More idiocy from the swamp

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Watching You, Apr 13, 2004.

  1. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    From the chief little head, hirself:


    No, the DNA was NOT fresh, because if the DNA had been fresh, there would have been no problem whatsoever in getting beautiful, full strands instead of scrounging to retrieve 10 alleles. The DNA was old and degraded, and that is the reason there were incomplete strands - unless, of course, the perp was a one-armed, one-legged, one-eyed, six-toed, six-fingered, half-brained aberation with only 10 alleles instead of the normal allocation of chromosomes. If jameson understood DNA at all, she would not make such ignorant statements. That fact that it only produced the bare minimum of alleles is proof enough that it was degraded.

    There is also no evidence to prove any of the degraded DNA was from the killer.
     
  2. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    I want to play, too!

    Poison spewed by the dragon hirself from her swamp:

    It gets worse:

    Disturbance? What disturbance? What of the spider web that was left untouched? What of no debris or prints? But wait, why don't we let one of Jams own posters challenge Jams owns words:

    The center window has an outer sill where the white markings are noticeable. However, on the inner sill I see no signs indicating someone slithered through that window. Unless perhaps it was one of the flying Wallendas. I would assume that if someone came through that window, the markings on the inner sill would be clearly visible. I can see why the BPD didn't acknowledge that someone came through that window. (Hudson, 4/8/04)

    Patsy comes closest to anyone matching the RN writing. One has to recognize that the writer intentionally disguised their writing, so it's not going to just pop out at you! Consider all the familial information that an intruder wouldn't know about (e.g., fat cats and John's good southern sense!). Look at all the familiar grammatical notations (e.g., overuse of hyphen) that match Patsy's style of writing, as well as her signatory use of acronyms! (E.g., SBTC).

    There is absolutely NO evidence a stun gun was used. If there was, then look to the Ramseys security tape showing them how stun guns are used!

    Right...smart perp...brings in his own cord and tape and doesn't leave a single print or skin cell on either! But what of the forensic evidence on these items the perp brought in from the cold and took out with him, starting with Patsy's fibers on the tape and caught up in the ligature knot! Maybe a perp DID come in from the cold, but it was Patsy who handled the tape and cord!

    WHEN was the hair deposited? Where was the blanket PRIOR to being brought to the basement AND how many people had access to that blanket? There's nothing linking that hair with the crime.

    Grand jury testimony confirms that Burke Ramsey owned hi-tek boots.

    The BPD's investigation has determined the dna matter was in the underwear prior to shipment to the U.S.

    The difference between BORG and the likes of Jameson is that BORG know the difference between viable evidence and RST spin! Anyone who can ignore fiber evidence, yet believe wholeheartedly in evidence that doesn't exist (stun gun) has a severe problem understanding evidence. You FOLLOW the evidence; You don't MAKE IT UP!

    I'm sure Haney feels confident that people like Jameson are code six wingnuts who would screw up a wet dream! And that's putting it nicely!
     
  3. Spade

    Spade Member

    Fact checking

    "Until you can develop evidence that clears the three survivors in the house that night (paraphrased), you are wasting your time looking for an intruder."

    Detective Tom Haney

    Sueswamp prefers to call others liars as opposed to calling Tom Haney and asking if the quote was accurate. Another suggestion would be to call Lou Smit and ask if he has ever heard Tom Haney express feelings as represented in the quote.
     
  4. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    FBI Mismanagement & Abandonment?

    Swampsters are declaring that the FBI failed their responsibility to coverge on the Ramsey house that morning as a kidnapping by a foreign faction of a Lockheed CEO's daughter is their jurisdiction. They declare that the BPD fought a turf war with the FBI, throwing the FBI off the case. Jams response:

    The Swamp continues to argue, stating the FBI didn't do anything. Yet Margoo notes:

    What NONE of the swampsters realize, although Margoo finally admits that the FBI was there, is that the Denver agent wasn't "just hanging out" at the BPD; and that Mason wasn't "avoiding the house for hours" remaining at HQ "chatting it up with the FBI agent."

    And regardless of what Jams thinks, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with egos.

    The FBI does have jurisdiction over VALID kidnapping cases, regardless of whether the kidnapper is a relative, serial killer, or small foreign faction. But the keyword here is VALID. And it doesn't take an army of federal agents, who have EXPERIENCE with kidnappings, ransom notes and terrorists, to determine whether a crimescene is REAL or STAGED, or to recognize whether a ransom note is valid or bogus, or to determine whether real terrorists would sign off as a small foreign faction or state their real name.

    IOW, it only took the one agent from Denver to read the missive to realize it was a bogus ransom note, ergo the crime was not a valid kidnapping.

    While the CBI ran further tests on the ransom note, the agent discussed the situation with Mason and other agents to determine what really was going on at the Ramsey home. What he saw was typical of an inside job. The real question at that point was, 'where is the child?'

