touch DNA and JonBenet Ramsey questions for RDI same scientific methodology

Sun Oct 30, 2022 3:12 pm

touch DNA and  JonBenet Ramsey questions for RDI same scientific science


the following case and photos are from

Wicked Night Out - An Unexpected Killer

An Unexpected Killer; Season 3 Episode 10

When a woman is found dead in a field, police scour security video to retrace a suspect's steps.

all photos are taken from this documentary posted under fair use

This is a Forensic Files type discussion evaluating forensic evidence comparable to Jonbenet


this case is of direct relevance to The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

the murder victim we will call "Jonbenet2"





like Jonbenet, Jonbenet2  is a white female with blue eyes and blonde hair.

Jonbenet2 could very well be what Jonbenet would like like if she grew up. of relevance here is both were murdered.

Jonbenet2 was found murdered like this (actor)












when found they also found this



Jonbenet2 was beaten and strangled with ligature, like Jonbenet

how does the body of Jonbenet2 when found by investigators compare with Jonbenet?

Jonbenet2  was found here




they initially charged her boyfriend with murder who we will call John Ramsey2





Jonbenet2 crime scene had these items





they tested all items and rape kit for DNA, but no DNA found Jonbenet2

they perform touch DNA here Jonbenet2







DNA testing



on Jonbenet2

they only found 1 DNA profile via touch DNA on that sock on Jonbenet2 as pictured

when they compare this DNA via touch DNA on 1 sock with Jonbenet2 boyfriend John Ramsey 2 conclusion

John Ramsey2 was arrested and charged with murder of Jonbenet2






since Jonbenet2 boyfriend DNA did not match the DNA on the sock of Jonbenet2 via touch DNA, he was released and ruled out.

Do you agree with this decision?

John Ramsey2 DNA did not match the DNA found on the sock of Jonbenet2 via touch DNA.

what is the value of 1 unknown male DNA via touch DNA on a sock of a murder victim named Jonbenet2?

this is RDI


does that DNA have any forensic value?

now this is RDI and forumsforjustice Trasha griffith


trasha pictured below is an example of an anti-science denialist




this is what she claims

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey/page92

tricia griffith wrote:
Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

As owner, I do my best to stay out of actual discussions about a crime.

The JBR case is the one expection.

Websleuths is a leader in true crime information as well as discussion. People come here to get information. It is imperative we deal with the facts. Not fantasy.

All I ask for are facts and a logical connecting of the dots. Logic and facts.

When I get time I will be going through the forum to make sure the JonBenet Ramsey forum is being held up to the high standards just like all our other forums on Websleuths.

The days of allowing anyone to post anything because it's part of their "theory" are gone. Facts and logic. Very simple.

this is her qualifications

Host Tricia Griffith is a veteran radio disc jockey and owner of Websleuths.com and owner of Forums for Justice.org.

in other words she has ZERO qualifications in forensic science. she has no training in forensic fiber, trace evidence, DNA yet she claims

tricia griffith wrote:
Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

similarly with Delmar England

delmar england wrote:
Letter to Boulder Colorado District Attorney, Mary Keenan

The crime scene consisted of an obviously bogus multi-page "ransom note" utilizing local materials. JonBenet's body was left in the basement of the Ramsey home with crude trappings falling woefully short of presenting a convincing kidnap\murder scene as it was intended to do. Even without pointing out more of a very long list of corroborating facts, the bogus note and inept staging is more than sufficient to isolate the perpetrators to the Ramsey household. Only a few minutes in examining and evaluating the evidence is required to reach this conclusion. It is impossible to reach any other conclusion on the facts. There was and is no evidentiary reason to look anywhere else. The only mystery to be solved was and is which Ramsey did what in relation to JonBenet's death.

Although it is not possible to reach any other conclusion from the evidence, it is possible to ignore the evidence and mentally invent "evidence" to take the place of truth and keep it hidden. Prompted by preconceived notions set in a context of money and political influence in conjunction with investigative cowardice and incompetence, this is precisely what has been going on for over six years.

delmar wrote:
Handwriting? Patsy has not been ruled out by several examiners. By my own analysis, not of the writing, but of the mind match between the note and Patsy is clear. This is explained in my analysis of the "ransom note." So far, neither you nor anyone else has quoted and challenged it. So, to say the handwriting does not match the Ramseys, thus all Ramseys are excluded as author, is just another arbitrary declaration without substance. Note the exclusion of Ramseys necessarily depends on the intruder idea of no factual substance.

