Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 50
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    KK,
    I have family coming and I don't know when I can listen to it, but I thank you for your wonderful enthusiastic post KK. It is so good to see the old familiar names back here again. All of you have to be commended
    for the amount of time taken to arrive at this stage.

    I have always wondered if Mary Lacy had a crush on John Ramsey and fell in love with him(?).
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  2. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    KK,
    I have family coming and I don't know when I can listen to it, but I thank you for your wonderful enthusiastic post KK. It is so good to see the old familiar names back here again. All of you have to be commended
    for the amount of time taken to arrive at this stage.

    I have always wondered if Mary Lacy had a crush on John Ramsey and fell in love with him(?).
    I think Lacy had a crush on Ramsey's money and connections.

    It's always good to see you, Elle.

    So much time has passed since we all started this Internet journey following this case, life has dictated new horizons for us.

    But when people like Kolar, Tricia, and Cynic do so much to continue in the fight for the truth and justice for a murdered child who deserves it as much as any murder victim, even after 17 years, I'm going to show up if I possibly can.

    As will you.

    (Hope you enjoy your company.)

    "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.

  3. #15

    Default

    Something I also want to mention, as it may not be obvious from Dr. Krane's generous interview: it would cost an arm and a leg to have him give just this kind of testimony--in a trial.

    SCORE!!

    "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.

  4. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Something I also want to mention, as it may not be obvious from Dr. Krane's generous interview: it would cost an arm and a leg to have him give just this kind of testimony--in a trial.

    SCORE!!
    I wish I could tie Mary Lacy to a chair, put earbuds in under those hair curtains and MAKE her listen to Dr. Krane's excellent DNA interview! I want her to hear a REAL expert and writhe under the weight of her idiocy.

    Ha ha, I must be delusional to think it would change Lacy's mind about the worthlessness of her "touch DNA" exoneration (it's difficult for her to do anything with only three working brain cells), but it would darn sure make ME feel better!

    Why doesn't the mainstream media interview Dr. Krane? Why don't they promote the real experts instead of parroting Mary Lacy and doing a cut and paste of what Bode Labs says in their commercials? Why are we the only ones who continue to try to expose the web of Ramsey lies?

    A pox on Mary Lacy and her bogus DNA exoneration! It has become the default quote on every story the mainstream media runs about the Ramsey case. As far as they are concerned the case closed, nothing else matters ... not even the fact that JOHN AND PATSY RAMSEY WERE INDICTED BY THE BOULDER GRAND JURY!!! That story only kept the attention span of the media for a couple of days.

    There is no intruder, there is no intruder DNA, there is nothing but the Ramseys protecting their own and living a lie that has been assisted by the stupid and the corrupt.


  5. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    I think Lacy had a crush on Ramsey's money and connections.

    It's always good to see you, Elle.

    So much time has passed since we all started this Internet journey following this case, life has dictated new horizons for us.

    But when people like Kolar, Tricia, and Cynic do so much to continue in the fight for the truth and justice for a murdered child who deserves it as much as any murder victim, even after 17 years, I'm going to show up if I possibly can.

    As will you.

    (Hope you enjoy your company.)
    So good to see you back again, KK! A retired husband does change one's life, but one adapts and things all fall into place. Yes I keep coming back like a song! I missed you!

    This latest news on the DNA is way over my head. It was nice to hear cynic 's voice again. Good that Tricia can jump in and ask important questions. Just wish I understood it all better. Will listen to the rest of it when I can. Dr. Krane seems a very nice man.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Tricia and Cynic--

    YOU ROCKED IT OUT!!

    Dr. Krane--

    YOU ARE BRILLIANT!


    (And I seldom am impressed by that--ask anyone--but in your case, I WILL MAKE AN EXCEPTION!)


    For all of you faithful case followers, YOU MUST LISTEN TO THE FIRST HOUR OF TRICIA'S BLOG RADIO SHOW! At long, LOOOOOOOONG last, we have the DNA issues explained in language that won't have you pulling your hair out or banging your head on a wall!

    All from an international DNA profile expert WHO ACTUALLY TESTIFIES ABOUT DNA IN TRIALS...Oh, it's like we're ALMOST THERE! With Tricia and Cynic laying out the questions we NEVER thought we'd hear answered!

    Even I understood it!

