Unsolved JonBenet Ramsey

[faible]

So kids playing with plastic golf set.
All fun & games until someone gets hurt.

Sensationalism!

You asked where the claim came from.

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

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

Because the dna is a mixture from possibly 3 samples, so therefore despite popular belief Burke can’t be ruled out as a contributor.

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

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.

There was no significant amounts of DNA found in this case. What they did find were multiple trace profiles, from different people in different places. James Kolar said 6 total. Only one of those was actually strong enough to do anything with, which is the one from her underwear we hear so much about. It was so weak, they had to enhance it to even be able to enter it into CODIS. It's been explained by experts who have reviewed the DNA reports there were likely multiple contributors to this sample which complicates it even more when it comes to testing. This is the one John Ramsey keeps talking about doing genealogy testing on, but most likely it just isn't suitable for that type of testing, or they don't have enough left given its already undergone different types of testing. They've also said because these are such tiny amounts of trace DNA, it could've gotten anywhere on Jonbenet or her clothing from any number of innocent mechanisms like transfer or contamination. This is essentially why a lot of experts have said this is not a DNA case.

 

[jason_recliner]

This is appalling. There's no evidence whatsoever that the Ramseys were involved. They've suffered not only the horrific tragic loss of their daughter but the subsequent 30 years of abuse and baseless, slanderous accusations. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

This is appalling. There's no evidence whatsoever that the Ramseys were involved. They've suffered not only the horrific tragic loss of their daughter but the subsequent 30 years of abuse and baseless, slanderous accusations. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Because you decide it must be so ?
There’s actually a fair bit of evidence if you care to dig deeper than surface level.
People who are closely associated to the Ramsays who have first hand accounts of dealing with them, from friends Of the Ramsays to qualified experts even the house keeper.
Not to mention the numerous confirmed lies the Ramsays have told.



Just because you believe people at face value doesn’t mean anyone else has to.


If there was no evidence against the Ramsays why did the grand jury choose to indict them ? Specifically on the charges of child abuse resulting in death and the covering up of a crime.
Another thing that John Ramsay himself lied about.

 

[jason_recliner]

Because you decide it must be so ?
There’s actually a fair bit of evidence if you care to dig deeper than surface level.
People who are closely associated to the Ramsays who have first hand accounts of dealing with them, from friends Of the Ramsays to qualified experts even the house keeper.
Not to mention the numerous confirmed lies the Ramsays have told.



Just because you believe people at face value doesn’t mean anyone else has to.


If there was no evidence against the Ramsays why did the grand jury choose to indict them ? Specifically on the charges of child abuse resulting in death and the covering up of a crime.
Another thing that John Ramsay himself lied about.

That was 25 years ago. What has happened since? Extremely grubby to continue to slander them.

 

[Earls Smother]

Because the dna is a mixture from possibly 3 samples, so therefore despite popular belief Burke can’t be ruled out as a contributor.

So why aren't all 13 of his loci found in the sample/s?

Did 3 of them just magically disappear? 10 out of 13 is not a close match, it is complete NON MATCH.

 

[ms finch]

Because you decide it must be so ?
There’s actually a fair bit of evidence if you care to dig deeper than surface level.
People who are closely associated to the Ramsays who have first hand accounts of dealing with them, from friends Of the Ramsays to qualified experts even the house keeper.
Not to mention the numerous confirmed lies the Ramsays have told.



Just because you believe people at face value doesn’t mean anyone else has to.


If there was no evidence against the Ramsays why did the grand jury choose to indict them ? Specifically on the charges of child abuse resulting in death and the covering up of a crime.
Another thing that John Ramsay himself lied about.

There were some pretty extensive CPS investigations into the Ramsays and they all concluded they were normal, loving parents.

Grand juries are not reliable barometers of anyone's guilt or innocence. They are a group of individuals fed only the prosecution's version of events, with far more limited evidentiary rules than are the case in a trial. In this situation, whether or not the Ramsays were involved, the police and prosecution had complete tunnel vision so everything they presented and the manner in which they presented it would have been a reflection of this.