DNA? So, it does not match the family. So what? Who does it match? Unknown? If unknown, how can it be known to connect to the crime and be "evidence?" If the source of this DNA were known, then factually connected to the crime scene, then it is evidence. Absence this, it is just more speculation that caters to intruder mental creation.

Does the DNA have to be connected to the crime? Could it not be from a benign source totally removed from the crime scene? Again, the alleged evidence evidences nothing except itself with no known connection to the crime. No outsider as perpetrator is required to explain the DNA since no connection is known as crime related.

The same is true for boot print, hairs, fibers, etc.. A close look into anyone's house would most likely turn up all sorts of things whose source were unknown whether there is a crime or not. To call something whose source and cause is unknown as evidence is to say it causal related while simultaneously saying cause is unknown, thus relationship unknown; more "negative evidence." If my recollection of high school Latin is correct, this could be called "ignotium per ignotius", the unknown by the more unknown.

This "Ramsey defense" "thinking" is a direct and absurd contradiction that is without limit. With this kind of "investigative latitude", I dare say that one could "prove" anything; or at least, convince the deluded self that he or she has done so. "negative evidence?" Surely, thou jest. I repeat: All known evidence is local.

delmar england wrote:
For every "could be", there is a "could be not", therefore, inconclusive until cause is known. Right? No thing is evidence until evidentiary cause is known. Right? Are we in agreement so far? If not, please point out what you think is my error in thinking, and why you think it is error.

A shoe print is found in the basement whose cause is unknown. It "could be" evidence of an intruder. "Could be not" is forgotten and "evidence" of an intruder is declared to be fact. There is a palm print with cause unknown; a rope with source unknown that "could be" something brought in by an intruder; an unidentified fiber, a baseball bat that "could have" been used by the intruder; a bit of dirt or leaves at a window well which "could have" been disturbed by an intruder. The list goes on and on and on.

This massive "evidence" stated to be more consistent with a theory of intruder than Ramsey guilt is hot air, nothing more than a string of unknowns verbally laced together on "could be", simultaneously divorced from the known, and declared to be much evidence of an intruder. Ridiculous to the max. No wonder no one will step forward and answer questions about alleged evidence of an alleged intruder. Its indefensible.

The beauty of truth is that it is consistent. Every fact is a complement of and blends with every other fact without contradiction. The presence of a contradiction is also the presence of error. Are we in agreement up to this point?

again this is tricia griffith





and delmar england

DNA? So, it does not match the family. So what? Who does it match? Unknown? If unknown, how can it be known to connect to the crime and be "evidence?" If the source of this DNA were known, then factually connected to the crime scene, then it is evidence. Absence this, it is just more speculation that caters to intruder mental creation.

Does the DNA have to be connected to the crime? Could it not be from a benign source totally removed from the crime scene? Again, the alleged evidence evidences nothing except itself with no known connection to the crime. No outsider as perpetrator is required to explain the DNA since no connection is known as crime related


The same is true for boot print, hairs, fibers, etc.. A close look into anyone's house would most likely turn up all sorts of things whose source were unknown whether there is a crime or not. To call something whose source and cause is unknown as evidence is to say it causal related while simultaneously saying cause is unknown, thus relationship unknown; more "negative evidence." If my recollection of high school Latin is correct, this could be called "ignotium per ignotius", the unknown by the more unknown.

This "Ramsey defense" "thinking" is a direct and absurd contradiction that is without limit. With this kind of "investigative latitude", I dare say that one could "prove" anything; or at least, convince the deluded self that he or she has done so. "negative evidence?" Surely, thou jest. I repeat: All known evidence is local.

are these statements true?

is this how forensic scientists using scientific methodology evaluate scientific evidence?




is finding via touch DNA on just 1 sock on a murder victim Jonbenet2 evidence or not?








which lead to this




Jonbenet2 was violently attacked and strangled with ligature





all her clothing ligature items were tested via touch DNA and

all because of touch DNA they found 1 DNA profile male on 1 sock.

is the DNA evidence in Jonbenet better or weaker than Jonbenet2?

is finding 1 DNA profile on Jonbenet2 sock stronger or weaker evidence than finding 3 DNA profiles on 2 separate articles of clothing on Jonbenet?

and why, given the severe beating Jonbenet2 received, plus ligature strangulation, were they only able to obtain just 1 DNA profile via touch DNA on her sock, but not elsewhere?

can RDI explain how the DNA was found on the sock of Jonbenet2 and why it should be treated differently than Jonbenet