DNA. My toddler
>climbs up onto the loo and her underwear presses against the
>pan as she pees. Often she drips on the seat as she's
>climbing off. Imagine a party with 23 people - a week or so
>after a previous party with a hundred people. How many
>drips? How many skin cells? Remember too that Linda
>Hoffman Pugh phoned Patsy to say that she couldn't come and
>help her clean up after the party on 23rd. Patsy was run
>off her feet. I don't think that cleaning toilets would have
>been her first priority.

How did the foreign DNA get mixed with her blood in her panties? You have not answered that at all. No, I don't think "that's pretty simple stuff". Your explanation would eliminate ALL DNA in ALL forensic cases.

>
>What experts are saying "it is contamination" and which
>experts are saying it "may come from more than one source"?
>What difference does it make if it was degraded?
>
see above

See my question - what experts?

>
>The fact that the DNA is eligible for CODIS means there's
>sufficient genetic material for "individuality" and
>statistical assessment against data in CODIS.
>
>The fact that *someone* is saying that it is codis
>certified does not IMO mean that it is good enough quality
>to incriminate anyone. Last week, I endeavoured to find a
>definition for 'CODIS certified'. Every result I found gave
>me the same definition - that it is a mark of the quality of
>the lab who is analysing the sample i.e it is the LAB and
>it's procedures which are certified by CODIS. I found
>nothing which suggested the term referred to the quality of
>the DNA itself.

CODIS quality means there's sufficient genetic material for "individuality" and statistical assessment against data in CODIS as per the standards set out by CODIS (13 STR loci).

>
>The police use a variety of tactics and in this case were
>hoping to press for a confession (because they didn't have
>the evidence).
>
>Are you privy to the tactics of the police on this
>particular occasion? The RST certainly want us to believe
>that it was a police 'tactic' on this occasion - because the
>police declined to show the evidence to their suspects.
>
>
>The fibers changed to BLACK for this police questioning
>(from dark blue). Sound fishy to you? There is no MATCHING
>OF FIBERS in the testing/comparing of fibers unless the
>fabric is "one of a kind".
>
>Actually, I do know a little about this and I know that
>many blacks are 'composite blacks' which look a different
>colour until they are microscopically examined. Again, we
>the public do NOT know all of the police evidence (as we
>should not). I shall reserve judgement on the fibres too.
>

We all should reserve judgment on the fibers as there is no such thing as a match in comparing the fibers unless the fabric is one of a kind. By 1998, the cops would know whether the fibers were blue or black - microscopically examined.
>
>But it was confined to that room and there seems to be some
>basis in fact for determining those prints were there from
>very close to the time of the crime.
>
>Margoo, if you go by jameson, then you have a mould which
>grows so fast that the footprint could ONLY have been made a
>short time before the murder - thus dating it. However,
>what about that mould? That room was a place the family
>claimed not to visit very often. We have heard NOTHING
>about mould being a problem. We have heard NO claims that
>LHP had to go down there on a weekly basis to keep the mould
>under control or that they had to get 1st Preservation Ltd
>in to treat the mould problem in the basement. I have mould
>growing in a corner of my classroom and it isn't pleasant.
>I worry about spores. It's a powdery mould and it needs to
>be cleaned off with regularity.
>
>A while back, Why_Nut posted some photos of the basement
>room showing the mould. One of the photos was a crime scene
>photo and the other was taken some time after the murder.
>Under magnification, it was clear that the mould had not
>changed in any noticeable way. I find little pieces of
>datable evidence like this pretty useful in sifting out the
>facts from the spin.

I'm not going with jameson alone. I'm going with what Lou Smit has said time and time again.
>
>
>Charlie Brennan's unnamed source names Melinda for the
>palmprint and Burke for the boot print while investigators
>still active in the case say otherwise. Should CB have
>retracted that statement and couldn't be bothered? We don't
>know. Whose word should we believe?
>
>Where there is contradiction, I reserve judgement. The
>article about the palmprint and the shoeprint and the body
>hair have not been officially disputed - nor has Lin Wood
>threatened to sue anyone. Read what you will into that.

I'm going with Judge Carnes (Mar 31/03) and Lou Smit not a RMN article with an unnamed source and a reporter who does not retract false reporting.