In any case the grand jury never indicted them for the death itself. They went with an indictment as accessories and for child abuse in the context of endangering her and recklessly putting her in harm's way. Your interpretation and representation of that is not accurate. What this actually suggests is that the grand jury believed it was Burke who was responsible and the parents failed to prevent it and covered it up.

Whether the prosecution presented a case against Burke, despite the fact that he couldn't be charged at 9 years old, or whether they presented a case against the Ramsays and the jury saw it differently, we will never know. But the police and prosecutors were obsessed with it being someone within the family and certainly that was pretty much their entire investigation and what they presented. It's not indicative of anything other than their opinion.

Unfortunately, because the Ramsays were so targeted and maligned, opportunities to investigate other people and properly preserve evidence for that purpose were missed or ignored, which makes it very difficult to unravel down the track, not to mention that such tunnel vision necessarily means there is more evidence pointing towards that particular theory regardless of whether the totality of the evidence would suggest it.

 

[jason_recliner]

There were some pretty extensive CPS investigations into the Ramsays and they all concluded they were normal, loving parents.

Grand juries are not reliable barometers of anyone's guilt or innocence. They are a group of individuals fed only the prosecution's version of events, with far more limited evidentiary rules than are the case in a trial. In this situation, whether or not the Ramsays were involved, the police and prosecution had complete tunnel vision so everything they presented and the manner in which they presented it would have been a reflection of this.

In any case the grand jury never indicted them for the death itself. They went with an indictment as accessories and for child abuse in the context of endangering her and recklessly putting her in harm's way. Your interpretation and representation of that is not accurate. What this actually suggests is that the grand jury believed it was Burke who was responsible and the parents failed to prevent it and covered it up.

Whether the prosecution presented a case against Burke, despite the fact that he couldn't be charged at 9 years old, or whether they presented a case against the Ramsays and the jury saw it differently, we will never know. But the police and prosecutors were obsessed with it being someone within the family and certainly that was pretty much their entire investigation and what they presented. It's not indicative of anything other than their opinion.

Unfortunately, because the Ramsays were so targeted and maligned, opportunities to investigate other people and properly preserve evidence for that purpose were missed or ignored, which makes it very difficult to unravel down the track, not to mention that such tunnel vision necessarily means there is more evidence pointing towards that particular theory regardless of whether the totality of the evidence would suggest it.

Extremely well said!

 

[frontierpsychiatrist]

The Ramsays weren’t cleared by the bolder police department.
Mary lacy worked as the district attorney office in bolder 2 separate entities.
The new DA gave the case back to bolder police stating all options are on the table.

People aren’t piling onto Burke because he is neurodivergent,( those that have researched thoroughly )he is known to have anger issues including whacking his sister with a golf club in the face and also other disturbing behaviour
With the smearing of faeces on the walls of the house.

Never said people were piling onto Burke because of his probable neurodivergency. I said I felt incredibly sorry for the trauma he has endured and continues to.

Like I said in my post, I am no expert on this case, but it was my belief that Boulder PD had categorically stated that their investigations showed that Burke was not involved in the murder of his sister or considered a suspect.

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

There were some pretty extensive CPS investigations into the Ramsays and they all concluded they were normal, loving parents.

Grand juries are not reliable barometers of anyone's guilt or innocence. They are a group of individuals fed only the prosecution's version of events, with far more limited evidentiary rules than are the case in a trial. In this situation, whether or not the Ramsays were involved, the police and prosecution had complete tunnel vision so everything they presented and the manner in which they presented it would have been a reflection of this.

In any case the grand jury never indicted them for the death itself. They went with an indictment as accessories and for child abuse in the context of endangering her and recklessly putting her in harm's way. Your interpretation and representation of that is not accurate. What this actually suggests is that the grand jury believed it was Burke who was responsible and the parents failed to prevent it and covered it up.

Whether the prosecution presented a case against Burke, despite the fact that he couldn't be charged at 9 years old, or whether they presented a case against the Ramsays and the jury saw it differently, we will never know. But the police and prosecutors were obsessed with it being someone within the family and certainly that was pretty much their entire investigation and what they presented. It's not indicative of anything other than their opinion.

