Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 108
  1. #1

    Default Peter Boyles talks about the recent Grand Jury revelation (Jan. 28 & 29, 2013)

    Denver radio (KHOW 630) talk show host, Peter Boyles, interviews Carol McKinley, Don Wrege, Peter Fotopoulos, Dan Caplis, Craig Silverman and Julie Hayden during his January 28 and 29 shows.













  2. #2
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    Thanks Cynic!

  3. #3
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    Peter really needed to hang up on that first caller! He was just plain thick-skulled!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Just listened to the first broadcast, cynic. Quite a long one. Just as well I don't have an outside job.

    Thank you for taking the time to find these and post them. I think if I was Peter Boyles, I would hire a Body Guard!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  5. #5

    Default

    Thanks so much, cynic. Listening now, and just a few minutes in, I'm fist-pumping and imagining Lin Wood's spontaneous combustion as he hears this!

    "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.

  6. #6
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    Fascinating--Boyles is saying he has a source who is "sitting on" a piece of evidence that is very damning towards the Ramseys, but which has never been disclosed to the public. He thinks the source may possibly come forward in the wake of this GJ business. I hope so!!! Keep turning up the heat...

    Oh by the way, John Ramsey has issued a statement that this newest revelation is "just more drama." Arrogant jerk.

  7. #7

    Default

    First of all, THANK YOU CYNIC!!!

    Interestingly enough, both DB nd CM agreed that calling new GJ would be right thing to do by Garnett right now in attempt to get new evidences. Time is running-out, people are getting older and dying...and if DA ever wants to get this case solved - now it's time!

    Hope, this 'GJ leak' revelation will works like the snowball...pulling more people from their 'keep your mouth shot' closets....

  8. #8

    Default

    To All,

    In the first segment, Boyles is talking with a guy named Mark. Too bad DB didn't give him a chance to explain his view on Patsy's psyhological profile...but what I found interesting is Mark's attempt to explain the 'suspension device' which he believes was made with the 'garrote' in combination with hands binding...I tried to listen this part for couple times but unfortunately DB cut him off so many times that I coudn't understand what Mark was trying to explain. Did anyone of you understand how this 'suspension device' should work according to Mark??!!!

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BobC View Post
    Fascinating--Boyles is saying he has a source who is "sitting on" a piece of evidence that is very damning towards the Ramseys, but which has never been disclosed to the public. He thinks the source may possibly come forward in the wake of this GJ business. I hope so!!! Keep turning up the heat...
    I think Mary Lacy's high-handed "exoneration" PR stunt, and James Kolar's recent book, are maybe starting to shake things loose. There were a lot of people in LE who were more than angry at what Lacy did, and it's obvious it must have infuriated some GJ jurors as well. The people who know the evidence and truth of the case are sick and tired of John Ramsey playing the innocent victim card (while playing his millionth round of intruder golf).

    Among many things, I'm interested in archaeology, forensic anthropology, genetics and DNA. The more I read, the more I'm convinced the original partial DNA, and the so-called "touch DNA," are contaminent. There is no other explanation for it. In fact, I'm reading a book right now that talks about the struggle to get viable DNA from ancient bones. Several years ago, some 10,000-year-old Native American skeletons were found buried in Florida, and a study was commenced to extract and sequence their DNA. However, what came back from one set of bones was the DNA result of a person with European ancestry! Even with all the precautions of gloves and masks, a sterile lab, etc., somehow a miniscule amount of a team member's DNA had gotten into the sample and completely contaminated and skewed the results.

    JonBenet, and her clothing, were handled by many different people and techs. In addition, she even had a jacket, then a blanket, thrown over her after John brought her up from the basement. Both of them would have come in contact with the crotch and waistband of her long-johns. Then we have Patsy lying on top of JonBenet's body in the very clothes she wore to the White's party the night before! You can't tell me there wasn't some "touch DNA" transference at that point!

    As far as we know, Lacy did not test DNA from any of the LE present or the EMTs who moved JonBenet's body to the morgue, nor did she test any of the lab workers, including Dr. Meyers. The "touch DNA" found on JonBenet came from five men and one woman. We know a soccer team did not kill JonBenet. That is contaminent DNA, just like the contaminent DNA that is on your clothes and mine.

    Mary Lacy knows her ridiculous and invalid exoneration of the Ramseys is on shaky DNA ground, and that's why she refused to take questions at the "exoneration" press conference, and why she also refused to release the DNA results for examination.

    I say we call Mary Lacy's bluff! Let's have ANOTHER independent lab do DNA analysis on JonBenet's clothing and see if those same results can be replicated! That is the standard of true scientific inquiry, especially with a new and experimental technology such as "touch DNA."

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Bravo!
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    I think Mary Lacy's high-handed "exoneration" PR stunt, and James Kolar's recent book, are maybe starting to shake things loose. There were a lot of people in LE who were more than angry at what Lacy did, and it's obvious it must have infuriated some GJ jurors as well. The people who know the evidence and truth of the case are sick and tired of John Ramsey playing the innocent victim card (while playing his millionth round of intruder golf).

    Among many things, I'm interested in archaeology, forensic anthropology, genetics and DNA. The more I read, the more I'm convinced the original partial DNA, and the so-called "touch DNA," are contaminent. There is no other explanation for it. In fact, I'm reading a book right now that talks about the struggle to get viable DNA from ancient bones. Several years ago, some 10,000-year-old Native American skeletons were found buried in Florida, and a study was commenced to extract and sequence their DNA. However, what came back from one set of bones was the DNA result of a person with European ancestry! Even with all the precautions of gloves and masks, a sterile lab, etc., somehow a miniscule amount of a team member's DNA had gotten into the sample and completely contaminated and skewed the results.

    JonBenet, and her clothing, were handled by many different people and techs. In addition, she even had a jacket, then a blanket, thrown over her after John brought her up from the basement. Both of them would have come in contact with the crotch and waistband of her long-johns. Then we have Patsy lying on top of JonBenet's body in the very clothes she wore to the White's party the night before! You can't tell me there wasn't some "touch DNA" transference at that point!

    As far as we know, Lacy did not test DNA from any of the LE present or the EMTs who moved JonBenet's body to the morgue, nor did she test any of the lab workers, including Dr. Meyers. The "touch DNA" found on JonBenet came from five men and one woman. We know a soccer team did not kill JonBenet. That is contaminent DNA, just like the contaminent DNA that is on your clothes and mine.

    Mary Lacy knows her ridiculous and invalid exoneration of the Ramseys is on shaky DNA ground, and that's why she refused to take questions at the "exoneration" press conference, and why she also refused to release the DNA results for examination.

    I say we call Mary Lacy's bluff! Let's have ANOTHER independent lab do DNA analysis on JonBenet's clothing and see if those same results can be replicated! That is the standard of true scientific inquiry, especially with a new and experimental technology such as "touch DNA."
    European ancestry! Even with all the precautions of gloves and masks, a sterile lab, etc., somehow a miniscule amount of a team member's DNA had gotten into the sample and completely contaminated and skewed the results.


    Excellent point, Cherokee. For me it's simple about this new touch DNA stuff.
    If I can touch a phone handset and leave a stomach virus on that phone set; and if you can come along later, pick up that phone handset, and pick up the
    stomach virus I left on the handset and transfer it to your G.I. tract, then, we can transfer skin cells all over the place. It's simply common sense...no doctorate needed in DNA.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OpenMind4U View Post
    To All,

    In the first segment, Boyles is talking with a guy named Mark. Too bad DB didn't give him a chance to explain his view on Patsy's psyhological profile...but what I found interesting is Mark's attempt to explain the 'suspension device' which he believes was made with the 'garrote' in combination with hands binding...I tried to listen this part for couple times but unfortunately DB cut him off so many times that I coudn't understand what Mark was trying to explain. Did anyone of you understand how this 'suspension device' should work according to Mark??!!!
    I have to admit OM4U I did notice Peter Boyles does cut the speakers off quite a few times. I think it's common practise with him.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.



Similar Threads

  1. Peter Boyles interviews Stan Garnett, Alan Pendergast and more (Oct. 25 30, 2013)
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 13, 2013, 11:10 pm, Fri Dec 13 23:10:06 UTC 2013
  2. Peter Boyles interviews Tom "Doc" Miller (Feb. 1, 2013)
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 28, 2013, 2:59 pm, Sat Sep 28 14:59:41 UTC 2013
  3. Peter Boyles looks back
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: May 28, 2012, 8:33 pm, Mon May 28 20:33:09 UTC 2012
  4. Peter Boyles 2
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: August 25, 2006, 10:27 am, Fri Aug 25 10:27:00 UTC 2006

Posting Permissions

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