Page 9 of 30 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 97 to 108 of 350
  1. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guppy
    I guess I shouldn't have said Santa didn't do it, although that didn't used to be a controversial assertion. If Santa did do it, and I was certain about it, I sure wouldn't be interested in analyzing poster's DNA. I mean, it would be case closed, and I would find a new case to solve. Maybe tackle where Osama is hiding.
    Good point. What confuses me is why certain members of the RST say that the DNA clears the Ramseys - yet they still think it could be Fleet White or McSanta - when we know they had their DNA tested too! I also analysed a lab report which was shown on Tracey doc which showed that the DNA didn't match the following... Ramsey...Ramsey...etc...blacked out....blacked out....Ramsey...

    I was able to match the characters and spacing of the blacked out names to Mervin Pugh, Fleet White and Priscilla White.

    Why, if the DNA is to be deemed relevant, should it be good enough to rule out the Ramseys - but not anyone else whom it didn't match? That logic defeats me.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  2. #98
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Austin (Metro area), TX
    Posts
    3,761

    Red face

    Quote Originally Posted by guppy
    I guess I shouldn't have said Santa didn't do it, although that didn't used to be a controversial assertion. If Santa did do it, and I was certain about it, I sure wouldn't be interested in analyzing poster's DNA. I mean, it would be case closed, and I would find a new case to solve. Maybe tackle where Osama is hiding.
    One would think if the RST is being truthful and the DNA does belong to a Caucasian male and Santa's DNA has been tested and eliminated that Evening2 would get a clue and move on to a new suspect or does hir think Santa had a helper - perhaps a Caucasian male elf? Of course based on the comments about hir mental lapses in judgment (shall we say?) maybe Evening2 thinks Mrs. Santa is really a Caucasian male? :confused:
    Never let the children, Elders, the sick, or the infirm be exploited.


    "I love everything that's old: old friends, old times, old manners, old books, old wines." Oliver Goldsmith


    Let's bring all our missing and military home safely!


    All of my thoughts written here are my constitutionally protected opinion.

    I reject any form of government in which the opinion of the village idiot is given the same weight as the opinion of Aristotle. (author unknown)

    ©

  3. #99
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J_R
    One would think if the RST is being truthful and the DNA does belong to a Caucasian male and Santa's DNA has been tested and eliminated that Evening2 would get a clue and move on to a new suspect or does hir think Santa had a helper - perhaps a Caucasian male elf? Of course based on the comments about hir mental lapses in judgment (shall we say?) maybe Evening2 thinks Mrs. Santa is really a Caucasian male? :confused:

    Well E2 certainly seems to think that Mrs McSanta is *really* some feminist writer called Louise Armstrong.

    http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/d...DCForumID61#13

    They look nothing like each other, but E2 swears they are identical.

    Nothing like a fantastic conspiracy theory eh?
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  4. #100

    Default

    "Why, if the DNA is to be deemed relevant, should it be good enough to rule out the Ramseys - but not anyone else whom it didn't match? That logic defeats me."

    It doesn't matter. DNA can't exclude suspects except in rape cases. That didn't happen here.

  5. #101
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Austin (Metro area), TX
    Posts
    3,761

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Nothing like a fantastic conspiracy theory eh?
    Reminds me of a poster who has been on this and other forums in the past.






    You always had to double check that you were and not watching the twilight zone if you know what I mean.
    Never let the children, Elders, the sick, or the infirm be exploited.


    "I love everything that's old: old friends, old times, old manners, old books, old wines." Oliver Goldsmith


    Let's bring all our missing and military home safely!


    All of my thoughts written here are my constitutionally protected opinion.

    I reject any form of government in which the opinion of the village idiot is given the same weight as the opinion of Aristotle. (author unknown)

    ©

  6. #102

    Default

    I find the swamp as wild as gators on the interstate. They're all over the place.

    Saluda, who is a rabid Christian type, is the one who came up with the "volunteer your DNA and pay for processing it" idea. Even jams has told them this is a stupid idea, but that hasn't deterred some. Someone finally followed through with the theory and said what would the DNA be matched against? All other obvious flaws with the plan aside, is it really intelligent to flood an investigation already buried under 9 years of mistakes with useless busy work? And that's assuming the BDA would even have her one investigator still allegedly investigating the case run the "forum DNA" against what they have.

    Then there's E2's brilliant idea of sending money to "help out with the investigation" by way of news organizations in Colorado. Jams has already called one which said no, they wouldn't handle donations for the BDA/government. I SWEAR I'm not making this up...and you know it!

    Then there is Plan C: jams has members sending money to Smit directly. hahaha I just know he loves trying to figure out how to report THAT on his taxes! He's not a non-profit, is he? Does he make tax claims as a private investigator, overhead, etc.? Oh, well, who knows, maybe that lunch he buys some witness or informant will turn up that so clever intruder after all.

    And here's the really funny part about the little tiff between Margoo and E2 going on right now: E2 is actually right! So you can imagine. She's not letting go of that bone. But neither is Margoo, who knows E2 is correct in that Margoo did make a little error in a point of discussion, having missed the Schiller doc recently. So in a discussion including info from Schiller's show, Margoo mistakenly attributed E2's information as originating in the PMPT movie. It was an honest mistake. But it's come to a Mexican standoff, as Margoo will not concede that she was the first offender, and E2 will not let it go.

    Which is all beside the point, at any rate. The entire misunderstanding began because Margoo's focus was and is to dismiss the info that Burke's fingerprints were found on the glass with the tea bag at the table where the pineapple was also found in the bowl. It's obvious why she's desperate to do that. It's pretty damning info, if you think about the pineapple in JB's intestines. It's easy enough to imagine different ways that tea glass and the pineapple can be explained innocently. The rub, however, is that Patsy was so determined to deny that the bowl or spoon was hers, even though her fingerprints were on it, as well as Burke's. She also made it a point that the tea bag in the glass was not something she herself would combine. Then there is John's complete disavowal of any connection to the bowl or glass, either. Since they both have firmly planted their story that no one ate pineapple or drank tea after they returned from the Whites, it had to be on the table before they left home that afternoon, at the latest. Otherwise, it was placed there after they returned home. Burke never was in the kitchen that morning, escorted out quickly after LE arrived. So if Burke was the one who had the tea and got out the bowl of pineapple, his fingerprints being on both, and it being not likely he did the dishes or put them up after washing, that puts Burke at the table where it is most likely if not downright positive JonBenet ate the pineapple later found in her intestines. It is true digestive times will vary depending upon circumstances, so what's the big deal? It's the strange denial of any link to them by anyone in the home. Once you start denying the ordinary in a case so confused by inconsistencies, that's a red flag and howdy.

    When reading the Ramseys' interviews with LE, I often find myself wondering if they actually lived in the house at all. I may be unusual, but I doubt if you could find much in my home, if anything, that I don't know about. My husband's tools and such are the exception, so outside the home, you can refer to him. I doubt there's anything out there he can't tell you where it came from and why it's where it is found. I also can tell you who used every towel, washcloth, what all the clothes have been through and where they are, not to mention who took a bath when, who ate what, and when.... I'm the manager of my home and family. That's my job. How anyone who does the same is so lost in her own home, I cannot understand. I can allow for a certain amount of traveling, upper crust lifestyle that delegates the lesser chores to paid staff, but then that would be their job, and I'd expect them to know what I don't and be able to report to me any info needed in that area.

    So not even knowing your own dishes and silver...that's strange to me. In fact, considering the importance of it, I'd be all over it if I was shown such a picture during the investigation of my child's murder. If I really didn't recognize it, I'D BE FINDING OUT IF ANYONE IN MY EMPLOY OR FAMILY DID. I certainly wouldn't be limply dismissing it as something I just don't recognize...NEXT! What parent could possibly be so careless? Patsy and John Ramsey never struck me as careless.

    So this new Schiller fingerprint info Margoo is so keen to deny has got me rethinking Burke's part in this case. Like the Ramseys, Margoo is making much ado. She's even declared she's not going to accept it as fact unless she sees it put forth by a more reliable source. That was Patsy's very reaction when she was told by Haney the evidence is clear that JonBenet had been molested before that night, as well: SHOW ME THAT EVIDENCE. Very strange reaction, IMO.

    When the trickster is distracting you with his right hand, watch his left....
    Last edited by koldkase; July 12, 2006, 2:44 pm at Wed Jul 12 14:44:36 UTC 2006.

    "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.

  7. #103
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    I know you speak the truth! Especially this bit:-

    Once you start denying the ordinary in a case so confused by inconsistencies, that's a red flag and howdy.
    That is precisely what I feel about Burke and the 911 call.

    It would be so ordinary... so normal .. for a child who is not afraid of his parents to go downstairs and ask "What is wrong? What did you find?" - yet we have Burke Ramsey asleep. No, not asleep - awake but pretending to be asleep.

    That isn't normal.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  8. #104

    Default

    There is one point about the DNA match/doesn't match that never gets included in the swamp discussion: look at the partial reports we have seen of the DNA testing, which Jayelles mentioned, that were shown on a documentary program. If you look closely at the descriptive language on one of those pages, I believe it says the DNA does not match (various persons) IF THE DNA IS FROM ONE DONOR. But IF it's from two or more...all bets are off.

    At any rate, Punisher is correct. You can match this DNA to a man and you still will not have a case for murder. There would have to be more evidence connecting the person to the crime scene and the crime. There are a million ways that DNA could have gotten on JonBenet.

    But even more important is the CAVEAT in the DNA report: so and so and so can be excluded as the donor IF IT IS CONTRIBUTED BY ONLY ONE DONOR. If it's a mixture...as was clearly stated in the lab report we saw, I believe (and please, correct me if I'm wrong), then neither the Ramseys nor the others listed could be EXCLUDED, as I read it.

