Unsolved JonBenet Ramsey

Remove this Banner Ad

It was someone who wanted to make it look like it was connected to John. I wondered about the half siblings but they seem normal.

John Mark Kerr is a good suspect.
 
Awakening said:
It was someone who wanted to make it look like it was connected to John. I wondered about the half siblings but they seem normal.

John Mark Kerr is a good suspect.
Click to expand...
He seemed to be, or he had an incredible imagination and convinced himself he did it, down to every detail.

I wonder if he also was not in the area at the time...

He was let off due to the dna not matching. That dna has never matched anyone, and some matching results were delayed, and it was not pushed through public databases proactively, or if it was it is done confidentially. I wonder if the dna itself is compromised.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Osho said:
He seemed to be, or he had an incredible imagination and convinced himself he did it, down to every detail.

I wonder if he also was not in the area at the time...

He was let off due to the dna not matching. That dna has never matched anyone, and some matching results were delayed, and it was not pushed through public databases proactively, or if it was it is done confidentially. I wonder if the dna itself is compromised.
Click to expand...

I thought so, but apparently all the information he knew had been available in the public domain. So could also just be a creep claiming credit.

How he escaped from the other charges he had is also baffling.
 
faible said:
I thought so, but apparently all the information he knew had been available in the public domain. So could also just be a creep claiming credit.

How he escaped from the other charges he had is also baffling.
Click to expand...
He's one the creepier blokes running around. Though now I believe he has transitioned and goes under a completely new name.
 
markm106 said:
I don’t think the brother was capable of all the injuries and tying her up like that. Also he was cleared via DNA.
Click to expand...
Burkes dna was found on the panties as well, was a 10 loci match to Burke needed 13 loci for a full dna profile

My best guess is the unknown dna sample is from the manufacturer, considering the panties were brand new and unwashed
 
Sweeetleftfoot said:
Burkes dna was found on the panties as well, was a 10 loci match to Burke needed 13 loci for a full dna profile
Click to expand...

Where did you get that information from? I can't find anything like it in a search.
 
Sweeetleftfoot said:
Burkes dna was found on the panties as well, was a 10 loci match to Burke needed 13 loci for a full dna profile

My best guess is the unknown dna sample is from the manufacturer, considering the panties were brand new and unwashed
Click to expand...
"Burkes dna was found on the panties as well, was a 10 loci match to Burke needed 13 loci for a full dna profile"

have you got a source for that information? As far as I am aware the Ramsay's were cleared because the DNA found on the panties didn't match any of them.

"My best guess is the unknown dna sample is from the manufacturer, considering the panties were brand new and unwashed"

Would that include the unknown DNA found under her fingernail? DNA was also found on two pieces of clothing, same manufacturer for both?
 
BonzaRam said:
"Burkes dna was found on the panties as well, was a 10 loci match to Burke needed 13 loci for a full dna profile"

have you got a source for that information? As far as I am aware the Ramsay's were cleared because the DNA found on the panties didn't match any of them.
Click to expand...
The use of 10 loci and the need for 13 to match is also technically a clearing of Burke
 
Sweeetleftfoot said:
Burkes dna was found on the panties as well, was a 10 loci match to Burke needed 13 loci for a full dna profile

My best guess is the unknown dna sample is from the manufacturer, considering the panties were brand new and unwashed
Click to expand...
I don’t think I’ve heard of his DNA being found.but maybe wasn’t mentioned as wasn’t a full match.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

markm106 said:
I don’t think I’ve heard of his DNA being found.but maybe wasn’t mentioned as wasn’t a full match.
Click to expand...
Only a partial match, imo this isn’t a dna case and will never be solved by dna.
The fact the grand jury chose to indict them and one of those charges was for accessory meaning the Ramsays covered for a third person and another indictment was for leaving her alone with a known danger,
The most logical third person is Burke. Given that he was 9 at the time he couldn’t legally be named.

IMO the dna in this case is useless and John Ramsay knows it’s last card to play on the intruder theory.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2348.jpeg
    IMG_2348.jpeg
    69.6 KB · Views: 12
Kurve said:
Where did you get that information from? I can't find anything like it in a search.
Click to expand...
I’ll see if I can remember the exact source, I haven’t really researched thoroughly in a while but I did keep the pictures. Ill do some digging and see if I can find it.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2348.jpeg
    IMG_2348.jpeg
    69.6 KB · Views: 9
Sweeetleftfoot said:
Only a partial match, imo this isn’t a dna case and will never be solved by dna.
The fact the grand jury chose to indict them and one of those charges was for accessory meaning the Ramsays covered for a third person and another indictment was for leaving her alone with a known danger,
The most logical third person is Burke. Given that he was 9 at the time he couldn’t legally be named.

IMO the dna in this case is useless and John Ramsay knows it’s last card to play on the intruder theory.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for this please?
 
BonzaRam said:
"Burkes dna was found on the panties as well, was a 10 loci match to Burke needed 13 loci for a full dna profile"

have you got a source for that information? As far as I am aware the Ramsay's were cleared because the DNA found on the panties didn't match any of them.

"My best guess is the unknown dna sample is from the manufacturer, considering the panties were brand new and unwashed"

Would that include the unknown DNA found under her fingernail? DNA was also found on two pieces of clothing, same manufacturer for both?
Click to expand...
Just because someone has unknown dna on them doesn’t mean it’s related to the crime.

could literally have come from anyone she had contact with.

As a stated before the dna in this case is pretty much worthless. And will never result in a conviction based on the dna imo.
 
Sweeetleftfoot said:
Just because someone has unknown dna on them doesn’t mean it’s related to the crime.

could literally have come from anyone she had contact with.

As a stated before the dna in this case is pretty much worthless. And will never result in a conviction based on the dna imo.
Click to expand...
You might think it's worthless, but unless you find out who it belongs to you will never know that it was not her murderer. It makes no sense to disregard DNA found on a murder victim.
 
Sweeetleftfoot said:
Only a partial match, imo this isn’t a dna case and will never be solved by dna.
The fact the grand jury chose to indict them and one of those charges was for accessory meaning the Ramsays covered for a third person and another indictment was for leaving her alone with a known danger,
The most logical third person is Burke. Given that he was 9 at the time he couldn’t legally be named.

IMO the dna in this case is useless and John Ramsay knows it’s last card to play on the intruder theory.
Click to expand...

The following would suggest that Burke could match a number of his sister's DNA loci. The average would be 50%.

He could then randomly match some of Unknown Male 1's loci (he definitely would match the XY). So he could match 10 of 13 without it meaning much at all.

If Burke's DNA was present, why wouldn't there be a 100% match to a sample he provided?

Do siblings match at all or half of their loci? - The Tech Interactive

www.thetech.org www.thetech.org
 
Some interesting info all that. I did notice it is all old articles, at least six years old, some older.

From what I gather from it all is it was the methods used for obtaining DNA from crime scenes and objects that was improved around 2008. Since then methods for getting an accurate reading on the DNA samples has improved (as seen in the Claremont Serial Killer / Bradley Edwards trial) and warrants new testing of what they have.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Unsolved JonBenet Ramsey

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top