Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 50
  1. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watching You
    Oh, and BTW, every time I read what they say or write about DNA, I am appaLLed by their ignorance about DNA. RNA and DNA are extremely complicated subjects and better left to the scientists to explain - not the idiots at the swamp.

    Having worked for a DNA expert, I did learn a lot about DNA. The most important thing I learned was that I don't know diddly. What little understanding I do have came from the expert who does know. I know enough to know that I am out of my element, so I stick to the basics, of which my knowledge is very elementary but probably much more than those who have never had a true DNA expert to guide them. Neither jameson nor Lin Wood has a good grip on RNA/DNA, so it's pure BS when it comes from their mouths. I think that is what amazes me the most. Lay people who have little knowledge of DNA acting as if they are experts in it and forming opinions from that ignorance, which are then repeated for the public. It's not only a lie, it ought to be a crime to mislead others that way.

    I am thinking of taking my expert's honors course in genetics/RNA/DNA and diseases. I will then be forced to learn all the terms and understand the building blocks of life, because that is what RNA/DNA is all about. Then, maybe, I can come here and pretend to know even a tiny bit as much as the experts know. Well, perhaps with another eight years to get to the Ph.D. level of the experts.
    WY,

    Thank you for all your excellent posts on the DNA.
    I hope you do take this course. You make a damn good job of explaining about it here. The very fact you worked for a DNA expert, tells me you must have picked up a lot while there. You had first hand knowledge right on the spot. You can't get it any better than that. I'm jealous!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  2. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default

    It would be FANTASTIC if WY did this.

    PLEEEEAAASE do it WY. We need a true expert.

    Let's all remember this DNA is not blood. Nor is it defensive flesh. It's nothing. It's the type of DNA we all have on us. That's it.
    tgrif@xmission.com
    FFJ C/O Tricia Griffith
    6300 N Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H #214
    Park City UT
    84098




    I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
    Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword

  3. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default Off topic, but still related

    Recently I watched the following movie:

    Murder by Numbers 2002 (Sandra Bullock)

    Plot: Two high school students commit a series of "perfect" murders then seem to end up in a contest with a clever homicide detective (Sandra Bullock)

    These two students are fooling around with each other, with one pulling a fake gun on the other, then attempting to grasp his throat to strangle him, and the one getting strangled tells him he'll be found in minutes through transference; that there would be fibers all over him; even his hair, and fingerprints on his neck; that it would just take days for the cops to find him. The one doing the strangling tells him they can't take fingerprints off skin, and he's told that they can with a "magna brush" a fingerprint camera, a 99 gun or with silver transfer sheets.

    Huh? I hope I got that part right. Played it back and double checked it. I haven't heard of any of these forensics mentioned in the JonBenét case (?). Maybe I've been watching too many CSI series.(?)

    Did the washing down of JonBenét stymie the Boulder police here from capturing all of the above stated in the movie?
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  4. #28

    Default

    Ella - this is what I have re: attempts to find prints, etc. on JonBenet's body.
    It was also during the autopsy that Arndt used a florescent black light to see if there was any trace of semen or seminal fluid. While Arndt noted the possibility of such fluids on the girl's upper and inner right and left thighs, it later was determined no such fluids were on the girl's body.
    End quote - Source: http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ram...7/09/30-1.html
    Source: Page 119 PMPT

    At the same time, Detective Trujillo had called the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to ask about the flexibility of lifting fingerprints from JonBenet's skin. It was a long shot. Trujillo learned, because of the skin's comparatively rough texture. Meyer had suspended the autopsy while a CBI technician walked Trujillo through the process. The best approach would be to tent or otherwise encapsulate the body, then to "fume" the remains with Super Glue. The glue vapor would adhere to any prints on the skin and enhance them enough to make them visible under a fluorescent light source. Trujillo ended up using a different, simpler method to lift one partial print.

    Meyer decided not to make note of those events in his report. Afterward, he had continued with an internal examination of the body.

    end quote
    There may be more - I'll do some more file searching

    Little

  5. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Thank you Little for posting this. I do remember reading about this being done at the autopsy, but no one was pinpointed. I was just wondering how they could still find good evidence after she was washed down (?). The bruises would still remain on her body, but if their skin actually touched her, then the oil from their fingers or face, would have been washed away during the clean-up. This is my concern. They couldn't capture fingerprints after this, could they?

    I wonder if they wore gloves when using the cord for the ligature (?). I don't remember anything along the lines of anything being actually found on the cord itself.

    I'm sure they handled her with gloves when it came to the cleaning her body. Fibers were found, but again they didn't pinpoint the Ramsey for those (?). Frustrating!

    Thanks for jogging my memory on this, Little.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #30

    Default

    “While Arndt noted the possibility of such fluids on the girl's upper and inner right and left thighs, it later was determined no such fluids were on the girl's body.”

    By whom?

    “Trujillo ended up using a different, simpler method to lift one partial print.”

    Was it matched?

    ”Meyer decided not to make note of those events in his report. Afterward, he had continued with an internal examination of the body.”

