Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 237
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    For clarification purposes - if the Boulder DA had a ton of other evidence leading to the arrest of a suspect, including a handwriting sample that matched the so-called ransom note, then, and only then, would the DNA analysis they currently have be a factor - if they matched.

    On its own, the alleged (I say alleged, because I do not trust Lacy to tell us the whole truth on that DNA), DNA will never be enough to convict anyone.

    As I told my daughter this past weekend, JB's killer is dead, IMO; however, there are still some live ones who know exactly what happened that night.
    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. #14

    Default

    Elle, and Zoo, in response to the Ramsey "touch" DNA spin, Dr. Lee said that the Ramseys were "cleared" when the grand jury didn't indict, so this is nothing new. Yeah, he said that in several sources. Since Dr. Lee said in his book that HE ADVISED HUNTER NOT TO INDICT because they didn't have ENOUGH evidence to win at trial, I think Dr. Lee has confused some issues here. But he, like most professional forensic people who have been involved with this case, have many, many other cases they work on, unlike US, so they really don't keep up on it as much as we do. WHO COULD? I know I'm crazy for still being here. :stupid1:

    At this point, I also think the Ramseys are reaping the rewards of time: I can't remember my own posts from long ago, anymore. I've forgotten more than I remember. Lacy and Team Scamsey can pretty much say what they want now, as they have the case files on lockdown and all we get is what they want us to hear. Since no one who knows the truth will come forward and witness for this abused and murdered child, the RST pretty much has the whole playing field to themselves. Let's face it: they got away with murder, and now they want us to feel sorry for THEM...NOT JONBENET.

    But...back to the DNA. Thanks for helping out on this, WY. You and a few others are our source for understanding this science as best we can.

    I remember brief discussions of the BLOODSTAINS on the white blanket, nightgown, and the star shirt when these screen captures were published, and also when Wood asked Beckner about "DNA-X", as they called it, under oath in the Wolf deposition. Beckner did identify it as "not belonging to JonBenet", if memory serves, but all I THINK I got from this exchange was they had identified the donor for "DNA-X". The way Beckner danced around the facts in his deposition made me believe that to whomever this "DNA-X" belonged, he didn't want to open THAT can of worms. No one on the forums seems to know much about any of this or they're not telling, so the discussions are usually thin and eventually dropped.

    Since the lab obviously tested these biological samples, what we don't know is whose blood it was. Was any of it JonBenet's? Did they do "touch" DNA testing on those items, too? If there was BLOOD there, why wouldn't they? Along with the garrote, including all the cord and handle, and along with the writing utensils...and the writing pad...etc. Who ELSE'S DNA did they find on the longjohns? Surely Patsy's was there. How about John Ramsey? Burke?

    Zoomama, JonBenet is said to have worn those HUGE Bloomies to the Christmas party by Patsy, but under her black velvet pants. But Patsy also said she didn't really know much about them, that JonBenet had put them on herself, opened the package herself, or they were in the drawer...or something.... But it's silly to think JonBenet would have done that, as they'd have fallen to her feet before she could have pulled her pants up! That's why all this is so silly about proving this "touch" DNA was an "intruder's". PATSY LIED about those Bloomies. She changed her story RIGHT THERE IN THE INTERVIEW with LE in Atlanta in 2000 several times about how those HUGE Bloomies got on JonBenet. What Patsy said is completely NOT credible on several levels. DOES ANYONE HERE THINK, WHEN UNDRESSING HER, PULLING HER PANTS DOWN, THEY'D NOT NOTICE THEIR CHILD WEARING UNDERWEAR BIG ENOUGH FOR A CHILD TWICE HER SIZE? Look at my avatar, a model created by Jayelles using measurements from a child the same age, size, and weight as JonBenet, with Bloomies bought in New York and the same size as the Bloomies on JonBenet. The underwear would UNDOUBTEDLY have come off of JonBenet when Patsy pulled the black velvet pants off of her while JonBenet "slept". Patsy didn't notice THEN? Then Patsy pulled the longjohns on her; Patsy didn't notice THEN?

    Even if Patsy "didn't notice", she surely would have had to rearrange the Bloomies before pulling the longjohns back up, don't you think? So if there was "foreign DNA" in the underpants from an innocent source at that time, maybe from dragging on the bathroom floor when she pulled them down to use the bathroom at the Whites, why wouldn't it have been possible for Patsy to touch it and then leave it on the waistband when she pulled up the longjohns? Maybe JonBenet got the DNA off the floor herself when pulling up the Bloomies, if she in fact had them on that night. There are COUNTLESS ways that DNA could have gotten on those clothes. WE'RE TALKING A FEW CELLS THAT SCIENCE CANNOT EVEN IDTENTIFY AS SKIN, SALIVA, OR MUCOUS.

    Of course, speaking of cellular sized "evidence" and DNA...most people really do NOT know how off the charts tiny this is. To find a FEW CELLS is NOT like finding CHUNKS OF SKIN, or BLOOD DROPS, etc.