    That has been discussed many times in the past, though it's oddly left out of most discussions of the DNA now. I'm not strong in the science of DNA, obviously, so I'd be happy to consider my errors in thinking about this if anyone would like to point them out. But what I do wonder is how any "intruder" defendant's lawyer is going to handle this DNA elimination within the language of the report: IF there was only one donor. Have the forensic experts determined if there WAS only one donor? Or is all the info about the "mystery DNA" coming from that second sample? Have we seen THOSE reports? If not, does that mean that we aren't going to give any credence to this info, as we only have heard it on the same documentaries that Margoo now says we're not to consider without further documentation?

    Oh, it's just silly trying to make sense of any of this at this point, isn't it? I'm really losing steam. 10 years....

    "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.

  9. #105
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Austin (Metro area), TX
    Posts
    3,761

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase
    So not even knowing your own dishes and silver...that's strange to me. In fact, considering the importance of it, I'd be all over it if I was shown such a picture during the investigation of my child's murder. If I really didn't recognize it, I'D BE FINDING OUT IF ANYONE IN MY EMPLOY OR FAMILY DID. I certainly wouldn't be limply dismissing it as something I just don't recognize...NEXT! What parent could possibly be so careless? Patsy and John Ramsey never struck me as careless.

    When the trickster is distracting you with his right hand, watch his left....
    Exactly!

    It would have been so much easier to simply say, perhaps JonBenét got up and had a snack after being put to bed and came across the alleged intruder or was seen through the windows by him and he then convinced her to let him in. Let's face it, the spoon and bowl set-up is more like what a child would have done in helping herself. It would be easier to deny knowing why one's prints were still on the dishes after having been run through the dishwasher but hey, maybe she pulled dirty dishes out of the dishwasher - she wouldn't be the first child to do this.
    Never let the children, Elders, the sick, or the infirm be exploited.


    "I love everything that's old: old friends, old times, old manners, old books, old wines." Oliver Goldsmith


    Let's bring all our missing and military home safely!


    All of my thoughts written here are my constitutionally protected opinion.

    I reject any form of government in which the opinion of the village idiot is given the same weight as the opinion of Aristotle. (author unknown)

    ©

  10. #106

    Default

    Anyone know what time those pictures were taken. (The ones of the tea glass and pineapple bowl.)

  11. #107

    Default

    As far as I can remember, the picture of the pineapple and the glass were taken with the crime scene pictures of the home. I can only guess, but I'd say after the body was found.

    You know, that's an interesting question. I might have known this at one time, but now I'm thinking...weren't pictures taken at the home...maybe even of the basement that morning when LE first got there? Or am I just confused about that. If no one remembers, I can look it up.

    You know, when I die, I'm going to leave instructions for all my JB books and files, including my computer, to be buried in my coffin with me. Because I'm sure I'll still be looking up stuff about this case well into eternity.

    "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.

  12. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase
    There is one point about the DNA match/doesn't match that never gets included in the swamp discussion: look at the partial reports we have seen of the DNA testing, which Jayelles mentioned, that were shown on a documentary program. If you look closely at the descriptive language on one of those pages, I believe it says the DNA does not match (various persons) IF THE DNA IS FROM ONE DONOR. But IF it's from two or more...all bets are off.

    At any rate, Punisher is correct. You can match this DNA to a man and you still will not have a case for murder. There would have to be more evidence connecting the person to the crime scene and the crime. There are a million ways that DNA could have gotten on JonBenet.

    But even more important is the CAVEAT in the DNA report: so and so and so can be excluded as the donor IF IT IS CONTRIBUTED BY ONLY ONE DONOR. If it's a mixture...as was clearly stated in the lab report we saw, I believe (and please, correct me if I'm wrong), then neither the Ramseys nor the others listed could be EXCLUDED, as I read it.

    That has been discussed many times in the past, though it's oddly left out of most discussions of the DNA now. I'm not strong in the science of DNA, obviously, so I'd be happy to consider my errors in thinking about this if anyone would like to point them out. But what I do wonder is how any "intruder" defendant's lawyer is going to handle this DNA elimination within the language of the report: IF there was only one donor. Have the forensic experts determined if there WAS only one donor? Or is all the info about the "mystery DNA" coming from that second sample? Have we seen THOSE reports? If not, does that mean that we aren't going to give any credence to this info, as we only have heard it on the same documentaries that Margoo now says we're not to consider without further documentation?

    Oh, it's just silly trying to make sense of any of this at this point, isn't it? I'm really losing steam. 10 years....
    Well, I'm still keen for the fight! A million and 1/2 ways, KK. A pirate's life for me!



Similar Threads

  1. Whackadoodles (generic) Thread 3
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: February 8, 2009, 9:52 pm, Sun Feb 8 21:52:31 UTC 2009
  2. Whackadoodles 3, et al, too
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: May 19, 2008, 9:47 pm, Mon May 19 21:47:24 UTC 2008
  3. FOFLMAO, comic relief from whackadoodles Evening2
    By Watching You in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 21, 2006, 10:58 am, Mon Aug 21 10:58:43 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
  •