Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 132 of 191
  1. #121

    Default

    Guess jams never heard of the chain of evidence.

    "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.

  2. #122

    Default

    And yet, going back even further...another version:

    #25, RE: Orphan
    Posted by jameson on Nov-19-02 at 07:19 PM
    In response to message #24
    >But the fact remains that the investigation Ramsey
    >ivestigation team was assembled for the primary purpose of
    >spinning a defense plot for the Ramseys.
    >
    >Innocent people don't need a team of professional spin
    >doctors. IMHO.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >Orphan
    >
    >

    This is misinformation and exactly what we don't allow here.
    They were assembled to gather information to be shared with the police. They were a threat to the BPD egos and sent away, cautioned not to get in the way. They didn't make up evidence or ignore evidence or set up any "defense plot".
    If you have evidence to the contrary, post it. If not, stop the crap.
    Next post like this will simply be deleted.



    #41, RE: Caucasian DNA
    Posted by jameson on Nov-20-02 at 11:07 AMIn response to message #40
    I have a copy of Lou's powerpoint presentation.
    In it he says the DNA under her nails and in her panties share markers - - none of that DNA could have come from any Ramsey.
    It is the hair that was there that was MALE.
    That is what I find in the papers I have.
    The hair being MALE discredits Brennan's story where he said the hair was Patsy's.
    And the DNA being white STILL does not indicate it came from a sneeze in a SE Asian sweat shop.
    The package was bought as a gift - - surely NOT torn open so not likely contaminated in NYC.
    AND - - the rest of the panties really should be tested. Perhaps a special investigator would be interested in doing that. Personally I wouldn't trust the investigators in Boulder to properly handle the panties. No way.

    "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. #123

    Default

    And here is at least one source I think I got the impression the panties were new and not washed. Notice the heading is for the post, so I don't know if that was actually in the article or not, unless I can find the original online complete:


    #37, RE: DNA found on brand-new panties
    Posted by AP story on Nov-20-02 at 09:40 AM
    In response to message #0

    Ramsey DNA evidence questioned
    Theory suggests it reached girl's underwear during
    manufacturing
    By Katherine Vogt, Associated Press
    November 20, 2002
    DENVER — A theory made public this week suggests that DNA evidence found in
    JonBenet Ramsey's underwear after her slaying may have come from the clothing
    manufacturing process — not her killer.
    L. Lin Wood, the Atlanta-based attorney for the Ramsey family, called the theory
    "ludicrous," adding that he believes the DNA may still hold the key to the unsolved
    1996 slaying of 6-year-old JonBenet.
    "The idea that this DNA could have somehow been placed there while in the
    manufacturing process in southeast Asia is laughable," Wood said Tuesday.
    "The DNA found in JonBenet's underwear is male and Caucasian and, as everyone
    has noted, it is obviously not the Ramseys' DNA. How many male Caucasians work in
    manufacturing plants in southeast Asia?"
    The Rocky Mountain News reported in Tuesday's editions that investigators think the
    DNA in the underwear may not be critical evidence because it might have been left
    before the Ramseys obtained the garment.
    "There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," former
    prosecutor Michael Kane told the News.
    "You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there: whether it was in the
    manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail
    store who took it out to look at them," said Kane, who ran a 13-month grand jury
    investigation that yielded no indictments. Kane, who now works for the Pennsylvania
    Department of Revenue, did not return a phone message seeking comment Tuesday.
    Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner did not return a message either.
    If investigators are right about possible production-line contamination, then the genetic
    material from the underpants won't help the hunt for suspects.
    But Wood said the theory is meritless. The DNA was found commingled with blood, he
    said, and its genetic markers may match evidence taken from fingernails on both of
    JonBenet's hands.
    JonBenet was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her family's Boulder
    home on Dec. 26, 1996. Her body was discovered about seven hours after Patsy
    Ramsey reported finding a ransom note demanding $118,000 for the girl's safe return.
    No suspects have been arrested in the death. Police have said her parents, John and
    Patsy Ramsey, remain under suspicion.
    Wood said the latest theory is another example of how investigators are out to get the
    Ramsey family.
    Wood said he expects to file a civil lawsuit against the Boulder Police Department by
    the end of the year seeking compensatory damages for the Ramseys, and possibly
    seeking to transfer the investigation to another law enforcement agency.

