Lin Wood could spin water into wine

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Charlie, Jun 15, 2003.

  1. Charlie

    Charlie Member

    This is article from Daily Camera confirms what many of us have believed in regards to the absurdity of the so called "Foreign DNA" that the ramseys harp about.

    http://www.bouldernews.com/bdc/opinion_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2490_2036557,00.html

    I think the fact that the DNA found on JonBenet isn't suffcient enough to enter into the national Combined DNA Index System says it all. THE DNA SAMPLES ARE TO POOR. If the DNA samples cant even get into the national database, how in the hell would they stand up in court. Good Luck Woody.

    Don't you just love how Woody remarks that the DNA samples having not been entered are most likely due from political reasons, despite the fact the samples didnt meet the 10 maker entry level.
     
  2. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Must be that APE again

    The Accute Political Emergency.

    That is how it was put to Steve on his first day on the case. Not just any little ordinary kidnapping murder of a child. Accute - Political - Emergency - what three strong words.

    Thanks for snagging this, Charlie!

    RR
     
  3. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    More to the point, if they're too poor to enter into the system, how can they really "exclude" anyone, including the Ramseys?

    With mixed DNA markers, how were they able to isolate each set from each distinct individual, without mixing the markers?
     
  4. Charlie

    Charlie Member

    Re: Re: Lin Wood Could Spin water into wine

    Originally posted by Adrian Monk
    More to the point, if they're too poor to enter into the system, how can they really "exclude" anyone, including the Ramseys?

    Adrian, that goes without saying. However in reference to your mixing of DNA i thought that was only one interpretation cellMark labs concluded, along with the possibility the extra markers could also be due the the stuttering effect of PCR amplification?
     
  5. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    What has always amazed me

    about this DNA thing is how certain internet personalities claim to know so much about it. ST wrote about the DNA in his book, and I think he is the only insider in the investigation who ever really said what the actual reports said about the DNA, not just his interpretation of them was.

    Yet, people such as jameson and maim claim to know all about it. jameson strutted about with her chest all puffed out, claiming the DNA was CODIS certified several times; yet, those threads are nowhere to be found now. I saw them, I know what she said, and it was a definite statement. I thought she said there were 11 markers or something, but I could be wrong about that. Whatever, she flat out lied. What a surprise.

    Then there's maim, who always knows more than anyone else about the case because of her "connections." I don't know of anyone inside the case who would speak to either one of them except Smit, but there is some snitch who does, and that snitch seems to have given them both some faulty information. Maim's claim that there was flesh under JBR's fingernail was one of the very best examples of someone feeding her a line of bull.

    What I'm trying to get at is, until an expert actually explains to us what the condition of the DNA was and what the DNA tells us, all we can do is speculate. I think we are pretty close, though, in speculating that the DNA was in poor shape, degraded, and inconclusive. It will never convict anyone, and Smit is so full of it, they ought to use him for fertilizer.
     
  6. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    I thought it was Dr. Lee who said in the beginning that this was not a DNA case, but in this "blast from the past" article he went on to say he wasn't even sure she was murdered...

    Experts Disagree on Ramsey DNA Evidence
    Tuesday, May 22, 2001
    By Adrienne Mand


    NEW YORK — Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, a world-renowned coroner serving in Allegheny County, Pa., told Fox News Online that a lack of matching DNA should not have prevented charges from being brought against the Ramseys or somebody else.

    In my opinion, (the inconclusive DNA) should not be any reason to have the district attorney refrain from moving ahead with an indictment," Wecht said.

    Genetic material may have been present previous to JonBenet’s death, he said, and it still may be useful years later, such as in the 45-year-old Marilyn Sheppard murder case that he is working on. "DNA is important, but the presence of some DNA that does not belong to John, Patsy or Burke does not mean in any way there was an intruder," Wecht said. "It may have just been there from somebody else."

    Conversely, forensic scientist Henry Lee, who advised Ramsey prosecutors and previously worked on the O.J. Simpson case, told Connecticut TV station WFSB-TV that he wonders whether the child beauty queen was even murdered.

    Lee said it's possible JonBenet’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.

    Regardless of the actual circumstances, Jay A. Siegel, professor of forensic science at Michigan State University, said, "It’s pretty clear that they haven’t got enough evidence to indict the parents or anybody else."