    Not to mention, THE RAMSEYS THEMSELVES WITHHELD THE PACKAGE OF BLOOMIES FOR FIVE YEARS FROM LE, KNOWING HOW IMPORTANT THAT EVIDENCE WAS. They only finally turned it over when Lacy took the DA wheel. WHAT DID THE DA FIND IN TESTING THOSE? Was any of that "touch" DNA in those Bloomies? Did it match the "touch" DNA in JonBenet's Bloomies or longjohns? Seems like that would be critical to test. But then again, since THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE BLOOMIES PACKAGE AS EVIDENCE is so questionable, it's pretty useless at any trial, except THE TRIAL OF AN INTRUDER, when it would be requested in discovery and testing DEMANDED by the defense. And they'd get it, too. And they'd argue nobody really knows if that is the same package of Bloomies from which those on JonBenet came or not. And they'd be right.

    Really, does ANYONE think that Boulder, rich as it is, has the resources to try anyone in this case now? Think about it: any "intruder's" defense would be demanding testing of so much of the evidence for this "touch DNA", and they'd find plenty, you can bet on that. The world is AWASH in organic DNA. How many cells of unidentified donor DNA did that lab eliminate because it wasn't the Bloomie underwear DNA, after all? We'll never know, because THAT they're not telling.

    Okay, back on my soapbox...got myself started again. Sorry.

    Anyhow, I think it's important to have this thread here for info and discussion on this that's not spun by Team Ramsey.

    "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. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    In a World With Too Much Crime
    Posts
    7,818

    Default

    From KK...Dna1
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    It's probably too late to get justice for JonBenét. Maybe it always was. But knowing where things went wrong is the first step to not going there again. **-- Alan Prendergast-Dec 21, 2006--**

    ______________________
    Bring all our Missing Home www.usearchut.org
    Prayers for our military who are protecting our freedom.

  4. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    In a World With Too Much Crime
    Posts
    7,818

    Default

    From KK...DNA2
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    It's probably too late to get justice for JonBenét. Maybe it always was. But knowing where things went wrong is the first step to not going there again. **-- Alan Prendergast-Dec 21, 2006--**

    ______________________
    Bring all our Missing Home www.usearchut.org
    Prayers for our military who are protecting our freedom.

  5. #17

    Default

    I found this last night and thought it would be good to put here. It's actually a really fun animation comparing different organic cells to the head of a pin and a human hair. Don't miss using the "magnification" arrows to move from smallest to largest for comparison with the pin head.

    http://www.cellsalive.com/howbig.htm

    And here is another interesting graphic animation, which shows inside a CELL how small the DNA actually is. Click on the "nucleus" and you'll see what I mean:

    http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/basics/cell/

    [Hope this isn't too "high school", but I'm so out of my element here, things like this help me, so maybe some others will find it helpful, as well.]

    "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.

  6. #18

    Default

    Thanks so much, MOAB, who is HANDS DOWN THE BEST MOD ON THE WHOLE INTERNET!!

    These "DNA lab report" screen captures are really fuzzy, but you can compare them with Margoo's "transcription" (and my additions) and if you use your magnification, you can see we can decipher them fairly well.

    [Message for Margoo: If you don't want your hat used in association with your transcription of the lab report, let us know and I'll take it down and just put up mine, which I already had done before I found yours again while looking for an online copy of the screen captures to post. I checked mine against yours and thought I should give you credit since you put yours online some time ago. If you have no objections, TIA.]

    "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.

  7. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watching You View Post
    I do not recall hearing much about blood stains on the shirt and white blanket. If the only place JB bled was from her vagina, where would the other bloodstains have come from?
    That's an interesting question, WY.

    I'd GUESS they were from JonBenet, but here we have MARK BECKNER UNDER OATH stating that at least ONE DNA SOURCE AT THE CRIME SCENE WASN'T FROM JONBENET, BUT HE SAYS IT WAS FROM AN UNKNOWN DONOR, TOO. Now, if that unknown donor did not "match" the underwear DNA, WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD ABOUT THIS UNKNOWN DONOR before? I think we can deduce, from the lastest round of Ramsey spin heralding "three sites" from which they got a few cells--the one in the underwear not even a complete strand of DNA, and the other two being from the "sides" of the longjohns, THAT THIS UNKNOWN DNA DONOR IS NOT THE SAME AS THE UNDERWEAR/LONGJOHN DNA.

    It raises questions, again, as to how Lacy was able to determine that the underwear DNA belongs to the killer, but not THIS DNA from an unknown donor. Was this "DNAX", as Wood names it, from the nightgown or white blanket? Seems important in the context of this newest Team Ramsey spin.

    Well, here is the LONG exchange between Wood (Q = Wood) and Beckner (A = Beckner). Miller is Beckner's lawyer, BTW. Get comfy, as Wood is really a maniac when he's trying to wheedle info out of someone:

    http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11...arkBeckner.htm

    23 Q Do you know -- I believe Chris Wolf has

    24 told us that he gave blood samples. Is that a form

    25 of non-testimonial evidence that the Boulder Police




    120



    1 Department was obtaining from people under suspicion?

    2 A It was a form, yes.

    3 Q What type of testing was done on blood

    4 samples that were obtained from individuals under

    5 suspicion?