    "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. #124

    Default

    Well, here's another tidbit I found, SAYING WOOD HAS GIVEN THE UNDERWEAR TO THE DA...and THIS is a source jams backs up on the then 9 DNA markers found:

    Evans: We're failing JonBenet (Daily Camera)
    June 15, 2003


    DNA is the most effective tool for justice humanity has ever known.


    Every week it seems DNA either exonerates wrongly convicted
    people or indicts violent criminals. DNA is like an invisible clue to
    ugly deeds, because it's all but impossible to remove all its minute
    traces.
    In 1990, the FBI initiated the Combined DNA Index System, compiling
    a vast database of human DNA. In October 1998, CODIS became
    operational.
    Its intent, according to the FBI, is to blend "forensic science and computer technology
    into an effective tool for solving violent crimes. CODIS enables federal, state, and local
    crime labs to exchange and compare DNA profiles electronically, thereby linking
    crimes to each other and to convicted offenders." (A few state databanks are not yet
    part of CODIS).
    You'd think DNA evidence from every high-profile violent crime would be plugged into
    CODIS. But it's not. First, the FBI requires that a sample contains at least 10 of 15 clear
    "markers" before it is entered in CODIS. And sometimes investigators just don't bother.
    Take the monstrous murder of JonBenet Ramsey on Dec. 26, 1996. Male DNA has
    been recovered from her panties, where it was mixed with two spots of her blood. It
    has been checked against DNA from numerous individuals, including John and Patsy
    Ramsey, with no matches so far.
    Yet incredibly, six-and-a-half years into the investigation (and almost five after CODIS
    came fully online), that DNA has never been submitted for CODIS analysis, according
    to Ramsey attorney L. Lin Wood (a fact I've confirmed with another source deeply
    familiar with the investigation). The technical reason may be that the JonBenet DNA
    contains just nine clear "markers," plus one that comes close to the standard. There
    may also have been some political resistance to taking this crucial step.
    That's an appalling omission. We live in a DNA age, this murder is as high-profile as it
    gets, and yet the DNA — oh-so-close to the 10-marker standard — has never been
    cross-checked with CODIS? I'm speculating, but this may be partly why a 1999 grand
    jury did not produce any indictments: Nobody can explain that DNA — and nobody has
    seriously tried. Maybe now that the Boulder District Attorney's office has the case,
    someone will push hard for its inclusion in CODIS.
    Some recent news reports have suggested that the alien DNA may have come from a
    worker at the Asian factory that made JonBenet's panties. Unlikely: the DNA is
    mingled with her blood, which never went to Asia. Also, investigators never even
    asked to see the other panties in the matching set her mother bought her (though the
    DA's office now has them, Wood says).
    Rather than (secretly) touting their "Asian
    sneeze" theory, investigators should have been pursuing a CODIS analysis.

    Even if an eventual CODIS analysis doesn't turn up a match, this still matters.
    JonBenet's DNA evidence should be part of national and state databases, because it
    may match DNA collected from some future crime scene or suspect; there remains a
    killer out there, and CODIS could literally save the life of another child.
    Regardless of anyone's theories about this case — I remain agnostic — the lack of a
    CODIS cross-check is a glaring hole in the investigation. Surely analysis can proceed
    with nine-plus markers on a case of this profile. Forget politics and technicalities: This
    needs to be done — now.
    To contact Clay Evans call (303) 473-1352 or e-mail



    defeye
    unregistered user
    Jun-15-03, 09:34 AM (EST) 2. "RE: CODIS or not?"
    In response to

    I thought Jameson said that the DNA was CODIS certified and was now in the databank?


    jameson
    Charter Member
    11380 posts Jun-15-03, 02:50 PM (EST) 12. "RE: the whole article"
    In response to

    This is the truth:
    ...the JonBenet DNA contains just nine clear "markers," plus one that comes close to the standard. There may also have been some political resistance to taking this crucial step."
    99.99% there and some red tape is holding up the comparisons.
    If you think this is unnecessary dragging of the feet, do complain.

    Orphan
    unregistered user
    Jun-15-03, 04:35 PM (EST) 14. "RE: the whole article"
    In response to

    Because every living thing on this planet contains DNA, that miniscule .01% would INCLUDE millions or possibly billions of variables.
    Only 100% is acceptable in DNA profiling. Afterall, they wouldn't want to wrongly accuse an innocent dog, whale or tree.
    What happened to jameson's blatant claim of "CODIS certification"?

    jameson
    Charter Member
    11380 posts Jun-15-03, 06:13 PM (EST) 16. "RE: the whole article"
    In response to

    The team expects the sample to be taken in even though it is just a breath away from being a full 10.
    The databank is really just being set up - - we all know that. That is not news.
    Have patience.

    "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.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    The RSt are finally discussing the photos - but as predicted they are being dismissive or are simply making personal attacks. There is always a delay when they don't know how to respond to something!

    I KNOW the model looks odd - I explained that it collapsed when I moved it and that it is rather lumpy because the stookey was drying on the surface as I was laying it on. I am not an artist/sculptor nor have I ever pretended to be one. As I said before, I have made numerous dummies before - but not of a child and never with legs. The dummies I have made have been tailor's dummies - made to measure tailors dummies for costume work. A tailors dummy takes over a week to make. As it happens, I ended up stuffing the dummy to fill out the collapsed bit and to make sure that the dimensions were correct - otherwise I would simply have wasted my time making it in the first place. Believe it or not, I have a sound reputation as a Research Assistant and I have worked on countless projects where precision and accuracy were crucial. If I cound not have achieved the coorect dimentsions with the first dummy, I would have made another and another - until I got it right.

    The dummy might not have smooth skin - but it is the correct size.

    Criticisms:-

    Beachbum suggested that the knickers were cheap Bloomies and not the same as the ones JBR wore.

    My answer - Nope. Both sets of knickers I have used were purchased from Bloomingdales in New York. I paid approximately $25 for each packet. Beachbum reminds me of the poster "Lilac" who made rude comments about my previous purchase in Bloomingdales. These cheap shots say a lot about the poster. Had Beachbum done her research, she would have known that they were Bloomingdale Bloomies (does anyone else make Bloomies? I thought it was a play on Bloomingdales and bloomers).

    Rainsong pointed out that JonBenet and Tootsie might be the same height and weight, but that doesn't mean their waist measurements are the same. That althought the larger Bloomies dangle on Tootsie, we don't know what they would have looked like on JonBenet.

    LOL - true. I already pointed out that Tootsie is 1lb heavier than JonBenet. Did Rainsong even consider that JonBenet was THINNER than Tootsie and that the knickers would have looked even more baggy. Seriously - it's unlikely that there would be a massive difference in their sizes. JonBenet wasn't a chubby child by any stretch of the imagination. She would need to have been a couple of stone (1 stone = 14 lbs) heavier to have remotely filled those knickers.

    BeachBum says the dummy is laughable. Maybe. I've seen children who have missing or non-matching limbs and children with burns which made their skin lumpy and uneven. Does Beachbum think they are "laughable"?

    The important point here (a point which Beachbum clearly misses) is that the dummy and the live model are the same size. That is all that was needed to demonstrate the fit and comparison in sizes of the two pairs of knickers. The RST might not like that, but that's tough. The model FACTUALLY shows that the size JonBenet normally wore fitted perfectly and the size she was wearing would have been hanging off her. If the best they can do is to take cheap shots at me and at my "artwork", then they really must be desperate to defend their beloved Ramseys.

    Sleuths they are not.

    Margoo says it wouldn't stand up in a court and asks how this proves anything about who murdered Jonbenet.

    My answer - I beg to differ about it standing up in court. The model clearly shows the difference in fit between the two sizes and if there were a court case which required to demonstrate that particular thing to a jury, I believe a model like this would do the trick (perhaps not this particular model though - something much more professional I am sure).

    Point 2 - it doesn't prove who murdered Jonbenet. It does however raise some interestng questions. Questions which the RST clearly do not like. It suggests that Patsy was either lying or that she had some very odd parenting skills - to allow her daughter to "use" knickers which were almost large enough to fit Patsy herself. Had Patsy been shocked or denied knowledge of the knickers - it would have lent support to the intruder theory. It demonstrates yet another inconsistency about the ramseys in that patsy spent a fortune having clothes custom made for JonBenet - so why would she allow her to wear ridiculous, non-fitting underwear?

    Finally, someone (Margoo I think) suggested that sizes have changed over the years. That is true for adults. Quite recently I bought US size 8 jeans, yet my late MIL's US size 8 long black skirt (20+ years old) wouldn't look near me - it was much too small.

    I would say that in the past 20 years, sizes have crept up maybe 2 sizes in adult clothes? However, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the same thing has happened with childrenswear.

    Another flaw in Margoo's argument is that if the larger bloomies have increased in size, then the smaller bloomies would have made a commensurate increase.

    These knickers are made to fit a girl aged 12-14 years old. This would be a girl whose average height would be perhaps 5ft - 5ft 6 who would have hips too.

    The RST are flapping in the wind. The best they can come up with are lame excuses and cheap shots. The images speak for themselves - even if JonBenet cannot.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    jameson
    Charter Member
    11380 posts Jun-15-03, 02:50 PM (EST) 12. "RE: the whole article"
    In response to

    This is the truth:
    ...the JonBenet DNA contains just nine clear "markers," plus one that comes close to the standard. There may also have been some political resistance to taking this crucial step."
    99.99% there and some red tape is holding up the comparisons.
    If you think this is unnecessary dragging of the feet, do complain.

    This is also the truth, from the FBI's CODIS website:

    http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human...str_codis.html

    What are the 13 core CODIS loci?

    A National DNA Databank

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the US has been a leader in developing DNA typing technology for use in the identification of perpetrators of violent crime. In 1997, the FBI announced the selection of 13 STR loci to constitute the core of the United States national database, CODIS. All CODIS STRs are tetrameric repeat sequences. All forensic laboratories that use the CODIS system can contribute to a national database. DNA analysts like Bob Blackett can also attempt to match the DNA profile of crime scene evidence to DNA profiles already in the database.

    In case it needs pointing out, CODIS requires 13 STR loci for positive identification - not 9 clear and one that comes close to the standard.

    Here are the 13 STR loci needed for positive identification under CODIS regulations:




    Once again, the DNA in this case is a non issue. It is not good enough to positively identify anyone and it is worthless to the prosecution of this case. But, let the Rambots rattle on about how it's going to solve this case. It hasn't, and it won't.
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  7. #127

    Default

    OK, I swear this is the last of my files on this...but oh, THIS IS GOOD!

    Really. You're gonna' like it. I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP!

    You can take the first one, WY, because it's more DNA spin! I have read a number of old posts and news articles...and the BEST even Wood can say is the DNA in the panties and under the nails is PROBABLY a match. Of course, we know it's not a match. It's just Ram spin.


    jameson
    Charter Member
    13964 posts Jan-24-04, 03:53 PM (EST) 2. "From Thomas' deposition"
    In response to

    Q. Was there any decision made or conclusion drawn, perhaps is the better way to say it, that you're
    aware of, from any source, as to whether the panties that JonBenet Ramsey was found in had been
    worn and washed in the past or were new, in effect, fresh out of the package?
    A. I believe that was after my departure that that underwear investigation took place.
    Q. So, again, the state of the evidence with respect to that issue, you do not know, true?
    A. Right.
    Q. So, again, the state of the evidence with respect to that issue, you do not know, true?
    A. Right.
    Q. Do you know whether there were any autopsy photos that showed JonBenet from the standpoint
    of being able to look at it to see whether or not the panties, not the other articles of clothing, but the
    panties, fit her or whether they were obviously not a correct fit?
    A. It's my belief from detective briefings that they were referred to as oversized floral panties.
    Q. Thank you. Were there any autopsy photos is my question?
    A. Without the long-john over pants covering the underwear, I don't recall seeing any autopsy photos
    of just the child in her underpants.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Thomas and others in the investigation never got into the panties - I think because they understood Jonben้t owned those panties and put them on herself on Christmas day. The killer didn't bring the panties to the house and never undressed the child and replaced the panties - so the investigators simply didn't care too much about them.
    But they should have because of the bloodstains and the foreign DNA that they KNEW was there.
    This is just a bit more evidence of how slanted the investigation was - nothing that could point to an intruder was a priority - Thomas and others thought anything like that would just confusetheir case and chose to ignore it.
    So while I think the size of the panties is really unimportant - the stains left in the panties are VERY important - and could be the bit of evidence that nails SickPuppy.
    Of course the BORG isn't going to deal with all this - they will say the DNA was there because SOMEONE had to have beenin contact with the panties before JBR wore them - - - but they can't talk long because the DNA in the panties apparently came fromthe same person JBR scratched - the DNA under her nails is robably from the same source.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Notice that in the above criticisms of LE/BORG, if you think about the swamp reaction to Jayelles' demonstration of the 12/14 panties, jams has just described the swampsters refusal to even consider this critical evidence.


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    jameson
    Charter Member
    13964 posts Jan-24-04, 02:29 PM (EST)

    "The panties"

    On another forum, "popcorn had a question about the panties.
    First, an old post of mine
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    jameson
    Charter Member
    13960 posts May-26-03, 05:13 PM (EST)
    1. "RE: DNA and size 12 panties"
    In response to message #0
    The panties JBR was wearing was out of a new package - - the rest of the package was not taken in by the BPD but was held safe by others. The manufacturer is known - - but that is not important in the grand scheme of things - - the killer's DNA is under JBR's nails and MIXED WITH her blood - - that DNA did not come from the manufacturer.
    The new investigators didn't get all the BPD files until February 2003 - - that is just 3 months ago. They have to read the files, put them in order, coordinate the information and identify leads to be followed - - then follow them.
    I understand the new investigation is well underway -- but no lab is dedicated to just this old and cold case - - the testing will be done, but it will be a long process and we need to be patient.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Then from the 2000 interviews
    Kane - Q. Okay. What we are trying to
    22 understand is whether -- we are trying to
    23 understand why she is wearing such a large
    24 pair of underpants. We are hoping you can
    25 help us if you have a recollection of it.
    1 A. I am sure that I put the package
    2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened
    3 them and put them on.....
    20 A. Well, obviously we, you know, the
    21 package had been opened, we made the
    22 decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and
    23 use them because, you know, we weren't going
    24 to give them to Jenny after all, I guess,
    25 so.
    11 Q. And I will just state a fact
    12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
    13 taken out of, by the police, out of
    14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
    15 that where she kept -
    16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
    17 Q. -- where you were describing that
    18 they were just put in that drawer?
    19 A. Yes.
    20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
    21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Then Popcorn wanted to know why my information didn't "... match the evidence of the interviews?"
    My answer -
    The cops took the panties that were in her drawer - or some of them- I don't know that they took ALL of them. But they did not take the package that held other "Days of the Week" panties.
    Those panties - that package - was taken in by the Ramsey investigators and as far as I know they were held in a safe place until the investigation was given to the new team.

    At THAT point - I would expect theother panties were checked to see if they had similar DNA inthe crotch. That would have been a logical part of the investigation considering the BORG spin that was out by then.
    It's just too good, isn't it? The Ram investigators took it; no, someone from the family found it when unpacking; no, the RST investigators got it; no, SOMEONE held it for safekeeping; she doesn't know who has it; the RST had it; Wood got it; Keenan has it. The BPD wouldn't take it; the RST wouldn't give it to them, but kept if for safekeeping; the DA may or may not have tested it for DNA. Anybody else feeling dizzy?

    JAYELLES, YOU GOTTA' SEE THIS! DO NOT MISS THIS!

    jameson
    Charter Member
    13964 posts Jan-24-04, 03:04 PM (EST)
    1. "RE: The panties"
    In response to

    info:
    Although the panties were marked with a big size (12), they were actually fairly small. They were not twice as big as a size 6 would have been.
    Anyone have daughters who wear different sizes who might measure a couple new pairs?
    I SWEAR! Some people get NO RESPECT! You did just what she asked, and BETTER, by getting the EXACT BLOOMIES, and the thanks you get? HA! NOT IMPORTANT! MEANS NOTHING! JB HAD A VERY BIG BUTT!


    And just for you, WY! We are accused of...drum roll, please...NOT THINKING! HAHAHA As if their own mistakes are honest errors, but OURS are MISINFORMATION! Have you EVAH seen anyone who can twist information until it is FUBAR better than jams? LP MAKES AN ERROR, AND IT'S OUR FAULT! Jams should work for the government, she really should. hahaha
    jameson
    Charter Member
    14096 posts Jan-27-04, 03:59 PM (EST) 12. "RE: BORG misinformation"
    In response to

    Watching You couldn't have this more WRONG -
    she posted:
    "... it was the Ramseys' investigators who turned the underwear over to Hadden et al who turned it over to Lin Wood who turned it over to Brennen."
    Wrong -
    It was a member of the RST who turned the panties over to Lin Wood who turned it over to Keenan's team.
    Why would Lin give the panties to reporter Charlie Brennan? That would be insane.
    The other forums really aren't thinking. But an honest error (LP posted that Lin gave the panties to DA Brennan when she obviously meant DA Keenan) has been repeated three times and is now in danger of being an accepted BORG fact. So sad.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    And just for good measure...here it is again!


    jameson
    Charter Member
    13618 posts Nov-07-03, 10:50 PM (EST) 12. "RE: I didn't know,,,,,"
    In response to

    Evening - the answers to your questions are coming up, I think. Later in Patsy's interview.
    As for the rest of the panties - they were still inthe package. the police did not take them in as evidence - the Ramsey investigators did, however.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    After this thread, I think anyone looking for the remotest honesty can see WHO is thinking and WHO is not!

    Sometimes, all that work just pays off, doesn't it?

    FFJ...YOU ROCK OUT!

    "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.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    I will take care of the DNA issue in a minute. Something else leaps out at me, and it has to be addressed.

    And I will just state a fact
    12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
    13 taken out of, by the police, out of
    14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
    15 that where she kept -
    16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
    17 Q. -- where you were describing that
    18 they were just put in that drawer?
    19 A. Yes.
    20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
    21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?

    The 15 pairs of underwear the police removed from JB's bathroom were all size 4 - 6. In typical jameson fashion, she spins this to mean that the BPD was incompetent:

    The cops took the panties that were in her drawer - or some of them- I don't know that they took ALL of them. But they did not take the package that held other "Days of the Week" panties.

    The key point here is that jameson is making it up as she goes. She says she DOESN"T KNOW (if) they took ALL of them (or not). This in itself is an assinie statement. Why would the cops take part of the underwear but not the rest? As incompetent as the RST likes to make the BPD look, they weren't so incompetent as to take only size 4-6 underwear and leave the size 12's in the drawer, especially in light of the fact that JB's body was wearing size 12's.

    Any rational person, then, would have to believe there WERE NO SIZE 12's in the drawers when the police removed the underwear as evidence. It doesn't make sense that they would leave it behind.

    Which brings me to this statement:

    Those panties - that package - was taken in by the Ramsey investigators and as far as I know they were held in a safe place until the investigation was given to the new team.
    Hello? In the first place, there is such a thing as "chain of evidence." There is a good chance that the Ramsey investigators did have possession of the opened package of size 12 underwear. Why they decided they had the right to withhold evidence from the BPD is another question, but my question is - since a rational person would question why, if the size 12 panties were in JB's panty drawer as the RST has claimed, the police did not gather them as evidence. And, the logical answer is - the panties were NOT in the panty drawer when evidence was gathered. In fact, the panties were not in JB's bedroom or bathroom drawers, or they would have been collected as evidence.

