Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 72 of 111
  1. #61

    Default

    WOW Cynic!!! As usual, methodically perfected analysis. THANK YOU!!!!!!

  2. #62

    Default

    A masterpiece of a post, Cynic! Bravo and right on! DNA is everywhere and it is being used to set guilty people free and enter doubt. I'd like to take a swing at the people who say that DNA exonerates the Ramseys.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    WELL DONE AGAIN< Cynic!
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Shows like CSI taint juries because they present ridiculous scenarios and show crime solving techniques that aren't possible. People believe that police really have every bit of evidence from every crime scene and things such as "tire-tread databases" and other science fiction made-up crime tool that Hollywood can dream up. The case you documented had GREAT evidence and that's still not enough of a smoking gun (so to speak) for some jurors. Try convicting a murderer when the gun isn't recovered, but the circumstantial evidence is very good that he did it.

    The scenario of an unknown intruder killing the Johnsons of course brings to mind the also ridiculous "foreign faction" tale that Patsy Ramsey tried to weave to cover up her daughter's death. Tom Kolar ran with this in the first chapter of his book, and I believe that book is making its way through Boulder, and causing some huge ripples in the still pond of the JonBenet case. Some people who until now, believed John and Patsy to be innocent, may be taking another look, feeling deceived or betrayed, and starting to talk.

    Thank you Cynic for this step by step explanation of why the DNA in this case is meaningless.

    Thank you Tom Kolar, for writing "Foreign Faction." We await further developments.
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    A masterpiece of a post, Cynic! Bravo and right on! DNA is everywhere and it is being used to set guilty people free and enter doubt. I'd like to take a swing at the people who say that DNA exonerates the Ramseys.
    cynic,

    I join Learnin and all the others here. Bravo! You have missed your calling.

    Thank you for the time taken to create this. I wish we could have your information here on the front page of every newspaper available!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #66

    Default

    I can't tell you how much I admire you, cynic, as well as Tricia, Cherokee, and everyone else on the forums, who keep the truth front and center.

    Me...

    I. Can't. Take. It.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  7. #67

    Default

    Bravo, cynic. I've been very busy lately in RL with only a little time to read and try to keep up with all the breaking news (wow). When I saw your first post on this thread, I decided to wait until I could give it my full attention. Now that I have taken the time, I have to tell you how impressive it truly is. It's much better than any of the crap I read from so-called investigative reporters. You really should consider submitting it for publication to a few different sources.

    As to your example of the Johnson killings... I don't remember reading or hearing about the case before, but it intrigued me. I found something else interesting about evidence in the case that apparently had investigators and prosecutors both stumped (although I think most of the smart people here would have no problem figuring out). The pattern of blood spatter on the pink bathrobe didn't fit with what was expected. Most of the blood was on the left sleeve and the back of the robe. By the time everyone reads this sentence, and before they read the following quote, they will probably have figured out the reason -- so I don't understand why prosecutors couldn't see it until it was pointed out.

    (Note to reader: Don't read the quote box if you want to give yourself a little test to see if you can figure it out before reading it.)

    From http://crime.about.com/od/juvenile/a/sarah_johnson.htm:
    One of the big problems that the prosecution had with a major piece of evidence had to do with the pattern of blood splatters found on the pink robe. Most of the blood was on the left sleeve and the back of the robe. If Sarah put the robe on before shooting her parents, how did so much blood get on the back?

    While the prosecution was struggling to put together a viable explanation for the location of the blood on the robe, Sarah's defense lawyer, Bob Pangburn happened to appear as a guest on the Nancy Grace "Current Affairs" program.

    Nancy Grace asked Pangburn about the blood on the robe and he said it showed possible contamination of evidence and that it actually could help exonerate Sarah Johnson.

    Nancy Grace offered another explanation. She suggested that if Sarah wanted to protect her body and clothing from blood splatter, that she could have put the robe on backwards. Doing that would act as a shield and the blood would then end up on the back of the robe.

    Rod Englert and other members of the prosecution team happened to be watching the program and Grace's theory provided them with a reasonable scenario that would result in the blood patterns that were on the robe.
    Say what you will about Nancy Grace, but I do think she does some good sometimes. She certainly did in this instance.
    .
    All views expressed in my posts are my opinion and are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as ďfreedom of speechĒ.

  8. #68

    Default

    Cynic and otg, I think BOTH of you should start your own publication company. I'll be first to buy your books!

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    I wish we had a "thanks" button here.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  10. #70

    Default Why the DNA is contaminant and not from the crime scene!

    The main reason is ...

    THERE IS NOT ENOUGH OF IT!!!!


    If the partial, degraded, not enough to make standard 12/13 marker DNA specimens were deposited the night of JonBenet's death, they would NOT be partial, degraded, not enough to make standard 12/13 marker specimens of DNA!