    And you will be FLABBERGASTED, once again, at how much of a PURE SCAM it was to run the partial DNA evidence up the media flagpole as an excuse to "exonerate" the suspects to whom the overwhelming body of evidence invariably leads in this case: the Ramseys.

    Of course, we smelled that skunk all along. But now we have an ACTUAL WORLD-CLASS FORENSIC DNA PROFILER explain it to us.

    As cynic said, THE MIXED BLOOD SAMPLES OF PANTY DNA WITHOUT A FULL PROFILE FOR THE UNKNOWN DONOR NEVER WOULD HAVE MADE IT INTO A TRIAL! Dr. Krane explains it in inarguable terms: it's not allowed "BY AN ABUNDANCE OF CASE LAW" in the U.S.

    Also, turns out that "touch" DNA testing? Same thing as regular or LCN DNA testing, depending on how much of a sample is found by the high-tec process of scraping clothing with a razor. Yeah, it's that simple. And nothing new when it was paraded around by Team Ramsey as more advanced DNA technology in 2008. It was the same testing they'd done in 2002: LCN. They just scraped around on the clothing trying to find more. Then acted like it meant "more proof" of an intruder. But Dr. Krane explained it this way: there is no way to know how it was deposited there or when or by whom. It could have been secondary or tertiary transfer or contamination.

    Oh, you just have to listen to the show. HAVE TO!

    Cynic and Tricia, you did a MAGICAL job asking THE PERFECT QUESTIONS!

    I am ecstatic!

    I'm in shock. HOW..WHO...Tricia, Cynic...YOU HAVE DONE WHAT NO ONE ELSE HAS IN THIS CASE: you EXPOSED the DNA red herring for what it is, once and for all.

    Well, I have to give Chief Kolar lots of credit. He set it all out in his book, but having an EXPERT actually tell us in his own words just SEALED THE DEAL!

    And Steve Thomas--goes without saying, right? He truly started the unraveling of the diabolical chicanery of Team Ramsey when he put his heart and soul on the line for a little girl he never met.

    There won't be a trial, we all know that by now. But dammit, YOU GUYS HAVE BLOWN AWAY TEAM RAMSEY'S SMOKESCREEN.

    There's nothing left to give one iota of cred to that old imaginary intruder--not even a fifth of a nanogram of DNA!

    Yeah, I was listening--and taking copious notes! Cynic, if you are going to do a transcript, you're probably faster without me. But if not or you need help, I do have some important quotes I'll be happy to type up. (Only took me 3 hours to write them down by hand--see what I mean?) Just let me know.

    Again, I cannot thank all of you enough...oh, and Levi had some good "I'm lost in DNA science" questions, as well, which is exactly how I felt, so bravo to him, too!
    Thank you for the understated endorsement of the show.

  7. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    I wish I could tie Mary Lacy to a chair, put earbuds in under those hair curtains and MAKE her listen to Dr. Krane's excellent DNA interview! I want her to hear a REAL expert and writhe under the weight of her idiocy.
    BBM
    Many here and elsewhere have logged far more hours on this case than I have and with very few moments of satisfaction. Hearing Dr. Krane say, in essence, that Lacy's exoneration CONVEYS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF DNA, that, for me at least, was one of those moments of satisfaction.

  8. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    So good to see you back again, KK! A retired husband does change one's life, but one adapts and things all fall into place. Yes I keep coming back like a song! I missed you!

    This latest news on the DNA is way over my head. It was nice to hear cynic 's voice again. Good that Tricia can jump in and ask important questions. Just wish I understood it all better. Will listen to the rest of it when I can. Dr. Krane seems a very nice man.
    Thanks Elle, and I can definitely confirm that Dr. Krane is an incredibly nice guy, very giving of his time, and remarkably humble.

  9. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    I wish I could tie Mary Lacy to a chair, put earbuds in under those hair curtains and MAKE her listen to Dr. Krane's excellent DNA interview! I want her to hear a REAL expert and writhe under the weight of her idiocy.

    Ha ha, I must be delusional to think it would change Lacy's mind about the worthlessness of her "touch DNA" exoneration (it's difficult for her to do anything with only three working brain cells), but it would darn sure make ME feel better!

    Why doesn't the mainstream media interview Dr. Krane? Why don't they promote the real experts instead of parroting Mary Lacy and doing a cut and paste of what Bode Labs says in their commercials? Why are we the only ones who continue to try to expose the web of Ramsey lies?

    A pox on Mary Lacy and her bogus DNA exoneration! It has become the default quote on every story the mainstream media runs about the Ramsey case. As far as they are concerned the case closed, nothing else matters ... not even the fact that JOHN AND PATSY RAMSEY WERE INDICTED BY THE BOULDER GRAND JURY!!! That story only kept the attention span of the media for a couple of days.

    There is no intruder, there is no intruder DNA, there is nothing but the Ramseys protecting their own and living a lie that has been assisted by the stupid and the corrupt.

    Don't pull any punches, Chero! Tell us how you REALLY feel!

    No LE or DAs on Team Ramsey are ever going to admit the truth, if they have to go blind and deaf psychosomatically to keep from doing so.

    In all honesty, it's my opinion that they don't even need to go that far: they simply are corrupt to the core of their black hearts, so the truth is as meaningless to them as those oaths they took to uphold the law.

    But the only people they're fooling are those who want to be fooled.

    "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.

  10. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    BBM
    Many here and elsewhere have logged far more hours on this case than I have and with very few moments of satisfaction. Hearing Dr. Krane say, in essence, that Lacy's exoneration CONVEYS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF DNA, that, for me at least, was one of those moments of satisfaction.
    I could swear I heard you and Tricia lighting cigarettes after Dr. Krane said that. "Ohhhh, sweet mystery of life, I'm glad I found you...."
    Attached Images Attached Images  

    "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.

  11. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    I could swear I heard you and Tricia lighting cigarettes after Dr. Krane said that. "Ohhhh, sweet mystery of life, I'm glad I found you...."
    LOL, I guess I should have muted the phone.
    Last edited by cynic; August 20, 2013, 3:11 pm at Tue Aug 20 15:11:19 UTC 2013.

  12. #24

    Default

    Transcript of Dr. Dan Krane’s DNA info related to the JBR case: Tricia’s radio blogcast, Sunday, August 18, 2013
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleu...t-8-pm-eastern
    (Special thanks to KoldKase for her help with the transcript.)

    Dr Krane’s website:
    http://www.bioforensics.com/

    Dr Krane’s CV:
    http://www.bioforensics.com/CV/KraneCV01-12.pdf

    The following begins at 52:30 and extends to the end of the show segment with Dr. Krane

    Cynic: I cannot let you go, Dr Krane, without your thoughts regarding the DNA evidence in the JonBenet case. I know that when we spoke, and when we emailed one another, you made some interesting comments that need to be said, so I’m going to give people a real quick lead-in and then let you take it away.
    I don’t want to get into the minutia of the DNA case primarily because I don’t have the time, but I would like to focus on the DNA that’s been in the mainstream media for many years with respect to the JonBenet case.
    One area in the crotch of JonBenet’s underpants that was tested revealed a profile that was ultimately uploaded to the FBI database, CODIS.
    JonBenet was the major donor by virtue of contributing blood, and there was an unknown minor male profile from unknown cellular material.
    That minor unknown male profile was a mixed profile with drop-out because only 10 out of 13 loci were found.
    In 2008 the long johns which were worn over the underpants were sent to a private lab, Bode, as I’ve already touched on before, and they did razor scraping and so on, and it was publicly revealed that this testing resulted in DNA profiles which, while weaker than the CODIS profile, were considered to match.
    So we know that these profiles were 9 loci or less.
    There are, of course, a number of possible transfer mechanisms between two articles of clothing, one worn tightly over the other, you know, it could have been transfer based on that.
    It could have been something that happened perhaps at the autopsy, perhaps proper safeguards weren’t in place.
    Things were touched, even with gloves, it doesn’t matter, if you’re touching certain evidentiary items if you touch others without changing your gloves it’s possible that that could be a source of contamination.
    Even the coroner or medical examiner, if handling instruments that weren’t properly cleaned, could have transferred from previous autopsies, and so on; there’s just a number of ways, as we’ve touched on throughout this broadcast in terms of transferring DNA evidence.
    I would like to focus, however, on the fact that this was a mixed sample with drop-out-- and by drop-out I mean we don’t have information at all of the loci. For example, if I were to take a swab, a cheek swab, and send it to the lab I would have all thirteen of the CODIS loci light up and there would be a full profile.
    These are partial profiles, also mixed; at least we know for a fact that the blood spot was mixed because it primarily had JonBenet’s blood.
    You’ve made the statement, and it’s one that I’ve actually never heard before. You’ve told me that there is no generally accepted means of attaching a reliable statistical weight to a mixed DNA profile where allelic drop out may have occurred. You then went on to tell me that, essentially what this means is that, in your opinion, from the evidence that I sent you that this DNA evidence really could not be presented in court. Could you comment?
    Dr Krane: I’m sad that you hadn’t heard that before because that means that we’re not doing a good enough job of getting the word out, and often a big part of my job when I get involved with a case is educating attorneys and educating juries about things like that: that at the present time there is no generally accepted means of attaching a statistical weight to a mixed DNA profile where drop-out may have occurred. In other words, we’re getting partial or incomplete information about one of the contributors.
    Now, in an unmixed sample, we can deal with drop-out; but in a mixed sample, I don’t think we have the time for me to explain to you the underlying reasoning behind it, but it’s just not possible for us at the present time. It’s not for lack of trying.
    At the Forensic Science Service (based in the UK), before it went out of business a few years ago, had invested millions of pounds into solving this problem. There are some people now starting to say that there might be some way to attach weight to those kinds of samples. But here’s what it all comes down to: there’s an abundance of case law within the United States that says that if you can’t attach a statistical weight to a DNA inclusion, saying that someone matches an evidence sample, if you can’t put a number on that--one in a million, one in a quintillion, something like that-- you can’t admit it as evidence. It is not something that can be presented to a jury because they simply won’t know what weight to give it if you can’t attach a reliable statistical weight. So, absent a statistical weight all that can really be said is, about a mixed sample where drop-out might have occurred, is that the test results are inconclusive. We simply are in no better position to say if an individual has contributed to a profile or not, relative to where we were before the test or after the test was performed.
    So, the samples that you’re talking about here, the blood stain in the JonBenet Ramsey case from the crotch of the panties, I think at the end of the day that’s simply not something that could be presented to a jury. Now it could be used to generate investigative leads, law enforcement could use Ouija boards to generate investigative leads if they like…
    Tricia: Exactly, there you go.
    Dr Krane: …but it’s not something that you could talk about in court.
    Tricia: Exactly.
    Cynic: Tricia, this is concerning Mary Lacy, our “friend,” so I would be remiss if I let Dan go without this real quick point.
    We also spoke about this:
    The District Attorney went from saying this in 2006: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s… “
    To, in 2008, saying: “Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence. The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder.”
    When you and I talked I just asked you as a hypothetical, if a District Attorney is, for example, exonerating people that were suspects for many years based exclusively on the DNA that we’ve just discussed here, is that an overreach?
    Dr Krane: Well, let me draw particular attention to the word, “exclusively”: right, if that is the sole basis for the decision, I think that conveys a lack of understanding of what’s involved with those particular types of DNA test results.
    Tricia: Thank you, perfect, keep going – I just wanted to hear that. That’s exactly what we wanted to hear. Please continue and we’ll wrap it up.
    Dr Krane: Well, I don’t know that there’s too much more to say. It’s an overreach in the sense that, again, we’re talking here about something that couldn’t be presented to a jury and it’s an overreach because it seems to be violating, or it has the potential to violate, that axiom that I began with: that the presence of a DNA profile doesn’t necessarily say anything about the time frame or the circumstances. We can’t say that it got there because it was deposited during the commission of a crime; we can’t say it got there because the laundry had been done in a way that got somebody else’s DNA there; or it could have come there through contamination after the evidence had been collected and handled in a lab. There’s so many different ways that the DNA could have gotten there that, that by itself, those partial profiles, that’s not something that we should be attaching that kind of weight to.



Similar Threads

  1. Thomas online chats from 2000 answer questions
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: December 6, 2013, 6:43 pm, Fri Dec 6 18:43:50 UTC 2013
  2. Lin Wood regarding Burke recent refusal to answer detective's questions
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: October 29, 2010, 4:49 pm, Fri Oct 29 16:49:34 UTC 2010
  3. Conflicting evidence on blow/strangle- what's the answer
    By Stonewall in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: August 26, 2006, 11:17 pm, Sat Aug 26 23:17:06 UTC 2006
  4. Burke: the final answer?
    By Figment in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: March 8, 2004, 7:57 pm, Mon Mar 8 19:57:26 UTC 2004
  5. Why Polygraphs Are Not Always The Answer
    By JR in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 15, 2002, 1:51 am, Sat Jun 15 1:51:25 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

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