    The family and their friends were kept at bay by Ardnt while the FBI worked with the BPD in determining what to do next and how to handle the situation. The responding officers had returned to HQ and filing their initial reports. From that, the BPD knew it had to find the child and in order to do so, had to search the entire house. Their suspicions, as recognized by the FBI, were that this was an inside job and ergo, they needed to get inside and do a proper search of the premises. Knowing that, they prepared search warrants and affidavits of probable cause. As it was the day after Christmas, they also had to get a judge who could sign the warrant. This took time and it's what was going on at the BPD while Arndt babysat.

    Unfortunately, Ardt wasn't aware of what was going down at HQ, and decided to keep the crowd at bay by asking Ramsey to look around the house for clues. Instead, he bolted for the basement and carried the body upstairs about the same time police were getting the search warrant.

    The only egos I see getting in the way of any of this are the egos of the BORI. :booty:
     
  5. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    Spade

    Are you talking about VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS?

    ROTFLAMO! Swampsters don't deal with facts; only their imaginations and Lou Smit's delusions.
     
  6. Voyager

    Voyager Active Member

    Good Post Ginja....

    I think that you have nailed the situation on the day of the crime discovery and the BPD's and FBI's involvements and actions on that day exactly....

    Now, if all that you have described in your scenario is true, and the Governor of Colorado has all of this information, then what is Owens waiting for in appointing a special prosecutor to bring all of this evidence, and these facts and agencies together for a conclusion?

    Granted, it would be a complicated, and extremely expensive case to organize and pursue....Do you think that is one of the reasons why Owens is unwilling to make a decision about the special prosecutor? The expense, and bad publicity for Colorado?...Or maybe he is afraid of the political fall out....would having this case come to trial during his watch prove negative to his political career? Would it be a risk to his career and reputation for success if the case failed to come to a conclusion AGAIN?

    I think that we need to figure out the governor's mindset before the presentation of the petition at the end of this month don't you?

    Voyager
     
  7. Sabrina

    Sabrina Member

    WU, Good post except you are 3 markers short.

    The standard for identifying a DNA sample is 13 markers.

    The DNA sample in the Ramsey case barely had 9 I believe...maybe 8. One or two more were finally able to be identified after advanced technology since 1997 to come to the 10 identifiers-- where it can now be entered into the databank -- even though 3 short of standard.

    Mr. Wood himself has said in various interviews that they finally reached the number of identifiers necessary--10--to run a search. 13 is standard however.
     
  8. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Well, that's what I thought, Sabrina

    that the criteria was 13 markers, not 10, but I've heard so much lately about it being 10 markers, I thought must be I read it wrong.

    That makes the chances of identifying anyone from that DNA even more remote than before. I should know better than to take anything for granted. Next time I will do the research on CODIS myself. In fact, I might just do it now.

    Thanks.
     
  9. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    It is all very confusing. Could it be that there has to be 13 markers for the DNA to be stored permanently in CODIS, but that they can do a comparison if there are 10?
     
  10. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I think the whole idea of CODIS

    is to have DNA that meets specific criteria - 13 full markers - in a database where it can be compared to DNA from crime scenes. Before any DNA sample can even make it into the database, it has to be tested by the lab to be sure all 13 markers are tested individually for completeness and viability.

    That would indicate to me that a reliable comparison can't be made with anything under 13 full markers and that 10 markers aren't enough for a reliable match to anyone. It would also indicate to me that anything under the required 13 markers would be rejected, after testing, by CODIS. The results of comparisons from CODIS would be used in court and would have to stand up to intense scrutiny by experts and lawyers from both sides of a case. If the CODIS database is going to be beyond reproach, it cannot accept DNA that does not meet their stated requirements.

    Say they had 10 markers from a DNA sample and compared it to a sample from a crime scene containing all of its markers. What's it going to prove? Family members share many markers - the missing markers could be the absolute identifiers. Without all the required identifying markers, there can be no positive match, because those missing markers could be completely different from the other markers on the CODIS DNA. This is one reason the DNA in the Ramsey case is never going to solve this case - at least with current technology.
     
  11. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Good points...all of them!

    And…Henwy Wee say…not DNA case too!

    Who ya gonna believe? Jams, Margoo or Henwy Wee?

     
  12. Misty4

    Misty4 Member

    Jayelles writes: "....Could it be that there has to be 13 markers for the DNA to be stored permanently in CODIS, but that they can do a comparison if there are 10?"

    Yes.
     
  13. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    But

    what would that comparison prove, Misty? You can compare anything with anything, but there has to be a goal. What can comparing 10 markers with a known sample prove, except it COULD have come from a certain person, but it also COULD have come from someone else?
     