Unfortunately, because the Ramsays were so targeted and maligned, opportunities to investigate other people and properly preserve evidence for that purpose were missed or ignored, which makes it very difficult to unravel down the track, not to mention that such tunnel vision necessarily means there is more evidence pointing towards that particular theory regardless of whether the totality of the evidence would suggest it.

When did suggest the grand jury indictment of one’s innocence or guilt ?
I was pointing out the fact that the grand jury who sifted through 12 months plus of evidence ( most of which we will never know ) so too suggest there’s no evidence that’ points to the Ramsays is a flat out lie.
I never stated they indicted the Ramsays for the death. I simply stated the same as what they were indicted for.

I didn’t misinterpret anything.

 

[ms finch]

When did suggest the grand jury indictment of one’s innocence or guilt ?
I was pointing out the fact that the grand jury who sifted through 12 months plus of evidence ( most of which we will never know ) so too suggest there’s no evidence that’ points to the Ramsays is a flat out lie.
I never stated they indicted the Ramsays for the death. I simply stated the same as what they were indicted for.

I didn’t misinterpret anything.

You absolutely misrepresented the veracity of a grand jury's opinion and the nature of the indictment.

 

[Michaels]

Because you decide it must be so ?
There’s actually a fair bit of evidence if you care to dig deeper than surface level.
People who are closely associated to the Ramsays who have first hand accounts of dealing with them, from friends Of the Ramsays to qualified experts even the house keeper.
Not to mention the numerous confirmed lies the Ramsays have told.



Just because you believe people at face value doesn’t mean anyone else has to.


If there was no evidence against the Ramsays why did the grand jury choose to indict them ? Specifically on the charges of child abuse resulting in death and the covering up of a crime.
Another thing that John Ramsay himself lied about.

wasn't their basis of the Child Abuse line in relation to them entering her into beauty pageants as they were essentially brainwashed by the media that it was child abuse?

At least that is how it has been portrayed, pretty long bow to draw if that was their angle.

 

[OnTheRocks]

You asked where the claim came from.

Did you or the sensationalist, know that it was a plastic golf set?

 

[faible]

Did you or the sensationalist, know that it was a plastic golf set?

You asked where the claim came from. A google search would have found you the same results I provided for you.

A simple 'thanks' would be fine.

 

[OnTheRocks]

You asked where the claim came from. A google search would have found you the same results I provided for you.

A simple 'thanks' would be fine.

Still you dodge the question

 

[faible]

Still you dodge the question

You asked where the claim came from. I did the search and gave you links. I didn't raise the claim, I didn't make any comment about the claim.

Once more, a simple 'thanks' would suffice.

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

So why aren't all 13 of his loci found in the sample/s?

Did 3 of them just magically disappear? 10 out of 13 is not a close match, it is complete NON MATCH.

At this stage I’m gonna assume you’re taking the piss or just ignorant about the dna in this case

 

[Awakening]

That was 25 years ago. What has happened since? Extremely grubby to continue to slander them.

Some people would rather be right than admit it might be someone other than the Ramseys.

They will stick to to their position no matter what.

It’s not Sportsbet ffs.

 

[Earls Smother]

At this stage I’m gonna assume you’re taking the piss or just ignorant about the dna in this case

There is a complete DNA match for Jonbenet.

There is a complete DNA match for Unknown Male 1.

There is not a complete DNA match for Burke.

It wouldn't matter how many people's DNA were mixed together, you would still need a full match to any one person for it to be relevant.

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

There is a complete DNA match for Jonbenet.

There is a complete DNA match for Unknown Male 1.

There is not a complete DNA match for Burke.

It wouldn't matter how many people's DNA were mixed together, you would still need a full match to any one person for it to be relevant.