    The question, then, is where was that package of underwear and how did the Ramsey investigators come to have possession of them? Were they, perhaps, in John and Patsy's quarters on the third floor? Or were they in the basement, perhaps in a hastily opened gift-wrapped package? Or, did Ms. Pam make off with the package, only to have them mysteriously reappear in the house after the forensics people had been there?

    There are too many unanswered questions and very vague references as to how the Ramsey investigators got their hands on the package of underwear. Chain of evidence means there is a clear record of who has handled the evidence, when (day and time) the evidence was collected all the way down the line to the evidence collection room. All we've been told is the Ramsey investigators got the evidence and kept it in safe keeping until Lacy was in power. How flucked up is that?

    Of course, I have to keep in mind that it's jameson who is dishing out this info, and she has been known to fabricate things in the past.


    On to the DNA. The long and short of it is - the fingernail DNA, ACCORDING TO JAMESON in a post at the swamp a couple of years ago, had only two or three identifiable loci. The panty DNA (allegedly) had 9 clear loci and one iffy loci.

    The posters at FFJ are mostly of superior intelligence, and it's not really necessary for me to tell anyone here what this means. Suffice to say - the fingernail DNA was crap and didn't "match" the panty DNA. Those two or three identifiable loci in the fingernail material could very well "match" two or three identifiable loci in any one of our members' DNA. But, what of the remaining 10 or 11 loci that have to match in order to make an identification?

    jameson tries to snow everyone, but she can't back any of this up with science. She's a Ramsey talking head, and a weak one, at that. Inside a court room, she would be ripped to shreds and put out for the cows to poop on. Do not be misled by jameson's drivel.
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default Koldkase

    Well done in finding this. It's just more proof of the lies which have been told in this case.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Here's some more information (it only goes up to 13 and the large Bloomies are 12-14 years)
    The average height for a 4 year old is 41 3/4 inches
    The average height for a 6 year old is 46 inches
    The average height for a 12 year old is 60 1/2 inches
    The average height for a 13 year old is 61 1/4 inches

    The average weight for a 4 year old is 38 3/4 lbs
    The average weight for a 6 year old is 47 1/2 lbs
    The average weight for a 12 year old is 94 lbs
    The average weight for a 13 year old is 103 lbs

    Not quite twice the height, but certainly twice the weight.

    http://www.babybag.com/articles/htwt_av.htm
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  11. #131

    Default

    Wood and the RST are the only one's claiming Caucasian. That's important.

    That writer doesn't get it: the DNA was already there when she bled into the panties. And as for what the police should or shouldn't have done, I don't see them telling this guy how to be a better journalist, although he could use the help!

  12. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watching You
    This is also the truth, from the FBI's CODIS website:

    http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human...str_codis.html




    In case it needs pointing out, CODIS requires 13 STR loci for positive identification - not 9 clear and one that comes close to the standard.

    Here are the 13 STR loci needed for positive identification under CODIS regulations:




    Once again, the DNA in this case is a non issue. It is not good enough to positively identify anyone and it is worthless to the prosecution of this case. But, let the Rambots rattle on about how it's going to solve this case. It hasn't, and it won't.
    Not to mention, the DNA reports from the many crocs states clearly IF THERE WAS ONLY ONE DONOR, the Rams are excluded....

    Guess "IF" is too big a word for the RST to decipher.

    "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.



Similar Threads

  1. Book Proposal for "Prostitution of Justice" by Thomas C. "Doc" Miller
    By Tricia in forum ***Sneek Preview*** - Tom Miller's Book
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 4, 2007, 9:15 pm, Sat Aug 4 21:15:02 UTC 2007
  2. John Ramsey's '98 Interview...Things That Were "Strange" or "Out Of Place"
    By AMES in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: June 19, 2007, 11:51 am, Tue Jun 19 11:51:40 UTC 2007
  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. The Ramseys and "lynchings" and "lynch mobs"
    By JustinCase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: June 20, 2004, 1:25 pm, Sun Jun 20 13:25:02 UTC 2004
  5. Debunking the Seven Pieces of "Evidence" That "Prove" the Intruder Theory.
    By Dunvegan in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: September 10, 2002, 7:34 pm, Tue Sep 10 19:34:10 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
  •