  14. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    DNA Matchup

    Sounds to me as though the only purpose/use of an incomplete DNA sample (e.g., 10 markers) would be to determine absolutely who it DOESN'T belong to.

    But as WY points out, if 10 of the markers match 10 markers of someone's sample, we still wouldn't be able to claim that person as a match.

    Jmpo, but it seems to me that if the dna was fresh under JonBenet's nails/in her underwear, then retrieving a full strand w/enough markers for identification would have been possible. IOW, the very fact that this sample was so miniscule from ALL areas of deposit on the body should indicate that it wasn't deposited during the commission of the crime.

    Again, as Dr. Lee has stated numerous times, "this is not a DNA case."

    And as the valid professionals investigating this matter (please note, valid, not hired hands by the defense team!) have also stated numerous times, "there is no smoking gun in this case."

    What the Ramsey folks don't understand is that even if they did match this dna to someone, there is no other evidence to support the probability/possibility that that person was involved in JonBenet's murder.

    For example, if such a match were found, and investigators moved in on this person and seized other evidence where fibers from that person's clothing matched the fibers on the tape and caught in the cord, then there'd be a definite evidentiary link to that person being at the crimescene on 12/25-26.

    This is what's needed in order to "link" the DNA depositor to being IN the house ON the night of the crime.

    Without any other evidentiary link between the depositor and the crime scene, there's no chance in hell in proving that person was the perp.
     
  15. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Priceless........

    From jameson tonight:

    "Message to Horace:
    You wrote, "I would be interested to know the identity of Midnight_ Wolf, Pinkhammer, Wilton Jr and Mary. They have the right to be anonymous. It probably saves them from being persecuted on the internet like Candy, Jameson, Rainsong and cheekysodd."

    Good grief - I know the identities of most of the BORG. If they didn't tell me themselves it was - - let's say, hypothetically of course, that they were all sent to me by the owner of a BORG forum during an episode of lunar madness.

    Don't know if you have followed the forums since the beginning but the OLD BORG is gone, the forums changed hands and several times there were hard feelings and secret betrayals - - and who better - in their minds- to betray them TO but me? (I don't know if Candy has gotten similar mail from disgruntled leaders, I expect so.)

    I never did anything with the lists - just packed them away. But that doesn't mean I don't have them - - somewhere."
     
  16. Spade

    Spade Member

    LinWad, SueSwamp, and Candy

    are archtypes of the trailer park trash whose ignorance has helped obstruct justice for a little girl that has been dead 7+ years.

    LinWad thinks the internet is the home to "beer-can collectors" who are missing a portion of their happy meal. He is wrong.

    SueSwamp thinks that the BORG are dummies who she can con whenever she feels the urge. She is wrong.

    Candy thinks that slander will go unpunished. She is wrong.

    "Arrogance is always well grounded in ignorance." My Mother
     
  17. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    I think I LIKE your mom, Spade!
     
  18. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Yeah, yeah

    Pass me a bucket.

    I think she has ONE thing right here - that she may be the "best" person to betray an identity to (meaning that she is the last person anyone would want to know their identities).

    HOWEVER, she is also making some rather big assumptions too. The biggest one being that people register on forums using their real names and e-mail addys! And what then? Even supposing they did register with their real names, what big deal would it be if jameson or Candy "outed" them? So "ImaBORGhat" is really Sally Brown from Texas???? LOL Big wow eh?

    OTOH, there is only a vague (and most likely false) accusation against some anonymous disgruntled forum leader. Perhaps (hypothetically speaking of course) jameson and the anonymous forum leader actually traded membership details? (I'll send you a list of mine if you send me a list of yours)? Nothing jameson does will surprise me now. I think it's way more likely that a hypothetically disgruntled forum leader would send a false membership list to prank jameson!

    IMO it's a load of baloney. Besides, if she ever did post a list of the "BORG"s real names she'd have to justify that it was for reasons other than sheer badness or "BORG-stalking"! :)
     
  19. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Who knows?

    Hypothetically......I wouldn't be surprised if it were true about jameson receiving our (BORG) personal info.

    I just wish that she would give us some hypothetical initials of the lunar mad forum owner.

    Any guesses?

    RR
     
  20. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Just a thought - protection of our personal information by the forum owners was part of the membership agreements I was part of at any of the forums. It would be a breach of contract, of sorts, for any forum owner to deliver our information to anyone. Frankly, I doubt it very much, considering the degree of dislike and distrust most forum owners have for jameson/aka Susan Bennett. They wouldn't trust her to be quiet about who gave her the list.

    I think it's jameson BS, but I suppose that if there were a search warrant administered for her computers and papers, because of her claim that a forum owner gave her a list of all our names and because that forum owner got herself sued because of it, she might have to cough that list up, ya think?

    I don't believe it.
     
  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