In the chart below, the mixed sample collected (in 1996) from the blood stains on the crotch of JonBenét’s underwear is compared to JonBenét’s and Burke’s DNA, as well as the profile identified as “Unknown Male 1”. You can see that “Unknow Male 1” is essentially a column for remaining contribution, or what I prefer to call leftover alleles, that don’t match JonBenét’s. The leftover male alleles are how the “Unknown Male 1” came to be. In the comparison below, you can see that Burke’s alleles are consistent with the alleles from the bloodstain sample in 10 out of 13 markers.







The bogus “Unknown Male 1” profile has unsurprisingly been sitting in CODIS for more than a decade with zero hits.

 

[BonzaRam]

The bogus “Unknown Male 1” profile has unsurprisingly been sitting in CODIS for more than a decade with zero hits.

You have said this a couple of times now but a little more information would be handy.

What CODIS database has it been sitting for the last decade?

 

[Earls Smother]

In the chart below, the mixed sample collected (in 1996) from the blood stains on the crotch of JonBenét’s underwear is compared to JonBenét’s and Burke’s DNA, as well as the profile identified as “Unknown Male 1”. You can see that “Unknow Male 1” is essentially a column for remaining contribution, or what I prefer to call leftover alleles, that don’t match JonBenét’s. The leftover male alleles are how the “Unknown Male 1” came to be. In the comparison below, you can see that Burke’s alleles are consistent with the alleles from the bloodstain sample in 10 out of 13 markers.View attachment 2189296


View attachment 2189428



View attachment 2189345
The bogus “Unknown Male 1” profile has unsurprisingly been sitting in CODIS for more than a decade with zero hits.

In a random test of 13 alleles, a sibling can match anywhere from 0 to 13.

Burke matches to his sister fully on 7 alleles from the sample (i.e. the contribution of both parents).

He half matches his sister on a further 3 alleles (one parent).

The 10 alleles out of 13 are common to both of them. You are quoting some knob who is trying to claim a "partial match" to Burke, based on the presence of Jonbenet's DNA.

Whether the leftover alleles are from one or more contributors is irrelevant, when it comes to the clearing of Burke.

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

In a random test of 13 alleles, a sibling can match anywhere from 0 to 13.

Burke matches to his sister fully on 7 alleles from the sample (i.e. the contribution of both parents).

He half matches his sister on a further 3 alleles (one parent).

The 10 alleles out of 13 are common to both of them. You are quoting some knob who is trying to claim a "partial match" to Burke, based on the presence of Jonbenet's DNA.

Whether the leftover alleles are from one or more contributors is irrelevant, when it comes to the clearing of Burke.

I am quoting the official dna report on this case, something I know you haven’t read. Great to see your arguing with a qualified knob.

The fact is Burke can’t be ruled in or out.
A fact that is stated in the official DNA report. And you still refuse to acknowledge because you think you know better.

 

[ms finch]

In the chart below, the mixed sample collected (in 1996) from the blood stains on the crotch of JonBenét’s underwear is compared to JonBenét’s and Burke’s DNA, as well as the profile identified as “Unknown Male 1”. You can see that “Unknow Male 1” is essentially a column for remaining contribution, or what I prefer to call leftover alleles, that don’t match JonBenét’s. The leftover male alleles are how the “Unknown Male 1” came to be. In the comparison below, you can see that Burke’s alleles are consistent with the alleles from the bloodstain sample in 10 out of 13 markers.View attachment 2189296


View attachment 2189428



View attachment 2189345
The bogus “Unknown Male 1” profile has unsurprisingly been sitting in CODIS for more than a decade with zero hits.

I am not sure why you refer to the "Unknown Male 1" profile as "bogus". It's a DNA profile that experts believe is a full profile for identification purposes.

The issue with your saying there is a partial match to Burke is this: This isn't the acquisition of a full profile which is then checked against Burke; it is checking to see how much of the sample matched Burke. There are enough similarities in all of our DNA that if you take a random sample from anyone and compare it to my DNA you will find there are a few matches. Because Burke and JonBenet were siblings there will automatically be a significant amount of the profile that matches simply by virtue of their close relationship. This is why full profile matches are what is important and partial profile matches are not matches at all.