Page 4 of 30 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 357
  1. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Angry Dna

    You know, it really stinks that there is all this fuss over DNA, when we have such good evidence in the Ransom Note and Patsy's exemplars. If only there was a machine or a lab or something Scientific about handwriting analysis! We wouldn't even be here. But no, it's analyzed by human beings, and we know humans aren't reliable, but test tubes are. (sarcasm)

    This DNA is not the main evidence, yet everyone is worshipping at the altar of gene testing. Makes me mad.

    Heymom
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  2. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watching You
    If there are two donors, then Ramsey males cannot be excluded. No matter what Lin Wood and Lou Smit want everyone to believe, evidence doesn't change. Withholding vital records such as this one from the public is obstruction of justice - just another example of the obstruction that has gone on in this case.
    The linguistics of the DNA report says a lot about the worthlessness of this DNA sample.

    I've underlined in red the most important words in the part of the report (that we can see) ... a beautiful subordinate clause than begins with the word "if."

    "If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M were contributed by a single individual ..."

    IF. That's a big word.

    If the minor components (temporarily remove the prepositional phrase "from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M") were contributed by a single individual ...

    And there's another beautiful word ... the adjective "single." IF the components are from a SINGLE individual. One person.

    We don't even know if the DNA is from one person or a mix of contaminent DNA!!!

    Blast it from the mountaintops! As Henry Lee said, THIS IS NOT A DNA CASE!!!!
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Cherokee; August 29, 2006, 11:06 am at Tue Aug 29 11:06:02 UTC 2006. Reason: typo

  3. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Yep here it is:-

    LAB CLASS XX???-2136(?)-4153(?) SECTION: DNA TESTING
    AGENCY(?) NAME CD0878136 F2 ACBLDER(?)

    EXTRACTED(?) BY: blacked out EXTRACTION DATE: 123196(?)

    ABSTRACT(X) AFA(?) ?/? ??? (would this be the control sample?)

    RAMSEY, PATSY W/F
    RAMSEY, JOHN W/M

    RAMSEY, JONBENET W/F


    Two lines BLACKED OUT

    DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997

    EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
    #5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
    #7 Bloodstains from panties
    #14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
    #14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
    #14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
    #15A, #15B Samples from tape
    Bloodstains from white blanket
    #17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??
    #13A, #13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
    Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey

    http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/d...um=DCForumID61

    ETA - here's another thread that has the source document on it
    http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:...k&ct=clnk&cd=1
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  4. #40
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    I know that when that DNA was initially tested, they thought it probably came from John Ramsey--which didn't really mean anything since he was lots of contact with JBR.

  5. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Yep here it is:-

    LAB CLASS XX???-2136(?)-4153(?) SECTION: DNA TESTING
    AGENCY(?) NAME CD0878136 F2 ACBLDER(?)

    EXTRACTED(?) BY: blacked out EXTRACTION DATE: 123196(?)

    ABSTRACT(X) AFA(?) ?/? ??? (would this be the control sample?)

    RAMSEY, PATSY W/F
    RAMSEY, JOHN W/M

    RAMSEY, JONBENET W/F


    Two lines BLACKED OUT

    DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997

    EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
    #5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
    #7 Bloodstains from panties
    #14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
    #14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
    #14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
    #15A, #15B Samples from tape
    Bloodstains from white blanket
    #17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??
    #13A, #13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
    Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey

    http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/d...um=DCForumID61

    Jayelles, it doesn't say anything about Exhibits 23A and 23B. It doesn't seem like they would have typed it in wrong - 13A and 13B instead of 23A and 23B? Nah. Where are 23A and 23B.

    What I want to know is, where did the second sample of DNA that jameson said was tested after Smit and his buddies took over the investigation come from? Another part of the panties? The nightgown that some have said had blood stains on it?

    Jayelles, yes, there would have had to have been a control sample from right around the same area where they extracted the DNA sample. There isn't a lot of room in the crotch of ladies underwear, expecially kid's underwear. How freaking many blood stains were there, and why would that sample be so much better than the original samples that they weren't able to get conclusive results from? I have always thought there was something really fishy about that second DNA sample that they got admitted to CODIS. That DNA ALLEGEDLY wasn't the same sample tested in the above report. There were not new and better DNA tests that rendered those 9 markers in the old sample. I am certain jameson said it was from a different sample.

    There's just so much double talk by the RST on the DNA. I don't believe anything jameson says, but I do believe that once that first sample was tested and reported on, it was pretty much rendered useless for further testing. Therefore, there must have been a second sample that Smit and Lacy had tested. The million dollar question is, where did that sample come from, what is the chain of command on the sample (not jameson, I hope), how and with what other evidence was that sample stored for those years in between testing, and why wasn't it tested in the first place?

    This DNA BS just reeks to high heaven.
    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---

  6. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watching You
    Jayelles, it doesn't say anything about Exhibits 23A and 23B. It doesn't seem like they would have typed it in wrong - 13A and 13B instead of 23A and 23B? Nah. Where are 23A and 23B.
    The "13A" and "13B" numbers are typos courtesy of One-Eyed Jack from That Other Forum, who incorrectly transcribed the original image's contents. In the image, the exhibits are presented in numerical order, and the items that had sperm (as we have come to know, John Andrew's blanket or duvet or sham or whatever it is called this week) were correctly identified as 23A and 23B following the 17 series items.

  7. #43

    Default

    Can't find tv verification but I'm assuming CNN will carry the press conference LIVE at 12pm E.S.T. ;-)
    ANY rumours of Lacy finally resigning, coming out of the rock?

  8. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Why_Nut
    The "13A" and "13B" numbers are typos courtesy of One-Eyed Jack from That Other Forum, who incorrectly transcribed the original image's contents. In the image, the exhibits are presented in numerical order, and the items that had sperm (as we have come to know, John Andrew's blanket or duvet or sham or whatever it is called this week) were correctly identified as 23A and 23B following the 17 series items.
    Okay. Then, the "fractured" sperm that was tested came from JAR's blanket. I thought I heard that sperm DNA came back as JAR's, but according to that report, they couldn't get a profile from it. Just because the blanket belonged to JAR doesn't mean the sperm was his.

    I hate loose ends.
    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. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbara
    I'm sure she's going crazy trying to find a hairstyle that will cover her face completely, so that the humiliation is lessened

    I suggest the ol' Cousin It hairstyle, complete with eyeglasses over the hair.

    Just my suggestion for her.

    And then...her resignation
    And then...Tracey's resignation from CU
    And then....the rest of 'em
    Hahahahahahaha! This is my laugh for this morning, Barbara. The very thought of Lacy with her glasses over her hair has me laughing out loud here. I can hardly type here. I luv it! Where's the Kleenex?
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  10. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    167

    Default

    whew....the spin from the media this morning is making me dizzy! The rehabilitation of Mary Lacy is in full swing. I want to know why? Jean C. on CTV is practically hysterical over talk radio callers "persecuting" poor, dear Mary.

  11. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watching You
    Okay. Then, the "fractured" sperm that was tested came from JAR's blanket. I thought I heard that sperm DNA came back as JAR's, but according to that report, they couldn't get a profile from it. Just because the blanket belonged to JAR doesn't mean the sperm was his.

    I hate loose ends.
    It was not so much "fractured." "Fractions" is a technical term used as a way of distinguishing the fluid aspects of semen versus the, shall we say, meat of the semen. DNA can be gotten from both, but DNA from the fluid will have come from cells floating off the walls of the various tubes the semen has passed through, while actual sperm DNA comes from the little wiggler itself.

  12. #48

    Default Its on right now

    Time to watch em squirm...
    Occam's Razor... "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."



Similar Threads

  1. Complete Transcript - Mary Lacy Press Conference About John Mark Karr - 8/29/06
    By Jayelles in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 14, 2006, 3:09 pm, Thu Sep 14 15:09:11 UTC 2006
  2. Complete Transcript - Mary Lacy Press Conference About John Mark Karr - 8/29/06
    By Jayelles in forum Transcripts: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 14, 2006, 3:09 pm, Thu Sep 14 15:09:11 UTC 2006
  3. Keenan-Lacy Press Conference
    By Karole28 in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: August 17, 2006, 5:42 pm, Thu Aug 17 17:42:03 UTC 2006
  4. Video of press conference with Karr
    By Scarifier in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: August 17, 2006, 4:46 pm, Thu Aug 17 16:46:29 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
  •