Your posts say you are reserving judgment and keeping an open mind. I have yet to see anything in your posts but statements or comments that reflect arguments against an intruder. My posts are in favor of an intruder. Your posts reflect your opinions just as mine do. You post statements as facts based on your understanding of the information as do mine. You are no further from "reserving judgment" than I am IMO.

But when you couple that with a bit of it being near the body.... that changes things just a little.

And when you add to that the disturbance in the window well that was FRESH - - the larger picture supports the theory that some of that debris came in when the dirt and debris on the window ledge was disturbed - -and that was close tot he time of the murder - certainly not months before.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fleet found the suitcase flat against the wall and moved it sideways. He did NOT move it from the base of the stairs to that room. It is believed the killer did that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The question was = "... Why then did the Ramseys themselves think it was odd that the intruder would 'know' the routine?"

The answer is that the Ramseys didn't really think that it was so odd for the note to be put there - - that was a very busy hallway - - anyone going from the house to the garage would have to pass within feet of the stairs and the note. The Ramseys did answer questions and if you watch or read the interviews you will see that they were responding to specific questions when they spoke about an intruder knowing their routine. They were answering leading questions much of the time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The statement - "I can think of two experts who are certain Patsy wrote the note and who would be willing to say so."

Can you think of two who were working with the real ransom note (not a copy off the net) and verified samples from the Ramseys when they wrote their first reports giving 100% attribution to Patsy? The "experts" you speak of have been discredited in this case - - read the Federal Judge's opinion - - and she had their work, their depositions - - - she knew just what she was doing when she discredited them.

I am not the only one who sees that - - read the judge's decision - - she hands Darnay their heads on a platter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You wrote, "Exhumation is the ONLY way to positively prove or disprove the stungun and since the intruder theory weighs so heavily on it, if I were a juror, I would not accept photographs as 'proof'."

The experts who say it isn't a stun gun offer no other reasonable source for the marks. The experts who say those are stun gun injuries have the data needed to support what they say. If the body was exhumed, you would just get more reports that YOU wouldn't accept, I think.

And the intruder theory doesn't depend on the stun gun to keep it alive. There is a list of intruder evidence - - the stun gun is just one piece - - and it fits nicely.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you wrote - "How did the DNA get mixed with her blood in the panties?
Why_Nut has already explained this. If you bled on the
>table and I shed some skin cells where you bled, then our
>DNA would get mixed. That's fairly simple stuff Margoo.
>Come on. Living people don't have degraded DNA. They shed
>a skin cell - that cell has a full DNA profile. Dirty
>toilet seats are a great source of mixed DNA. My toddler
>climbs up onto the loo and her underwear presses against the
>pan as she pees. Often she drips on the seat as she's
>climbing off. Imagine a party with 23 people - a week or so
>after a previous party with a hundred people. How many
>drips? How many skin cells? Remember too that Linda
>Hoffman Pugh phoned Patsy to say that she couldn't come and
>help her clean up after the party on 23rd. Patsy was run
>off her feet. I don't think that cleaning toilets would have
>been her first priority.
>

If it was that easy to transfer, why are there so FEW DNA samples mixed with the blood in her panties - - just hers and the unknown.....

why_nut is right - - DNA can be transferred - - but this isn't innocent transfer - no way.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The DNA evidence will come out soon enough. I am tired of arguing over that one. Just trust me - the DNA is of good quality and the killer needs to be worried if his is in the system.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You wwrote, "The article about the palmprint and the shoeprint and the body hair have not been officially disputed - nor has Lin Wood threatened to sue anyone. Read what you will into that.

Lin did dispute Brennan's article. The boot prints have not been matched to any boots, the police don't know who owned the boots that left the print by the body. And while Melinda's prints certainly were found in the house, the palm print that was unmatched REMAINS unmatched.

Its sort of like a 'field test' for drugs or blood. The test can be 'positive' at the crime scene but still turn out to be 'negative' when the report comes back from the crime lab.

You have in the JBR case an immediate assumption that the parents are guilty. Now maybe if the FBI profiler types had been told 'it was initially thought to be a kidnapping due to a lengthy ransom note found at the scene but the body was found in the basement yet the parents are wealthy, happy, apparently loving parents with no history of drug abuse or alcohol abuse or prior involvement with police or CPS' the FBI's initial assumption might have been different. They apparently did not have the complete information, but at that stage of the investigation no one ever does!