    Strange he would choose not to document this in his report, although it was strictly a police procedure, not a medical one. Could be why he opted to eliminate it.

    Elle: “They couldn't capture fingerprints after this, could they?”

    It’s my understanding that the entire body was not washed down, only below the waist. This would render any fingerprints on the remainder of the body still viable enough for capture.

  7. #31

    Default Sometimes I wonder. . .

    If all this propaganda regarding the DNA is only to pollute a potential jury someday. The average person watching the tube does not know the totality of evidence in the Ramsey case, they only get blurbs here and there like this recent 48 hours mystery ~ I had people at work the next day asking me, 'hey, did you see they have DNA evidence that cleared the parents?"

    I think this is the goal. Wood's mission is to cultivate reasonable doubt. Do you ever wonder if Bennett could be closing in? Is this why the 48 hours show came out? Are we getting closer to an arrest?

    Think about it. The Ramseys were very happy that the DA took the case, right? Now we have Bennett who has been on the case for over a year and has yet to clear John and Patsy. Is Wood getting scared? Why can't they just sit back and let Bennett do his job? Why put this crap out about suspects that don't exist? Why can't they just let the evidence defend them if they are innocent?

    Are they afraid of what is coming?

  8. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Freespirit
    If all this propaganda regarding the DNA is only to pollute a potential jury someday. The average person watching the tube does not know the totality of evidence in the Ramsey case, they only get blurbs here and there like this recent 48 hours mystery ~ I had people at work the next day asking me, 'hey, did you see they have DNA evidence that cleared the parents?"

    I think this is the goal. Wood's mission is to cultivate reasonable doubt. Do you ever wonder if Bennett could be closing in? Is this why the 48 hours show came out? Are we getting closer to an arrest?

    Think about it. The Ramseys were very happy that the DA took the case, right? Now we have Bennett who has been on the case for over a year and has yet to clear John and Patsy. Is Wood getting scared? Why can't they just sit back and let Bennett do his job? Why put this crap out about suspects that don't exist? Why can't they just let the evidence defend them if they are innocent?

    Are they afraid of what is coming?
    If it were me, Freespirit, I'd be afraid the FOX is coming.

  9. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deja Nu
    “While Arndt noted the possibility of such fluids on the girl's upper and inner right and left thighs, it later was determined no such fluids were on the girl's body.”

    By whom?

    “Trujillo ended up using a different, simpler method to lift one partial print.”

    Was it matched?

    ”Meyer decided not to make note of those events in his report. Afterward, he had continued with an internal examination of the body.”

    Strange he would choose not to document this in his report, although it was strictly a police procedure, not a medical one. Could be why he opted to eliminate it.

    Elle: “They couldn't capture fingerprints after this, could they?”

    It’s my understanding that the entire body was not washed down, only below the waist. This would render any fingerprints on the remainder of the body still viable enough for capture.
    Strange, right enough, Deja, that Myers didn't document. Something wrong with this scene (?). I'm sure we would have heard about the other prints by now, or would we, when we read of Myers not documenting this important part?
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  10. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,411

    Default Partial Print

    Perhaps the partial print matched John or Patsy, so there would be a reason for its being there, just as with their DNA.

    If it was a "foreign" print, I'm sure Lou Smit would have used that to bolster his intruder theory.

  11. #35

    Default

    Or perhaps it could have been one of the cops. Considering Arndt relocated the body once it was brought upstairs, it could have been hers, or one of the coroner's assistants. Who knows.

  12. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,411

    Default Best and Worst of 2004

    Found on Worst of Arkansas, 2004:

    WORST Keynote

    When Gov. Huckabee wasn’t turning murderers loose, he was keeping company with similarly disreputable types, as when he attended the Arkansas Leadership Prayer Breakfast in April, along with John and Patsy Ramsey, parents of the 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey, murdered in 1996. John Ramsey was the keynote speaker at the breakfast, and his topic was the need for religious faith in trying times, such as when pretty much everybody involved in a high-profile murder case, and also everybody else in the world, figures you for the killer or the No. 1 accomplice.



Similar Threads

  1. "Parents who kill their kids..."
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: January 7, 2012, 3:17 pm, Sat Jan 7 15:17:55 UTC 2012
  2. Lacy officially "clears" Ramseys
    By Why_Nut in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 260
    Last Post: August 18, 2008, 5:07 pm, Mon Aug 18 17:07:47 UTC 2008
  3. "South Park," "SNL" & "Mad TV" Ramsey Episodes
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: September 2, 2006, 3:54 pm, Sat Sep 2 15:54:35 UTC 2006
  4. Think Parents Couldn't "Do That" to Their Kids?
    By Watching You in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 12, 2005, 4:39 pm, Sat Feb 12 16:39:10 UTC 2005
  5. "parents wouldn't do this"
    By BobC in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: February 5, 2005, 1:27 pm, Sat Feb 5 13:27:04 UTC 2005

Posting Permissions

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