    CODIS allows the MINIMUM of 10 markers, but when you have fresh DNA, as would have been deposited at the crime scene barely 24 hours before, the usual sample is a full 12-13 markers. That is standard. When a genealogy test is done, 12 markers is the absolute minimum to establish results. A paternity test requires the minimum of 16-17.

    So, a person can see that if there are less than 10 markers present, there is a problem with the sample. Fresh DNA will have much more than 10 markers present, and currently, y-DNA (passed down from fathers to sons) can be analyzed as far as 111 markers. This is just a tiny part of our genome.

    For the purposes of testing, only certain areas of our DNA are sampled. This usually occurs at the juncture of the DNA strands where recombination takes place. It has been found that certain parts of human DNA are easier to sample than others, so those areas have been assigned letter and number names so that DNA testing can have a standard for results.

    I have created some graphics to help explain why it is absolutely ludicrous to think that 10 markers, or less, of degraded DNA could be samples from the night JonBenet died, and why the partial DNA that was found is only contaminant or artifact!

    For explanatory purposes, I will be using results from y-DNA testing because it is easier to illustrate my points.

    First, let's take a look at a 111-marker y-DNA test to see how ridiculously tiny a less than 10-marker sample would be. Keep in mind, the 111-marker test is only a tiny fraction of our own DNA genome.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Cherokee; February 7, 2013, 2:25 am at Thu Feb 7 2:25:50 UTC 2013.

  11. #71

    Default

    Here is another look at that same test in comparison to other y-DNA samples taken to 111 markers, but from another viewpoint.

    As you can see, there should be many more markers available for fresh DNA!

    It is preposterous for ANYONE to claim that partial, degraded DNA, which is less than 10 markers (and mostly five to seven markers) is from an "intruder" who killed JonBenet!
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Cherokee; February 7, 2013, 2:27 am at Thu Feb 7 2:27:48 UTC 2013.

  12. #72

    Default

    The graphic below illustrates several points I’d like to make about DNA and the “touch DNA” found on JonBenet’s clothing, the wrist bindings and ligature.

    In the first half of the graphic, I used the names of a few FFJ posters (instead of the actual individuals who contributed the DNA) and took their “DNA” to 13 markers. As I stated before, 12-13 markers is considered the minimum for accurate DNA testing. The top section of the graphic demonstrates how a DNA sample SHOULD look if the DNA was fresh, non-degraded, and viable. By the way, this DNA was collected only using a cheek swab.

    The second half of the graphic illustrates how a DNA lab could have differentiated between the DNA of seven separate individuals, even with some of their DNA markers missing.

    For instance, let’s say BobC is the person who donated the barely 10-marker DNA sample found in the Distal Stain 007-2 on JonBenet’s clothing, so I have removed all but 10 markers from his analysis.

    We have been told all of the rest of the “touch DNA” is less than 10 markers, so for the next four individuals, Cherokee, Cynic, DeeDee and Elle, I have removed all but seven markers. We know at least one “touch DNA” sample consisted of seven markers, and I’m being generous in my illustration to show three other samples at seven markers when they were probably less.

    Next, we know one “touch DNA” sample consisted of six markers and another was made up of only five markers, so I have taken away all but six from Heymom and five from Koldkase.

    As you look at the gaping holes in the second half of the graphic, you can see why it is so frustrating to hear Mary Lacy (and other Ramsey apologists) say the partial, degraded DNA is enough to be a live, flesh and blood intruder! Furthermore, we know that there is partial DNA from at least five different men and one woman! It is contaminant and artifact, pure and simple!

    How do we know these partial samples are from six different individuals and not one partial and degraded intruder?

    If you look at the second half of the graphic, you will see that even with the few numbers available at each loci, none of the individuals match completely. That is because there is at least one number in each sample that is different from the others at the standard loci that were tested. Even though this is merely an illustration, the same method applies to DNA labs. They compare the DNA numbers at certain loci to determine if there is a match or not. One non-matching number is enough to say the sample comes from a separate individual.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Cherokee; February 7, 2013, 11:56 pm at Thu Feb 7 23:56:38 UTC 2013.



Similar Threads

  1. CNN Interviews James Kolar (Oct 26, 2013)
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 28, 2013, 3:56 pm, Mon Oct 28 15:56:28 UTC 2013
  2. Sexual Behavior Problems (SBP) - from James Kolar's book about Ramsey case
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 159
    Last Post: December 24, 2012, 11:24 am, Mon Dec 24 11:24:14 UTC 2012
  3. Where to buy James Kolar's book: "Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet"
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: August 18, 2012, 12:35 pm, Sat Aug 18 12:35:36 UTC 2012
  4. James Kolar's new book! It's what we have been waiting for! Daily Beast article!
    By Moab in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 308
    Last Post: August 14, 2012, 10:11 pm, Tue Aug 14 22:11:18 UTC 2012
  5. Listen to James Kolar talk about new book on Tricia's show tonight! (July 18, 2012)
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: July 19, 2012, 8:43 pm, Thu Jul 19 20:43:59 UTC 2012

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •