Page 9 of 22 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 97 to 108 of 261
  1. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles View Post
    Good Grief - the utterly incompetent San Augustin is still trying to make out that they worked on the official case! They claim to have reviewed all the "evidence":-
    San Agustin also said that the "new" DNA found was from blood on the longjohns, which is a definite falsehood.

  2. #98
    RiverRat's Avatar
    RiverRat is offline FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Left is Patsy Ramsey)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NoneYa Beessness
    Posts
    7,824

    Cool

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...ng-after-says/

    "For the past four or five nights, I have been dreaming about nothing but Patsy. She was smiling, she was happy, telling me everything was OK, everything was good, this stuff on Earth doesn't matter.

    And then this call comes today.

    Patsy didn't have a vindictive bone in her body. She wasn't an "I told you so" person. If she was here, I think she would have said, "Oh, my, my, my.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    "Don't play dumb with me, RR! You're no good at it." The Punisher

    "Although no one is anticipating a prompt resolution to this long and much-detoured case, perhaps - just perhaps - might we see one of those moments “when a chance arrow of history scores a perfect bullseye on a deserving target”? Steve Thomas 2009

    "Justice hasn't had a chance so far. Anyone who doesn't have this as their prime goal, we'll have a falling out with." Fleet White - Time Magazine

    "What happens is that evil comes in," Fleet says. "If you don't have truth, all you have are lies, then what comes in is evil. And evil just does its thing. In the Ramsey case, it just did its thing, and it's eaten up so many people."

  3. #99
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    There are so many terrific rebuttals here to Lacy's announcement regarding the DNA. Tricia, your draft is good, but I think you may want to use astericks or numbers for each point you are making.

    In reading through all the posts, here, some thoughts came to me about what a wonderful discovery DNA technology has proved to be. It has freed innocent people from prison, and it has helped put guilty people in prison.

    As wonderful as the science of DNA is, it also has its drawbacks, due not to flaws in the science but to flaws in human intelligence and the ability to grasp the complexity of what DNA can do and what it can't do - IOW, human error.

    Mary Lacy, Lou Smit, and other Ramsey groupies have shown a gross misunderstanding of what DNA can prove and what it can't prove. Or, have they? In Lacy's case, I really believe she is stupid as hell, and she just doesn't get it. Add to that her bias in showing favortism to the Ramseys, and you can be sure she will always try to bend things their way. However, there is no way she can bend the DNA "evidence to mean what it doesn't mean.

    So there are pros and cons to DNA - the cons mostly due to human error and wrong conclusions drawn by people like Mary Lacy.

    The ownership of the too-large underwear that someone put on JB's body has never been absolutely proven - at least not to me. I know that Patsy claimed she bought the package of underwear for a niece, and I think she said JB wanted them, so she gave them to her instead. That is total nonsense, but so are a lot of other things the Ramseys claimed in this case.

    The one thing that is known is that the underwear didn't fit JB. (Why would any child want to wear underwear that didn't fit? It's not credible that JB would have requested sloppy underwear as opposed to well-fitting underwear). With that in mind, it makes sense that the underpants JB had on originally when she came home from the Whites that night were, for some reason and at some point that night, removed from her body and replaced with a larger, clean pair.

    The obvious reason for changing underwear at that time of night would be because the original underwear was soiled with telling stains and other evidence (maybe even urine and/or feces) someone didn't want in the possession of the evidence people. After removing the soiled underwear, someone cleaned her and put the too-large underwear on her. But, probably unknown to whoever changed the underwear, blood and other fluids continued to seep from JB onto the too-large underwear. Where did the original underwear disappear to? Find them, and one could most likely determine the killer. How hard would it be to throw a pair of panties into a plastic bag and hide it in a handbag, a handbag that left the house that day with its owner.

    Without knowing who had access to the too-large underpants before they were put on JB, who can say where any DNA on them came from? I have so many questions regarding those underpants and the alleged DNA that "matches" from the long johns. If the DA was thoughtful enough to have the waistband areas checked by the lab for DNA, why not check the same areas from the underwear themselves to see if the same DNA is there? Without knowing the history of the too-large underpants, who can say for sure the DNA didn't get there from a completely innocent party? Without testing ALL of the underwear, how does anyone know that the DNA wasn't widespread on the underwear, which could certainly indicate that the DNA is probably from the person who cut the fabric or sewed the underwear, or packaged the underwear - someone who would have touched the crotch, waistband, and probably most of the fabric. How does anyone know that DNA wasn't just transferred from the panties, if they haven't tested all of the fabric on the underwear?

    Lacy can make a statement that the DNA matched (BS), but she cannot tell us where that DNA came from or when it got there. She has absolutely no business clearing anyone based on the fact that some unknown, partial DNA was found. As Why_Nut and others have already pointed out, in order for anyone to say conclusively that DNA is connected to a crime, that same DNA would have to be all over the other known items that were handled by the killer.

    I've said before, I don't trust Lacy or her "investigators" because they are all Ramsey groupies. If we can't trust Lacy, how can we trust her word? When is she going to release the lab's findings and the rest of the evidence so that everyone can decide for themselves whether there was just cause for her to clear anyone.

    It is just too pat - something is corrupt in Boulder. The question is, why would Lacy grasp so desperately at something so easily debunked? What kind of dealings have she and Ramsey had going behind the scenes? Is Limpwood involved in the deceitfulness? Have they been conspiring in secret to clear the Ramseys before she got out of office? Did they learn their lesson about letting the media and the public know of Limpwood's and Ramsey's involvement? No, I can't prove it, but I'd bet my last buck that the two of them knew about this ahead of time.

    I know this post is long, but there are so many things wrong with what Lacy did by clearing the Ramseys. Her letter to Ramsey was sickening. If she could unglue her lips from Ramsey's buttcheeks long enough, she might understand that she has made a total fool of herself - again. Lacy's behavior would indicate that she is so enamoured of him, she would do anything to help him beat a murder rap. Her rambling, adoring, bleeding heart letter was an abomination. Real, professional DA's don't write such dramatic apologies, and she was out of line writing him a letter clearing him in any case.

    This has left me with an intense desire to find a cave and live in it the rest of my life. How can we trust any of our elected officials when we have Mary Lacy's actions as an example? All I can do is shake my head is disbelief, and it is so frustrating, because not only has she let down the people who pay her wages, she has made a circus out of the death of an innocent six year old girl's murder. JonBenet deserved justice - not a cover up by the very people who were supposed to protect her rights.
    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---

  4. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,632

    Default

    I would seriously like to know if DNA was taken from any of the LE who handled the body and during the autopsy, was DNA taken from the ME or his staff?

    How do we know that DNA was not left, especially "skin cells" during the autopsy or crime scene removal?

    It may sound like a silly question, but today I don't care. This really sucks!
    PATSY RAMSEY WROTE THE RANSOM NOTE
    SHE WOULDN'T DO THAT FOR AN INTRUDER.
    PLEASE READ CHEROKEE'S ANALYSIS

    http://66.98.176.96/~tricia/forums/s...ead.php?t=6404

  5. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    378

    Default

    I wonder where the clearing by Lacy puts John Ramsey with regards to future lawsuits. Does it clear the way for him to sue those who keep their fingers of suspicion pointing at the Ramseys and speak out about it?

  6. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Great post, Watching You, and maybe if we all pitch in, we can afford a cave in Colorado somewhere...just not near Boulder. The world right now doesn't make a lot of sense to me at all, and Boulder was just far ahead of the pack in the insanity.
    Last edited by heymom; July 10, 2008, 11:08 am at Thu Jul 10 11:08:19 UTC 2008. Reason: wrong name, DUH!
    "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!

  7. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverRat View Post
    "For the past four or five nights, I have been dreaming about nothing but Patsy. She was smiling, she was happy, telling me everything was OK, everything was good, this stuff on Earth doesn't matter.
    One has to laugh, for the point we are trying to make is that indeed the "new" DNA does not matter to the case, and here is Pam saying exactly that.

  8. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watching You View Post
    ... there are so many things wrong with what Lacy did by clearing the Ramseys. Her letter to Ramsey was sickening. If she could unglue her lips from Ramsey's buttcheeks long enough, she might understand that she has made a total fool of herself - again. Lacy's behavior would indicate that she is so enamoured of him, she would do anything to help him beat a murder rap. Her rambling, adoring, bleeding heart letter was an abomination. Real, professional DA's don't write such dramatic apologies, and she was out of line writing him a letter clearing him in any case.
    I had the exact same thought, WY. That letter had a giant sucking sound all over it and was totally unprofessional by any standards.

    Excellent post on the DNA. Unfortunately, the media (and most of the public) don't know, or don't care, about the facts of this case or the finer points of DNA analysis. TV shows like CSI has made everyone think it's easy and simple and that they are a DNA expert.

    I want Lacy to answer one question. Why is did her intruder not leave DNA on anything else they touched? The ransom note was free of any intruder DNA or even fingerprints. Why hasn't any DNA been found on the broken paintbrush, the ligature, the nylon cord, or ANYTHING the intruder supposedly touched. If you reply they were wearing gloves, then why would they remove those gloves to touch JonBenet's long johns with their own hands?

    This whole thing is so stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

    But desperation makes people do stupid things, and Mary Lacy has always been desperate to clear the Ramseys.

  9. #105

    Default The Window Grate

    I just kept hoping that Wendy would mention the fact that the "intruder" supposedly came through the basement window, after moving the grate...but, how could THAT be...when that attached spider web was UNDISTURBED. Wendy needs way more than an hour to tell all of the evidence that points AWAY from an intruder. I can't figure out where Nancy Grace stands on this. Is she an RDI or IDI?

  10. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tril View Post
    I wonder where the clearing by Lacy puts John Ramsey with regards to future lawsuits. Does it clear the way for him to sue those who keep their fingers of suspicion pointing at the Ramseys and speak out about it?
    I cannot see how the issue of libel suits would change. After all, any change would have come about if this whole to-do turned John into a private figure for whom libel laws would apply differently than they have to date. However, all it would take is for a defendant to say, "Your Honor, of COURSE John Ramsey is still a public figure, after all, when he gets an email virus a reporter is paid by a news organization which then expects to profit financially from the story about him, which is not what happens when private individuals suffer the same problem."

    Nope, John is still a public figure, and as a public figure the public still has the right to discuss him as much as they wish, so long as they frame discussion as opinion and do not claim special factual knowledge which they cannot then subsequently prove in court.

  11. #107
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    I had the exact same thought, WY. That letter had a giant sucking sound all over it and was totally unprofessional by any standards.

    Excellent post on the DNA. Unfortunately, the media (and most of the public) don't know, or don't care, about the facts of this case or the finer points of DNA analysis. TV shows like CSI has made everyone think it's easy and simple and that they are a DNA expert.

    I want Lacy to answer one question. Why is did her intruder not leave DNA on anything else they touched? The ransom note was free of any intruder DNA or even fingerprints. Why hasn't any DNA been found on the broken paintbrush, the ligature, the nylon cord, or ANYTHING the intruder supposedly touched. If you reply they were wearing gloves, then why would they remove those gloves to touch JonBenet's long johns with their own hands?

    This whole thing is so stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

    But desperation makes people do stupid things, and Mary Lacy has always been desperate to clear the Ramseys.
    You know, one doesn't have to be a DNA expert to figure this one out, Cher. More than understanding the science of DNA, all it takes is some critical thinking and good, old common sense. I've not yet determined whether Lacy is as dense as she seems to be or if she is corrupt to her very being. If the former, then she has no critical thinking skills, and she has a deficit of common sense. If the latter, then damn her for obstructing justice.

    Another thing that annoys me - Mary Lacy gives credence to all those males who have ever believed that women can't be trusted to carry out their duties in a professional manner because of their hormones. I've never been a big women's rights advocate (just a WY rights advocate), but Lacy sets back those movements with her hormonal-drenched prose in that stupid letter to Ramsey.
    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---

  12. #108
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbara View Post
    I would seriously like to know if DNA was taken from any of the LE who handled the body and during the autopsy, was DNA taken from the ME or his staff?

    How do we know that DNA was not left, especially "skin cells" during the autopsy or crime scene removal?

    It may sound like a silly question, but today I don't care. This really sucks!
    I was listening to both Nancy Grace and Dan Abrams last night Barbara. Can't remember which show it was on, but someone asked that question and yes, DNA was taken from these folks. I remember specifically Trujillo's name, among others.
    I despise the Ramseys and this is just my opinion



Similar Threads

  1. Ramseys said "no anger" towards JBR's killer; JAR said killer deserved "forgiveness"
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: October 25, 2013, 8:16 pm, Fri Oct 25 20:16:54 UTC 2013
  2. October 2, 2010 - UPDATE - Burke has not been "officially" interviewed by police
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: October 4, 2010, 6:34 pm, Mon Oct 4 18:34:58 UTC 2010
  3. Denver Post, July 11, 2008 - "Anger won't clear Ramseys"
    By Little in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: July 13, 2008, 10:58 pm, Sun Jul 13 22:58:05 UTC 2008
  4. "DNA Clears Parents"
    By BobC in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: January 25, 2005, 8:54 am, Tue Jan 25 8:54:16 UTC 2005
  5. 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

Posting Permissions

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