Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 109 to 120 of 237
  1. #109
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    The only thing that has kept me from pulling my hair out because of the corruption and cover up in this case is that I know that what we, everyone who lives on this earth, sows, so shall we reap. It may have Biblical overtones, but it's one passage in the Bible I've never seen fail, including in my own life.

    What we do to others will come back to get us, ten-fold. It's karma, and it's true. We look at John Ramsey and wonder why karma hasn't got him, yet. It has, and it will continue as long as he lives and into the next life where he will have to face his Maker, just as Patsy did.

    I don't wish bad things on other people (well, mame can drive over a cliff, but other than that...) , I don't invite that kind of karma into my life.
    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---

  2. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    I believe they can tell the difference between types of skin cells. Epithelial cells are found in more than one place (the inside the cheek is one), and I don't think they are saying these are epithelial cells. My understanding is that they are skin cells from a hand or finger, because they are saying it shows that this person pulled down her pants.
    Our outer skin cells are epithelial cells....the linings of our urinary tract, digestive tract, etc. are also epithelial cells...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epithelial_cells

    I was just wondering if they were epithelial cells found and Mary Lacy was assuming they were epidermis cells, when they could have been sourced elsewhere.

  3. #111
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    2,897

    Default Oh Watching You....

    How I wish that you could have your post printed as an article in the New York Times! I don't say the Boulder Daily News etc. because that would NEVER happen and if it did no one in Boulder would ever acknowledge it anyway....

    Wouldn't hurt if you sent your information to the Science editor at the Times anyway....There must be someone in the media out there with half a brain! Wouldn't it be wonderful if some young reporter took this Ramsey DNA vindication on as a life mission kind of like the young reporters took on Watergate?

    Hellooo, helloooo, helloooooo....Anybody out there?...
    Old news, cold case, over-exposed story....And I think the fact is that nobody wants to do a story on STUPID....(Can you say Mary Lacy?)

    Voyager

  4. #112
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Thank you for writing this excellent post #106 WY. I agree with Voyager, it should be on the front page on every Boulder newspaper for starters.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  5. #113
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    I meant to post this before. I asked Elvis some questions about cells and these are her answers (she is quite happy for me to post this). My questions in blue, her responses in bold black:-

    "I also understand how they can tell saliva cells apart from skin cells. I've been reading up in this. Now the article I have been reading says that saliva contains epithelial cells which are different in construction from outer skin cells. It also said that epithelial cells are found in the rectum and the urinary tract as well as internal organs. Would they be able to tell the difference between epithelial cells in urine and those found in saliva without resorting to other tests? i.e. comparing them microscopically?"

    There are a number of ways that cells can be differentiated. They DO look different microscopically, so for example epithelial cells from inside the mouth (in saliva) look different microscopically than cells shed from the urethra (found in urine). Even cells from the same source can look different if they are precancerous/ cancerous (a pap smear can differentiate normal cervical cells from cancerous cervical cells by looking at them microscopically). There are also other ways of differentiating cells: e.g. elevated levels of amylase indicate the sample was from saliva. Bottom line: cells can be differentiated, but i don;t know if it was done in this case.

    "Also, I have found articles on epithelial cells dating back to the 1960s so would it be wrong to assume that they could tell saliva cells apart from skin cells under a microscope back then?"

    I have a histology text that shows what all the various human cells look like microscopically. This has been known for a looooong time...way before the 1960s.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  6. #114

    Default Touch DNA Identifies Rapist in 1996 Case

    Tuesday, September 23, 2008
    Touch DNA

    Identifies Rapist in 1996 Case
    Crime scene technicians at the Maryland State Police Department and Bode Technology have identified the identity of the man guilty in a 1996 rape of a 12 year old girl thanks to touch DNA.

    Touch DNA, which analyzes genetic material from skin cells left on an item, was recently used to exonerate the parents of JonBenet Ramsey.
    The suspect was indicted of rape on June 13 and will stand trial in December.
    To read the full text, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092102276.html.
    http://www.forensicmag.com/News_Articles.asp?pid=370
    No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man. -Heraclitus Fragments c. 500 BC

  7. #115
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    I expect we will be hearing more and more reports like this, Little.
    This one we can understand and praise, but not the touch DNA story related to the JonBenét Ramsey case.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  8. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    I expect we will be hearing more and more reports like this, Little.
    This one we can understand and praise, but not the touch DNA story related to the JonBenét Ramsey case.
    These stories will strike a nerve Elle. It's always "cleared the Ramseys" and, I forget who it was here who said it but it hit the nail on the head, the DNA cleared the Ramseys of being the source of that DNA, but it didn't clear them of a crime.

    Little
    No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man. -Heraclitus Fragments c. 500 BC

  9. #117
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles View Post
    I meant to post this before. I asked Elvis some questions about cells and these are her answers (she is quite happy for me to post this). My questions in blue, her responses in bold black:-

    "I also understand how they can tell saliva cells apart from skin cells. I've been reading up in this. Now the article I have been reading says that saliva contains epithelial cells which are different in construction from outer skin cells. It also said that epithelial cells are found in the rectum and the urinary tract as well as internal organs. Would they be able to tell the difference between epithelial cells in urine and those found in saliva without resorting to other tests? i.e. comparing them microscopically?"

    There are a number of ways that cells can be differentiated. They DO look different microscopically, so for example epithelial cells from inside the mouth (in saliva) look different microscopically than cells shed from the urethra (found in urine). Even cells from the same source can look different if they are precancerous/ cancerous (a pap smear can differentiate normal cervical cells from cancerous cervical cells by looking at them microscopically). There are also other ways of differentiating cells: e.g. elevated levels of amylase indicate the sample was from saliva. Bottom line: cells can be differentiated, but i don;t know if it was done in this case.

    "Also, I have found articles on epithelial cells dating back to the 1960s so would it be wrong to assume that they could tell saliva cells apart from skin cells under a microscope back then?"

    I have a histology text that shows what all the various human cells look like microscopically. This has been known for a looooong time...way before the 1960s.
    Right, Jayelles. I was referring to the DNA itself when I said that under normal testing, science can't tell [from the DNA of that cell] what part of the body the epithelial cells came from. I guess I should have been clearer in my post. Obviously, the cell types can be determined by other means, but not through DNA testing.
    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---

  10. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watching You View Post
    Right, Jayelles. I was referring to the DNA itself when I said that under normal testing, science can't tell [from the DNA of that cell] what part of the body the epithelial cells came from. I guess I should have been clearer in my post. Obviously, the cell types can be determined by other means, but not through DNA testing.
    I wonder if there are any "cells" left untested to visualize microscopically (were they damaged to extract the DNA)?

  11. #119
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twinkiesmom View Post
    I wonder if there are any "cells" left untested to visualize microscopically (were they damaged to extract the DNA)?
    In the JBR case, the so-called touch DNA on the waistband of her long johns was tested. Due to Lacy's secrecy (cover up?) regarding this case, nobody outside of the lab that did the testing, Lacy's staff, and probaby John Ramsey and Wood, who are inside the loop, knows the exact area the alleged DNA came from, how big the sample was, and the results of the testing, other than Lacy's insane interpretation of the lab's report. Lacy is counting on the ignorance of the public, and probably her own ignorance regarding DNA, when she announced Ramsey was cleared.

    Every cell in our bodies comes complete with a full complement of DNA, and that DNA is the "brain" of each of our cells. By nature of the DNA testing, itself, the brains, or DNA, is removed from the cell. There are different methods used in the extraction of DNA, but no matter which method is used, once the "brains" of the cell are removed, nothing is left except a damaged, empty cell. Cell walls are breached, some are "beaten, etc.

    The sample used in that testing is destroyed by the testing, as far as future DNA testing on the same sample is concerned. Areas around that sample are also taken for comparison purposes - they are called "control samples." These areas are presumed to be uncontaminated by the foreign DNA being tested - IOW, the perp only touched the area around the waistband that was necessary to pull the clothing down or up on JB. It's part of the quality control iin the testing.

    The chances that the DNA tested belongs to her killer are very slim, and believing what Lacy says in regard to any DNA testing is to not understand the logic. Without calling Lacy an out and out liar, let's just say she has made a huge leap of judgment in her own analysis of what the DNA means. I wish with all my heart that someone would rip the lid off the JBR case, get into the DNA tests, themselves, and tell the truth about it. It's not what Lacy says it is.
    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. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Punisher View Post
    Sure would be nice if I could think of something we could DO about it.
    Take the BDA to court and force them to release to the public, under the FOIA, the PowerPoint and videotapes that Smit--A PRIVATE CITIZEN--was GIVEN copies of by Hunter after Smit QUIT the DA's Office, with full LEGALLY CONTRACTED permission to use as Smit pleased. As you know, Smit has picked and chosen WHOM he lets have the PowerPoint. He gave jams a copy. He gave various TV producers copies. Michael Tracey and "48 Hours" come to mind. And they USED those copies TO SPREAD PROPAGANDA TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS UNSOLVED MURDER.

    Yet the DA denies anyone ELSE access to those same materials.

    How is that LEGAL? They are ALL private citizens. But YOU try to get a copy, and see how fast they tell you NO.

    I can't believe even a court in Colorado could defend THAT kind of PROPAGANDA in a criminal case. But it wouldn't surprise me.

    Yet it really GALLS me that of all the people who have professed year in and year out they want to do something about the BDA, no one, not even those in the legal profession or with media behind them, will go after this HUGE DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN and UNETHICAL PROPAGANDA PERPETRATED BY THE BDA FROM HUNTER AND SMIT TO LACY AND HER RAMSEY SHILLS.

    It's not right. It's not legal. Whether Colorado actually follows the law in COURT on this remains to be seen. If I lived there or had the money to do it, I'd MAKE THEM show their colors on this by forcing the JUDGES IN COURT to DEFEND such FAVORITISM AND CORRUPTION...or END IT. That's the LEAST that we can do.

    Well...you asked.

    "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. 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
  •