    Siegel said unless the incident’s details are known, DNA evidence is a tricky thing for grand juries to evaluate.

    "(Without) a clear-cut case of the circumstances, which you don’t have here, interpreting that evidence is very difficult to do," he said.
    Handwriting analysis, which was used in the case without implicating anyone, is "more an art than a science," Siegel noted.
    "There’s no smoking gun here that points specifically to anybody," he said. "This may be one of these cases that never gets solved absent some sort of confession or admission."
    Myrna Raeder, a professor at Southwestern University School of Law, agreed that the case may have been lost before the investigation really began.
    "Everything that has been made public certainly makes the initial handling of the crime scene very problematic," she said. She questioned allowing people to walk through the house — "particularly people who may become prime suspects."

    The preservation of DNA samples also was compromised, Raeder said, but she added, "You may not be able to identify that one person is responsible from forensic evidence."
    Wecht said the Ramseys' financial clout afforded them special treatment by police investigating the murder, but he holds District Attorney Alex Hunter responsible for there not being a strong case.

    "For Alex Hunter and the people defending his decision, to place the blame on the police and say what they did or failed to do is the basis for the terrible state of the case. That’s just very, very unfair, and it is a cop-out," he said. "This all comes back to Hunter."

    The implications of the case go further than Boulder, he said, adding that he’s "disgusted" by what this means for the public’s view of the courts.
    "This is a travesty of justice," he said. "This is an insult to the justice system."
     
  7. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    Clay's hearing from me!

    I think I've made the decision that from now on, anyone who writes an article on the case is going to hear from me. I just sent this off to Clay Evans regarding his CODIS article:

    I just read your 6/15 article regarding the dna in the Ramsey case. I have followed this case since the murder and currently have a petition on the internet asking the govenor to appoint a special prosecutor in this matter.

    This case never should have gone this far...it should have been resolved within that first week. We could get into all the things that went wrong, but I'm sure you already know. Suffice it to say, defense tactics would have one ignore all the circumstantial and forensic evidence but for this tiny bit of dna that has been described by law enforcement officials as old, degraded and contaminated. Even Dr. Henry Lee was pulled into this case to investigate and he has stated quite emphatically that this is not a dna case.

    I'd like to see you delve into this case a little deeper, Clay.

    Lin Wood touts this tiny bit of dna as proof of a killer. That's because the sample does not match either parent. But what of the evidence that DOES match?

    On the night of the murder, Patsy wore a checkered jacket. Fibers from that jacket were found on the duct tape that covered her daughter's mouth; fibers from that jacket were caught up in the ligature wrapped around her daughter's neck and caught in the cord wrapped around the stick.

    The stick was a broken paintbrush belonging to Patsy, stored in a box of art supplies in the basement near the body. Also in that box were more fibers from the jacket Patsy wore the night of the murder.

    Obviously, these fibers were not innocent transfer, Clay. This puts the mother smack in the middle of the crime! Looking for something to turn into a garotte, her fibers fall into the art tray when she pulls the paintbrush out. When cord is tied around the stick, more of those fibers entangle into the wrapping of cord around the stick; and further, as the cord is wound around the victim's neck, more fibers are again deposited and entangled into the cord. And when the tape is placed over the victim's mouth, there are still more fibers from Patsy's jacket deposited.

    How much more proof does one need to know that this mother had a hand in her daughter's death?

    JonBenet had toileting problems; she was also spoiled. Family testimony states that wherever JonBenet was, she would yell out to someone to come into the bathroom and "help her". They would wipe her and pull up her panties.

    This dna could have been innocently deposited on JonBenet without having anything to do with her murder. Further, the child could have transferred the dna to her privates easily, simply by having "dirty" hands and then wiping herself!

    Should an entire homicide case be based on a sample so small that it doesn't even meet the requisite for CODIS?

    Does it prove murder? That's the real question. Even if identified, would that sample prove who JonBenet's killer is?

    Again, Dr. Henry Lee has stated on numerous occasions and in many publications that this is not a dna case. He is a world reknowned master pathologist/criminologist. Why are you ignoring him over the defensive yapping of a civil libel attorney????