Is the demographic and sociological data exculpatory?
Yes and No!!
It is fairly 'soft evidence' to consider things like 'absence of a CPS file'. The presence of the CPS file would be damning, buts its absence is less meaningful. However, you must also take a temporal view of things. During the initial stages, this is significant information. I recall one murder in a Los Angeles suburb wherein the wife was killed on the first floor while the husband was upstairs sleeping late. The two detectives were rather suspicious both by nature and by experience and each silently started opening up cabinets around the living room and kitchen without any statements to each other about what they were looking for. Finally one said to his partner "I can't find any" and the partner's response of "I haven't found any booze either" elicited a response from the husband of 'we don't drink any alcohol at all'. Were the detectives suddenly convinced of his innocence? No, ofcourse not. They were however a good deal more doubtful of their initial assumption. Can a domestic dispute arise in a teetotalling family? Ofcourse. But the cops know its more likely if alcohol is involved and they go with the immediate indications. They saw a red stain on his shoe and wondered how he could get a blood stain on his shoe if he had been upstairs sleeping, but when the crime lab told them that instead of the blood being type "A positive" it was type "Strawberry Jam", they realized that intial assumptions of domestic violence are not always the right way to go.

Alot of "exculpatory" evidence should not even be considered because there is no need to have 'exculpatory' evidence when the parents should never have been suspects in the first place. Alot of ''exculpatory '' evidence becomes exculpatory only after later analysis such as at the crime lab.

A palm print on a door takes a lab technician and alot of elimination prints before it can be evaluated.

A footprint in powdery cement would not be noticed initially and might or might not be later linked to footgear known to be in the house or worn by the police.

DNA was thought to be immediately significant because initial reports were that the substance found was semen. This was a likely situation but it turned out to not be semen at all. The dna that was found and isolated through laboratory procedures becomes more valuable as time goes by in the investigation simply because 'the likely suspects' are eliminated and that leaves a glaring 'unknown' indication. Sure the samples may be less than pristine: that happens when you mix bacteria from the genitourinary tract into the blood and let hours go by before discovering the corpse.

So if you are going to discuss "exculpatory" evidence I think you should adopt a temporal view.

Big difference between:
'I think they killed one of their kids and let the other one live' as an initial report from the first officer to arrive on the scene and 'I think they killed one of their kids and let the other one live because of these specific facts that have emerged from the investigation'.

Consider that darned paper sack and useless length of heavy rope not really suited to the crime at all. Is this exculpatory? Admitely anyone can go out and get a paper sack at some nearby store or gutter or whatever. Same thing with a length of heavy rope not really suitable for a kidnapping or a murder. Anybody can go out and get it. John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey, a stranger, anyone. But although it is technically possible for one of the parents to have so "decorated" the crime scene with a subtle and useless clue of some sort, it is hardly sensible for an investigator to make that assumption.

But when you couple that with a bit of it being near the body.... that changes things just a little.

Not enough to be definitively incriminating to an intruder. Patsy stored the My Twinn doll in the basement in the laundry area. Unless she can prove that it, or any other presents she wrapped in the basement, did not come with styrofoam popcorn in the packaging (the popcorn being a very common form of padding package contents), we have a credible scenario where any popcorn near the body was carried there by Patsy herself as she moved about between laundry area and windowless room on December 24th, as she said she did in the interview transcripts.

For leafy material found near the windowless room, look no further than the large, open duct at the front of the house, which was open right at ground level and had leafy plants growing over and in front of it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the popcorn - - I don't think a doll like that would be packed with popcorn, but other things, sure. I was told that the popcorn was from the window well - - dirty, old, just like the ones left in the window well.

LOL - You do that. Just remember that Judge Carnes didn't get to see the police files and that she based her opinion on Lou Smit's outdated Powerpoint presentation. According to the RMN source, the palmprint was only identified as Melinda's much later on - due to an earlier error.

And since you mention Charlie Brennan, he certainly DID retract his false report about 'John flying the plane himself 'and of the 'no footprints in the snow'. AND he did it on national television - on a programme which was shown all over the world and which therefore reached a FAR WIDER audience than if he had merely entered a short retraction in the RMN!

You know, I think if Judge Carnes had expressed the opposite opinion, the RST would have been all over the fact that she didn't have the police files - (like a rash)!

Judge Carnes didn't have the complete files but she did have Lou's Powerpoint Presentation (not outdated - the evidence doesn't change that much and Lou has maintained his files so she got the latest.) She also had the sworn statements from Hunter, Beckner, Thomas, the ramseys and others - - she was not ignorant of the case when she wrote her report.

Charlie's source was wrong about the prints - - ypu'll see.

And what Charlie said wrong in the RMN should have been corrected there - not years later on a British documentary - - and for the record, Charlie wasn't very pleased with the errors being corrected like that - - it was not really what he had expected to be included in the program - he told me that himself.

For me there was no doubt that the result was going to be what it was. I knew before the judgment what the handwriting analyses were. I knew before the judgment that there was good DNA and other evidence left behind by the intruder/killer. I also knew that Steve Thomas's theory (that Darnay/Wolf borrowed for arguments) was unreasonable. The conclusions reached by Carnes and seemingly agreed upon by Mary Keenan are not surprising - really.

You said in another post that you didn't think a Ramsey did it, but that "a friend" might have (I hope I have that right). Does that mean the friend was an "intruder" or invited in to the home? Your posts denigrate all intruder indicators, so I can't quite follow what you meant.

edited to add quote referred to: "You are mistaken in thinking that I am RDI. I am not. I have two kind-of-theories and neither of them has John or Patsy or Burke as killer.
Both involve Ramsey friends. One of the theories would have the Ramseys knowing more than they admit to knowing - although not actually being involved in the killing."

No, my posts are only critical of speculation and deliberate or desperate attempts to mislead.

As I said, I have two KOTs (kind of theories). Both theories involve Ramsey friends. Neither would have been invited in. One of the Ramseys would have to have been involved in a cover-up in one of my theories but not in the killing. I won't be elaborating on a public forum.

It's a quote from a post of mine. (and BTW Margoo - this is a perfect example of what I was talking about on another thread when I said that RST used utterly ridiculous examples/fictitious BORG theories).

DonB - you got it wrong (again). In my theory, misguided "friendship" was certainly not the motive for the participation in a coverup (speculation on your part). Instead, it would have come under the categories of "covering one's ass/holding on to one's assets/protecting one's family/protecting one's reputation" when nothing was going to bring back JBR anyway so why lose even more?

Don't drag me into this! I'm no more responsible for anyone else's posts (RST or otherwise) than you or Jameson are.

>
>DonB - you got it wrong (again). In my theory, misguided
>"friendship" was certainly not the motive for the
>participation in a coverup (speculation on your part).
>Instead, it would have come under the categories of
>"covering one's ass/holding on to one's assets/protecting
>one's family/protecting one's reputation" when nothing was
>going to bring back JBR anyway so why lose even more?

Well, you can play it safe and that's probably a lot smarter than some of us who wind up putting our necks on the line. If I'm interpreting your 2 theories correctly, then doesn't one of them involve an uninvited "friend" (ie intruder)?

If you are "critical of speculation and deliberate or desperate attempts to mislead", then I'm wondering why your posts are only anti-intruder. How do you define yourself any differently than many posters here and particularly jameson? I'm also wondering why you attribute "deliberate" and "desperate" to discussions that do not agree with your interpretation of the information we have? Is misleading/misinformed/biased wording acceptable to you if it originates from a "friendly" poster? Your leanings seem obvious to me and your selective information-cop role seems to be limited to your "RST-defined" posters.

(1) You are not going to pick up other people's DNA off toilet seats unless there is blood, semen, or saliva on the toilet seat. And you are not going to get that 'foreign' DNA mixed with your blood-sourced DNA by sitting on a toilet.

(2) If JB bled into her panties at the time of the sexual assault and there is someone else's DNA MIXED with it, then how did that 'someone else's' DNA innocently get mixed into the blood in her panties?

Wrong. A person also leaves skin cells from backside and thighs on the seat if they have sat upon it, and cells from the lining of their bladder if they have deposited even a small amount of urine on it (which, you can ask anyone who has the unfortunate task of cleaning a bathroom used by many individuals in a short span of time, does happen). And you are going to get that foreign DNA mixed with your blood-sourced DNA if your underwear touches either the seat or the floor in front of it.

I do wonder why Steve Thomas took off with the bedwetting theory---who put the idea in his head? We know LHP talked about bedwetting earlyon.

Further arguments that we all pick up all this DNA all day long in our travels is another attempt at disinformation to further muddy the waters. If what you and Jayelles are suggesting is true, then what is the point of EVER doing ANY forensic DNA testing/comparing? DNA under JB's nails would have to have come from a scratch/blood/saliva, not simply playing with or touching her friends. DNA mixed with JB's blood in her panties would have to also come from a DNA source such as blood, semen, saliva - not from a toilet seat in her home or the Whites' home.

Disinformation? It is not disinformation; it is proven, reproducible, scientific fact.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:twchQr-kzWsC:www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf%3Ffile%3D/nature/journal/v387/n6635/full/387767a0_r.html+dna+handshake&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8

Forensic scientists regularly generate genetic profiles from old blood stains, seminal stains, vaginal swabs, hair, bone, urine and cigarette butts1-6. We show that an individual's genetic profile can now also be generated from swabs taken from objects touched by hands, providing a new tool for crime scene investigations. Our findings also demonstrate the need for caution when handling exhibits and when interpreting results.

...

Swabs of objects handled regularly by specific individuals all provided genetic typings that matched the user. Objects included: leather briefcase handles (n =3, mean 75 ng DNA), pens (n =3, mean 1.6 ng), a car key (n =1, 1.1 ng), a personal locker handle (n =1, 3.7 ng) and telephone handsets (n =5, mean 10.3 ng). One of the telephone handsets also clearly displayed the genetic profile of a known secondary (minor) user.

Furthermore, a number of pre-cleaned objects held for a relatively short period of time (15 min) including: plastic knife handles (n =6, mean 17.8 ng DNA), a mug (n =1, 6.8 ng), a glass (n =1, 34 ng) as well as new vinyl gloves worn for 20 to 90 min (n =8, mean 51 ng) gave the genetic profile of the holder or wearer. We found alleles in addition to those of the wearer in samples from two of the gloves, which could be due to secondary transfer.

...

Objects handled by many individuals all produced profiles with multiple alleles of varying intensity. To determine the effect of multiple handlers, we exchanged polypropylene tubes between individuals (2 or 3, 10 min each) with different genotypes. Although the material left by the last holder was usually present on the tube, that of previous holders was also retrieved to varying extents. The strongest profile obtained was not always that of the person who last held the object, but was dependent on the individual. We regularly observed profiles of previous holders of a tube from swabs of hands involved in these exchanges, showing that in some cases material from which DNA can be retrieved is transferred from object to hand (secondary transfer).

Also, hands swabbed before and after a one-minute handshake revealed the transfer of DNA from one individual to another in one of the four hands tested.

http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/issues/scan.htm?Id=2176

Scientists have created new technology that enables police officers to identify criminals by their breath. By using highly sensitive DNA techniques, minute specks of moisture released from the mouth can provide a sufficient amount of DNA evidence.

In the United Kingdom, training courses on the new crime-fighting technology are being created by the Central Police Training and Development Authority. Law enforcement personnel investigating serious crimes must keep in mind that they could be contaminating scenes by destroying unseen evidence, even through the act of breathing.

I do not know if JonBenet held any pens, locker-handles or polypropyline tubes that day, but dna scraped from under the fingernails of a rape victim is a "preexisting innocent third-party transfer" only in the minds of defense lawyers.

From a scientific standpoint, what is the big difference? Does the underwear of a child victim emit a mysterious force field which sterilizes it of all foreign DNA that JonBenet may have placed there through innocent secondary transfer, leaving behind only DNA deposited in the course of a crime? I do not believe that; you do not, also. So we have a piece of cloth, irrelevant as to what item of clothing it is, to which is transferred foreign DNA via JonBenet, the manufacturer of the underwear, or the various surfaces to which the underwear has been exposed. There is absolutely no scientific reason this is impossible, and from a behaviorial standpoint, we have every reason to believe that the high likelihood of JonBenet having unwashed hands for the majority of her day (as testified to by Patsy) also creates a high likelihood of JonBenet's hands acquiring and retaining and transferring DNA from and to hundreds if not thousands of secondary sources during the course of Christmas Day.

You want to argue science instead of myth-making? Tell me how, based on science, DNA could not be on the cloth of JonBenet's underwear. Tell me through science how you know your own clothing and person are not carrying unidentifiable DNA. Can you say that if you were to be found dead an hour from now, forensics would not stand a chance of finding some DNA on you which you, in life, would claim no knowledge of? Surely you cannot think that. Every day, people catch colds and flus from people they have never met, and I have a secret for you which is not a secret: it happens because viral DNA hitches a ride on body material which travels from someone you do not necessarily know to you. The transfer process of cellular material between individuals that creates contagion is no more active than when the cells being transferred are not infectious.

DNA testing on urine formed the basis of identification in People of the State of Illinois vs Waters. Two perps urinated on their victim.

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2002/1stDistrict/February/Html/1993457.htm

another reference

DNA testing has many applications in the field of forensic science. Much like a fingerprint, the DNA found in each individual is unique. DNA is also abundant, and can be found in in items such as blood stains, saliva stains, urine stains, hair follicles, chewing gum, stamps, and musical instruments (e.g. trumpet).

http://www.genetrack.bc.ca/for.html

DNA can be extracted from DNADRUFF too (intentional misspelling)!

The advantages of DNA testing are that very small sources can be used and information can be extracted from very old stains. Testing can also be done on different sources such as hair although it has to have root material for successful testing. DNA testing can also be done on semen, body tissue such as deep muscle tissue within a decomposed torso, saliva (cigarette ends, bottles, gags, stamps) and skin cells found in faeces, urine, sweat and dandruff. Urine itself does not contain DNA - it is the cells being passed through urine that carries DNA information. DNA testing can also be done on weapons - knifes collect skin cells that can be profiled.

http://www.ibmsinscotland.org/archive2002/wofscot.htm

Worst of all. We are not just at risk from picking up secondary transfer of DNA from urine on toilet seats. Seems that the London underground will take care of that!

For All Trace Evidence Enthusiasts
From Our Foreign Correspondent Rosalind
Winter in Britain
BBC Local London Travel News
During Autumn of 2000, a team of scientists
at the Department of Forensics at University
College London removed a row of
passenger seats from a Central Line tube
carriage for analysis into cleanliness.
Despite London Underground's claim that
the interior of their trains are cleaned on a
regular basis, the scientists made some
alarming discoveries.
The analysis was broken down. This is
what was found on the surface of the seats:
- 4 types of hair sample (human, mouse,
rat, dog)
- 7 types of insect (mostly fleas, mostly
alive)
- vomit originating from at least 9 separate
people
- human urine originating from at least 4
separate people
- human excrement
- rodent excrement
- human semen

http://www.nifs.com.au/ANZFSS/States/NSW/NSWNewsletterFebruary2002.pdf

The point is, that your "information" is designed to create disinformation in THIS CASE and serves NO PURPOSE unless you plan on being the defendant's lawyer and even then you'd have one hell of a time getting anywhere with this stuff.

The information being presented about the ubiquitous nature of DNA foreign to one's own body is not disinformation; it is science and fact. The discussion serves the same purpose as all discussion on this forum should; to bring about informed opinion. The general reading public can see Jayelles and myself present fact, and you present an emotional, information-devoid response, and judge for themselves as to who has the stronger case for their theory.

Come on, folks - - yes, DNA is everywhere - - but not in quite the same way when it is part of a murder scene. The DNA wasn't on her butt or in the inside of her pants or on the toilet - - it was under her nails and mixed with the blood in her panties.

A little common sense, please.

People are being convicted based on the presence of DNA when the defendant claims that there was no interaction on his part with the victim (the presence of the defendant's DNA makes the defendant's claim a lie). People are being cleared based on the absence of DNA when the defendant claims that there was no interaction on his part with the victim (the absence of the defendant's DNA makes the defendant's claim true).

Why? Why do you say that it's ridiculous? There are reasonable, science-based explanations for the presence of trace DNA as a minor component to the total amount of DNA found at the crime scene. If you want to challenge that science, you must challenge it with other science, or accept that your argument is weak and is only based on the fact that you want to make it.

No one claims that a crime scene is pristine and free from bacteria and from the possibility of pre-existing innocently transferred dna, it never is.