Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 72 of 74
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    This was one of many errors in Judge Cairnes' report. It was an ancillary hair. When first discovered, it was thought to be a pubic hair- that theory was jumped on right away. But tests showed that was not the case.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    In Judge Carnes' report, it says:




    On Sycamore, Mame claims she spoke with Lou Smit a few days ago, and he allegedly told her this hair could be sourced to someone.
    When I asked her to whom, she became evasive, claiming not to be at liberty to reveal the info.
    I know Mame has often told lies, but suppose Smit did tell her something she "can't reveal", then he has leaked confidential info.

    Mame btw only admitted the hair had been sourced to someone after she was pushed into a corner. For at first she claimed that mtDNA analysis had shown the hair to be "Caucasian" and male. She was wrong, because mtDNA analysis is incapable of revealing his, and a poster ponited this out to her.

    mtDNA is capable of revealing race but not sex. I make reference to the vanDam case where hairs were found in Westerfield's RV. One blonde hair was said to be "Asian" - thus causing a bit of a stir. It was sourced to vanDam's Asian girlfriend Susan (?) who had bottle blonde hair. Another hair was sourced to one of Danielle, her mother or her two brothers. They didn't know which and that was when they explained about the maternal link in mtDNA. It was beautifully explained.

    So if mtDNA was performed on the hair on the Ramsey blanket, they wouldn't be able to say it was male - but they would probably be able to say it was Caucasian. However, if there was a root bulb still attached to the hair, they would be able to extract nuclear DNA from that and determine whether it was from a male or female. We don't know whether there was a root bulb or not.

    Re Mame claiming insider info from Lou Smit - this is what Mame does. In the years that I have been reading her posts, Mame has constantly name-dropped and claimed insider information about the case. She has also made numerous predictions about "something big coming soon" which have never panned out. Much of her "insider information" also proves to be completely wrong. I have seen Mame confronted with proof of something she is arguing against and for her to claim insider information that the proven info is wrong and that her sources are correct.

    Mame claimed for years that Fleet White's DNA was inconclusive - even when copies of the lab report were produced that showed his name on the list of people who weren't a match at the earliest stage of the investigation. You only have to read discussions in which she is participating to see how frequently she misreads another person's posts and gets everything ar*e-about-face to realise that she is thoroughly unreliable as a source of information. Look at how only last week she claimed the wiki had been hacked and sabotaged and implied that it might have been me! A closer look at the wiki revealed that only TWO changed had been made to the wiki - a typo corrected and a link to Sycamore added on the list of forums discussing the Ramsey case.

    I seriously doubt Lou Smit is sharing case information with someone who demonstrates such a lack of discretion - especially when she so often gets her facts wrong too. I know numerous people who are in regular contact with Lou SMit and they don't run to the forums to blab about it. Mame certainly doesn't have exclusive access to him. I also know for a fact that there are case insiders posting on the forums who chose to keep their identities private so that they can discuss the case without getting hassled by people like Mame, jameson and Candy. A few years ago one of them posted at jameson's. I cringed as this person even chose a hat which was very close to his/her real name and posted on an aspect of the case with which he/she was involved. It was hilarious to watch this person being challenged and dismissed by the DoubleBB members who "knew more" about the case than someone who'd actually been there!

    BTW, if I am wrong about this and Lou Smit IS sharing confidential case information with Mame then he's a fool. He's a fool to share information with someone who so reliably gets things wrong and who can never resist an opportunity to name-drop and to claim privileged information which she cannot share. Feeding the rumour-mill in this way is NOT discretion.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    This was one of many errors in Judge Cairnes' report. It was an ancillary hair. When first discovered, it was thought to be a pubic hair- that theory was jumped on right away. But tests showed that was not the case.
    DeeDee, do you have the source for the hair being an arm hair? For I can't wait to show it to a die-hard IDI on a on another forum (Mame), who claims to be in contact with Lou Smit.
    Last edited by rashomon; September 2, 2008, 1:35 pm at Tue Sep 2 13:35:51 UTC 2008.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    DeeDee, do you have the source for the hair being an arm hair? For I can't wait to show it to a die-hard IDI on a on another forum (Mame), who claims to be in contact with Lou Smit.
    I read it in ST's book- you can still find it if you google "patsy ramsey ancillary hair".
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    My guess is that the hair didn't have a root bulb and I'll tell you why. The only person to have claimed that the DNA was from a Caucasian male was Lin Wood. It hasn't been repeated from any official source. I think they tested the hair for mtDNA and discovered it was caucasian. They also tested the foreign DNA and found it to be male. I think Wood ASSumed that both forensics came from the same person and combined the findings.

    If the hair had a root bulb then they'd have been able to compare the nuclear DNA from that root bulb and match it as far as possible to the incomplete foreign DNA sample. The chances of the hair root bulb DNA being degraded would IMO be less likely that the underwear DNA which, as Elvis explained, could have degraded quickly and naturally due to enzymes in saliva. So if they had the root bulb DNA and it matched all the existing markers of the foreign DNA, they would have had a COMPLETE sample to enter into CODIS and not just 9 markers plus a weaker 10th one.

    IMO
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    In Judge Carnes' report, it says:


    I know Carnes' ruling is a cascade of errors, so she may have got the type of hair wrong.

    Does there exist any other source besides Carnes' report (which contains many mistakes) which mentions a pubic hair found on the blanket?


    On Sycamore, Mame claims she spoke with Lou Smit a few days ago, and he allegedly told her this hair could be sourced to someone.
    When I asked her to whom, she became evasive, claiming not to be at liberty to reveal the info.
    I know Mame has often told lies, but suppose Smit did tell her something she "can't reveal", then he has leaked confidential info.

    Mame btw only admitted the hair had been sourced to someone after she was pushed into a corner. For at first she claimed that mtDNA analysis had shown the hair to be "Caucasian" and male. She was wrong, because mtDNA analysis is incapable of revealing his, and a poster ponited this out to her.

    Now that she has learned, a few days ago from Lou Smit, that the hair has in fact already been sourced and is no longer an issue, she must realize that she was wrong about that too.

    Her refusal to tell the forum posters whose hair it was speaks volumes. For suppose it had been from one of the 'bus victims', she would of course have screamed this from the rooftops. Imo this leaves only a Ramsey as the source of the hair.
    The revelation about the hair being Patsy's wasn't known until AFTER discovery process was over, rashomon. Hope that helps.
    They should all drown in lakes of blood. Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Has it been definitely proven that the underwear DNA is saliva? I know it is one of the substances considered, but didn't think it had been conclusive.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    Has it been definitely proven that the underwear DNA is saliva? I know it is one of the substances considered, but didn't think it had been conclusive.
    I think it has. I know Lin Wood said this but bear in mind that Tom Bennett made a statement saying that it *could* have been from a cough or a sneeze at the stage of manufacturing - i.e. saliva

    They can tell whether DNA has come from saliva because of the cell structure. Saliva contains epithelial cells which are different in structure from ordinary "outside of the body" skin cells.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Punisher View Post
    The revelation about the hair being Patsy's wasn't known until AFTER discovery process was over, rashomon. Hope that helps.
    When exactly was the discovery process over?
    When was Carnes' report written?

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    When exactly was the discovery process over?
    When was Carnes' report written?
    Bear with me here. Epstein was deposed in May 2002. I believe discovery ended shortly after that. The news didn't break until late August of that year, and her report was released late March 2003.
    They should all drown in lakes of blood. Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night.

  11. #71

    Default Hung by the wrists???

    A poster on another forum wrote that Tom Bennett swore under oath that JonBenet being hung by her wrists was consistent with the crime scene and the autopsy report.
    But the autopsy report does no mention any marks on her wrists Nor would the loosely tied knot on the sleeve have held if she was hung by the wrists.
    As for the other ligature, it was was not even on the wrist at all.

    Can Tom Bennett's testimony be accessed online?

  12. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    A poster on another forum wrote that Tom Bennett swore under oath that JonBenet being hung by her wrists was consistent with the crime scene and the autopsy report.
    But the autopsy report does no mention any marks on her wrists Nor would the loosely tied knot on the sleeve have held if she was hung by the wrists.
    As for the other ligature, it was was not even on the wrist at all.

    Can Tom Bennett's testimony be accessed online?
    Where is he supposed to have testified? To my knowledge, he was never even deposed.
    They should all drown in lakes of blood. Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night.



Similar Threads

  1. Fact or Fiction?
    By Barbara in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: January 1, 2005, 6:07 pm, Sat Jan 1 18:07:08 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
  •