    Hopefully you will go to http://www.petitiononline.com/jbr246/petition.html and see some of our concerns as to how this case is being handled (swindled by defense attorney is more like it) by a DA who folds under threats by the Ramseys and their attorney, and who is still chasing Santa Claus (Ramsey neighbor Bill McReynolds) as the elusive (and now dead) intruder!

    The litigious Ramseys and their civil libel attorney now have the Boulder DA and their favored retired investigator Lou Smit in their back pocket. Together they've built a team to find an elusive intruder whose dna is, they claim, in JonBenet's underwear. This is simply another tactic to ensure that the Ramseys walk away from their crimes. Unfortunately, not a damn person in Boulder cares. The Ramseys have moved to Atlanta, so good riddance!

    Now it appears they've added you to their mix!

    JonBenet never had a chance in life and apparently, she isn't going to have a chance in death!

    I think if you look more closely into this homicide, Clay, sans any slanted viewpoint of Lin Wood, Lou Smit, or Mary Keenan, you'll find the real glaring hole...and it has nothing to do with the lack of a CODIS cross-check.

    Sincerely,
     
  8. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Great letter, Ginja

    I hope he reads it and follows through.
     
  9. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    Jesus, he's fast

    Jeez, Clay is fast! Here's his reply:

    Thanks for writing.

    I would just make one comment: Lin Wood did not "tout" anything to me.

    Rather, I was given specific information about the fact that the DNA -- which remember, does not match anyone tested so far -- has not been cross-checked in CODIS, the national database. The source of that information (trust me: reliable) said I could use it if I could get someone else to confirm it.

    Personally, I'd rather have had someone else than Wood confirm it, because his name is so loaded. But forget, for a moment, all your prejudices about the case (and from day one, I've done my professional duty and refused to buy into any theory: I simply don't know who did this, and no one explanation -- so far -- seems complete to me. I've not seen all the evidence, and I'm guessing you have not, either) and ask yourself this: in
    ANY case of this profile, wouldn't you want the investigators to "dot the i's and cross the t's"?

    That's what I'm calling for in the column; nothing more, nothing less.

    Thanks again for writing.


    Clay Evans
    Associate Editor, Columnist and Books Editor
    Daily Camera
    1048 Pearl St.
    Boulder, CO 80302
    (303) 473-1352; fax (303) 449-9358
     
  10. Charlie

    Charlie Member

    Ginja, great letter. its unfortunate that Evans didn't respond to all the questions you posed.
     
  11. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    Charlie

    Hell, Charlie, he didn't respond to any of my questions!

    I think I'm going to write back and ask why there wasn't anyone besides Lin Wood who could have confirmed the CODIS information.

    The man isn't paying attention.

    He learned that CODIS has a certain requisite number of markers necessary in order to be run through the computer. This dna sample does not have the requisite markers!

    It's not a simple matter of dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's. He didn't answer the most important question: If identified, would the DNA prove who the killer is?

    The answer is NO!

    He's stuck on the DNA issue because that's exactly where Lin Wood, Lou Smit and Mary Keenan want people to be stuck!
     
  12. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    He has also bought into the RST theory

    that no one but anyone with a bias toward the intruder theory is capable of dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's. The BPD must be furious with these idiots for suggesting they didn't do all these things. Of course, Keenan also demeans the previous DA by doing this, too - after all, the BPD was forced to cross all the t's and dot all the i's, but since it didn't point to an intruder, it wasn't good enough.

    It must be a left-brain, right-brain thing.
     
  13. AK

    AK Member

    Ginja

    And everyone -- You waste your precious time when you write one-to-one to the author of an OpEd piece. It's all too easy for that person to 86 your comments.

    You need to write a counter piece, removing all invective and explaining a few solid points, and take it directly to the paper for printing. Go PUBLIC, not private, with your comments. If something is well-written it will get in the paper. If it rambles or gives an editor a reason to think it's emotional or biased, it won't.
    If I were you I'd leave out the petition mention, this go-around. Stick to the facts, be concise and give it to the OpEd page editor.
     
  14. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Let me be the First

    :flipper: FYLW

    RR
     
  15. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Proud of you RR...I knew you could do it! So glad you were first!
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice