Genetic genealogy 1993 intruder and JonBenet Ramsey

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

sparkles_everywhere
•
7mo ago
•
Edited 7mo ago
It's deplorable and pathetic that the family is clinging to this DNA as key proof that someone else was involved when they full well know it is most likely from non-nefarious sources. It almost makes them appear even more guilty bc they are not stupid.

Busier_thanyou
•
7mo ago
DNA evidence can be the magic bullet of identification, but in the Ramsey case it is the magic of obfuscation. It is unlikely, if not impossible, that some unidentified and mysterious intruder committed the heinous murder while only leaving one tiny spec of DNA, so tiny it can't be analyzed. The Ramsey public relations team created the "magic bullet" theory of finding the murderer through DNA while the case wallowed through all the evidence pointing to family members. Don't ignore the findings of the grand jury that voted to indict John and Patsey.

2 yr. ago
Class_Able

The DNA is worthless….
DNA
So we’ve all heard a lot about dna the last few days. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter. The can’t determine the source, meaning blood, saliva or skin cells. They can connect it to the murder let alone match it to anybody and place them in the house on the night of the murder. So what that basically means is the dna evidence as of right now is useless and irrelevant.

Now let’s talk about how people have been cleared based on the dna. I guarantee that anybody who has been cleared has been cleared because of multiple things and not just dna alone. I’m willing to bet that most of them were cleared because they had rock solid alibis thus making it impossible for them to have done it. They have not and we’re never cleared based on dna alone. That’s impossible and simply wrong.

Finally the Ramseys being cleared because of the dna ir because that lady DA wrote them the letter saying they were cleared. That’s a bunch of bs! The Ramseys officially and or legally have not been cleared and are still considered suspects. You cannot clear someone based on evidence that you cannot even connect to the crime. Also even if the dna did match one of them you would expect that since they all lived in the same house. It’s easily explainable. So let’s stop saying the Ramseys were cleared. They weren’t. That was a meaningless letter carried no weight legally. The was the DA’s way of saying it’s ok your good. That’s it. Nothing more. Remember until they connect the dna to somebody and the crime it’s useless and worthless evidence that proves nothing. Thank you.

the_dumbass_region
•
10mo ago
Re: the alleged DNA on the underwear, I thought it was determined that it was the kind of trace DNA that could come from the person who packed the underwear at the factory.

iluvsexyfun
•
10mo ago
There is no evidence of an intruder.

Absence of evidence of not always proof of absence, but it is evidence of of absence.

Example: if I say that a herd of buffalo just ran through my apartment and an inspection of my apartments reveals no evidence of the passage of a herd of buffalo that is super important. You could look for hoof prints, dirt, hair, others who saw the buffalo. You might also consider that I live on the 11th floor.

If evidence is expected and we can’t find it, that is important evidence.

Theislandtofind
•
10mo ago
I would even go so far to say, that even the unidentified DNA in this case points to the Ramseys.

Phil Danielson from the Institute for forensic Genetics at the University of Denver: "We have a question profile, that is very low level in terms of the amount of DNA. The quantity of DNA is very small. The profile is extremely complex." Source: DNA in Doubt.

Plus, this question profile(s) were mainly found on clothing that obviously didn't belong to Jonbenet and in which she was clearly redressed in, by who ever killed her.

Genetic genealogy leads to man's arrest in 1993 rape and murder of his 19-year-old neighbor
EMILY SHAPIRO
Wed, September 4, 2024 at 11:08 AM CDT·3 min read

A man has been arrested in the 1993 rape and murder of his 19-year-old neighbor in Indiana after he was linked to the case through genetic genealogy, authorities said.

On March 24, 1993, Carmen Van Huss' father went to her Indianapolis apartment to check on her after she didn't show up for work. He found his daughter dead on the floor, according to the probable cause affidavit.

She was naked and had multiple puncture wounds to her head, face and body, the document said.

"There were obvious signs of a struggle, including a knocked over table, clothing thrown on the floor, a large pooling of blood near the victim’s head, and blood spatter around the victim’s body," the probable cause affidavit said.

A resident in the apartment directly below Van Huss told police that, in the early hours of March 23, he heard screams, crying, slamming, banging and "noises and voices of a male arguing that lasted approximately 30 minutes," the probable cause affidavit said.

In the years that followed, police said they interviewed dozens of people and followed up on hundreds of leads. But the case went cold.

In 2013, the unknown suspect's DNA was uploaded to CODIS -- the nationwide law enforcement DNA database -- but there wasn't a match, according to the probable cause affidavit.

MORE: Teen robbery suspect charged in San Francisco street shooting of 49ers' Ricky Pearsall

Then, in 2018, police said they submitted a DNA sample from the crime scene to Parabon NanoLabs to try to solve the case with forensic genetic genealogy -- a new investigative tool that takes unknown DNA and identifies it by comparing it to family members who voluntarily submitted their DNA samples to a database.

In 2023, police said "various investigative methods and lead information from the genetic genealogy analysis" led to a suspect's name: Dana Shepherd.

Police determined Shepherd was Van Huss' neighbor in 1993. Their apartment buildings were connected internally by a shared common area, according to the probable cause affidavit.

In February, police were granted a warrant to obtain DNA from Shepherd, who was now living in Missouri and working at the University of Missouri, the probable cause affidavit said.

When police showed Shepherd the warrant, he "was visibly shaking," the document said.

In June, testing determined that Shepherd’s DNA matched the DNA on Van Huss' body and at the crime scene, police said.
Shepherd, 52, was arrested in Missouri last week on charges of murder, felony murder and rape, police said. He has not yet been extradited to Indiana, police said.

"There's a lot of people that missed Carmen all these years," Van Huss' brother, Jimmy Van Huss Jr., said at a news conference Tuesday. "She had a lot of family, a lot of friends. She had cousins that loved her like sisters."

"She wasn't able to experience her college graduation or have a wedding or any of life's events," he said.

"She was taken from me when I was a freshman in high school. And I'm thankful that, finally, the man that did it is where he needs to be," he said. "I do have hope that any similar case with DNA can get this same treatment with the genealogy and everything we have available today."

Genetic genealogy leads to man's arrest in 1993 rape and murder of his 19-year-old neighbor originally appeared on abcnews.go.com

https://www.yahoo.com/news/genetic-genealogy-leads-mans-arrest-160828270.html

"There were obvious signs of a struggle, including a knocked over table, clothing thrown on the floor, a large pooling of blood near the victim’s head, and blood spatter around the victim’s body," the probable cause affidavit said.

In 2013, the unknown suspect's DNA was uploaded to CODIS -- the nationwide law enforcement DNA database -- but there wasn't a match, according to the probable cause affidavit.

In 2023, police said "various investigative methods and lead information from the genetic genealogy analysis" led to a suspect's name: Dana Shepherd.