Troy Cowen
#1
He is BORG - more than that, he accuses BURKE on his website.  a search here will bring up his theory.

He shared his theory and then some updates that are riddled with errors -   check it out.



May 2001

One year later, detective Lou Smit presented his intruder theory on the Today Show. He stated that the DNA, found in the panties and under JonBenét's fingernails, did not match John or Burke Ramsey and indicated an intruder. He said that the hair found on the blanket was also an indication of an intruder.

It has been stated that the DNA in JonBenét's panties and under her finger nails were several days old and degraded. While Smit believed the hair found on the blanket belonged to an intruder, it has subsequently been identified as belonging to Patsy Ramsey.

Molecular biologist Melissa Weber of Cell Mark Laboratories consulted several detectives after Cell Mark analyzed the DNA. Steve Thomas and Deputy DA DeMuth were at this meeting; Lou Smit was not. Steve Thomas said that Melissa Weber stated that the analysis showed the possibility that there may be DNA of another person mixed in with JonBenét's DNA found in the panties and under her fingernails.

However, this foreign DNA could be the result of a false positive (stutter). Melissa Weber went on to say that if there were two sources of DNA and they were mixed together, then no one could be excluded. This is contrary to Lou Smit's statement that John and Burke had been excluded. Shortly after the meeting with Weber, Deputy DA DeMuth announced that the DNA did not match John Ramsey's DNA. While technically a true statement, a better statement would have been, "No DNA match is possible under present technology".

When Cell Mark Laboratories was given the job of testing the DNA under JonBenét's fingernails and in her panties, there wasn't enough DNA to test, so they had to grow more DNA from the small sample they did have. The process of growing more DNA from a small sample is called PCR amplification. Unfortunately, when you don't have a perfect sample, the DNA is old, degraded or damaged, the imperfect DNA is amplified also. Sometimes, this imperfect DNA, or non-matching DNA, gives a false impression that it is another person’s DNA.

Having additional markers is a common problem with PCR amplification. Scientist call this problem, stuttering or shadow bands. When the DNA under the fingernails and in the panties was tested, there were more markers than there should have been. What caused these extra markers? Amplifying degraded DNA may be responsible for the extra markers, not an intruder.

Smit also said that the shoe print found near the body was also an indication of an intruder. He said that it was his belief that the intruder came into the house through the basement window, leaving a scuff mark on the wall as his shoe slid down the wall. He did not say whether the Hi-Tec brand of shoe that made the print in the basement was capable of making the scuff mark found on the basement wall. The material found in the scuff mark should match the sole of the shoe. They did not test John Ramsey's shoes to see if one of them could have made the scuff mark.

From the beginning, many people believed that the John Ramsey hired private investigators to help find the killer of JonBenét. We remember getting reports that private investigators were on the scene the day after the murder asking question and getting information from Ramsey’s neighbors. To many, it demonstrated that the Ramsey’s were innocent. Why would the guilty hire investigators to collect evidence the prosecutor would use against them?

 On May 31, 2000, John said on Larry King Live "We've had investigators, seasoned investigators collectively with over 500 homicides under their belt who have been working on this case day in and day out. They have questions, they have information." We now learn that there never was a private investigation into the death of JonBenét. On December 12, 2001, during a deposition, John Ramsey said that the "purpose of those investigators was to prepare a defense in the case that the police might bring a charge against me."

Many are saddened to learn that there was no private investigation into the death of JonBenét. Because of the Ramsey and OJ case, many have lost faith in our legal system. A system easily manipulated by the rich and powerful. Even Ramsey's head investigator, Ellis Armistead, has stated that he has lost faith in the system. In an article in the Rocky Mountain News, Armistead said his assignment was not to solve the crime. "It was to keep the Ramseys from being arrested."
Reply
#2
the foreign DNA, found in the panties and under JonBenét's fingernails, did not match John or Burke Ramsey and indicates an intruder. It is still unsourced and being used to take people off the suspect list.

the pubic hair found on the blanket is also an indication of an intruder

The DNA in JonBenét's panties was comingled with the blood from the sexual assault that took place shortly before her death. No way it was days old.

Cowen said "... a better statement would have been, "No DNA match is possible under present technology". - - but that is wrong. Dozens of people have been cleared because as primitive as testing may have been in 1996 it could definitely CLEAR people.
Reply
#3
COWEN wrote:


May 22, 2001

Adrienne Mand reported that forensic scientist Henry Lee told Connecticut TV station WFSB-TV that he wonders whether the child beauty queen was even murdered. Lee said it's possible JonBenét's death was an accident, which was covered-up to make it look like a homicide, in which case there really isn't a killer. If Lee is thinking that JonBenét's death was an accident. He is not alone. Others have had similar thoughts. When Lou Smit was overheard talking to John Ramsey, he said, "John, look, it was an accident. This could be a lot easier for everybody".

What kind of accident is it when a person dies of strangulation? Is it an accident when a child kills another child? Many say yes. When the killer is too young to understand the meaning of life and death, right or wrong or the consequences of their actions. Burke was 9 years eleven months old.


#############My comment -   I don't recall Lou saying that, but I will say I have had that conversation with people - - but adding one little word.

IF this had been an accident, kids playing hangman or whatever, it woud have been a lot easier for everyone.  A child's game gone horribly wrong, the victim would have been buried, there would have been no possibility of anyone being charged, this witch hunt/ trial by gossip would never have taken place.  John would never have lost his fortune to lawyers and none of us would be spending time worrying about a killer getting away with murder.     The key word is IF - - and that makes what is being attributed to Lou a true statement.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)