    6 A Well, I know there were some DNA tests

    7 done on blood samples.

    8 Q Any other test, other than DNA?

    9 A Not that I'm aware of.

    10 Q Do you know whether DNA -- I believe you

    11 told me DNA tests were done or were performed with

    12 respect to Chris Wolf?

    13 A Yes; to the best of my recollection, yes.

    14 Q Do you know the results?

    15 A Yes.

    16 Q What were the results?

    17 A He did not match the DNA from the scene.

    18 Q Has anyone matched the DNA from the scene?

    19 A No.

    20 Q Can you give me a ballpark figure of how

    21 many individuals have submitted DNA?

    22 A Well, back up a minute. There is more

    23 than one sample of DNA. So specifically what are you

    24 referring to?

    25 Q Well, as I understand it, there is DNA and




    121



    1 I don't want to get technical here, but I understand

    2 there was DNA found, foreign DNA, found under the

    3 fingernails on JonBent's left and right hands; am I

    4 right?

    5 A Okay. Yes.

    6 Q As I understand it, there was foreign DNA

    7 found either on -- I'll just say on her underwear?

    8 A Yes.

    9 Q Now, I'm not aware as I sit here of any

    10 other DNA. Was there any other?

    11 A Yes.

    12 Q Where was it?

    13 A Well --

    14 MR. MILLER: Just a minute.

    15 THE DEPONENT: Yeah. We're getting into

    16 evidence here.

    17 MR. MILLER: I don't think you should

    18 answer that question.

    19 Q (BY MR. WOOD) I have to be able to know.

    20 You raised the issue yourself about the different

    21 areas of DNA. So I assume it has some relevance to

    22 the subject matter that I'm asking you about in terms

    23 of the tests done with Chris Wolf.

    24 A You can certainly ask me if Chris Wolf

    25 matched any DNA at the scene. I can answer that.




    122



    1 Q But I'm asking you about -- but I asked

    2 you whether anyone else's did and you indicated

    3 initially no. I said Do you know whether DNA -- I

    4 believe you told me DNA tests were done or performed

    5 with respect to Chris Wolf?

    6 Yes; to the best of my recollection, yes.

    7 Do you know the results?

    8 Yes.

    9 What were the results?

    10 "Answer: He did not match the DNA from

    11 the scene.

    12 "Question: Has anyone matched the DNA

    13 from the scene?

    14 "Answer: No.

    15 "Question: Can you give me a ballpark

    16 figure of how many individuals have submitted DNA"

    17 and you didn't answer that.

    18 You said "Well, back up a minute. There

    19 is more than one sample of DNA. So specifically what

    20 are you referring to" was the question you posed to

    21 me.

    22 So that has relevance of your own inquiry

    23 and so I need to find out what other DNA you're

    24 referring to.

    25 A When you asked the question, I'm thinking




    123



    1 the unknown DNA.

    2 Q Well, I mean --

    3 A I answered the question in that context.

    4 Q Known DNA -- I'm talking about DNA foreign

    5 to JonBent.

    6 A Okay.

    7 Q That's what I'm asking you about and

    8 whether any of that has been matched, DNA found on

    9 her, foreign to her, whether that was matched to

    10 Chris Wolf?

    11 A DNA found on her?

    12 Q Or on her clothing.

    13 A And the question is did that match to

    14 Chris Wolf? The answer is no.

    15 Q Has it matched, been matched to anyone?

    16 A The DNA on JonBent?

    17 Q And/or on her clothing?

    18 A No.

    19 Q Obviously you're telling me there was DNA

    20 that was not on JonBen t or on her clothing; is that

    21 correct?

    22 A Correct.

    23 Q Where was that?

    24 A We're getting into areas where I feel like

    25 we can't go.




    124



    1 Q Well, I'm trying to figure out what was

    2 done with Chris Wolf, and then obviously I'm trying

    3 to find out if it's been matched with anyone since

    4 that's the larger picture of the case in its

    5 entirety. But I don't know what I'm getting if I

    6 don't know what I'm asking about. You raised the

    7 question, you've indicated there was DNA that was

    8 found somewhere other than on her body or on her

    9 clothing.

    10 I had initially asked you about the crime

    11 scene, I thought. Pull that back up. I asked you

    12 specifically, you did not match the DNA from the

    13 scene? Answer --

    14 "Question: Has anyone matched the DNA

    15 from the scene?

    16 "Answer: No."

    17 And you seem to be telling me now that you

    18 want to modify that answer, that there was DNA from

    19 the scene foreign to JonBent. And I'm asking you

    20 where?

    21 A What I'm saying is I am getting into

    22 evidence that goes beyond Chris Wolf.

    23 Q Well, was Chris Wolf's -- was Chris Wolf's

    24 DNA tested against this other DNA that you say was

    25 found at the scene that you don't want to tell me




    125



    1 about?

    2 A Well, that wouldn't be accurate. Compared

    3 against would be the accurate question.

    4 Q Well, was it compared against?

    5 A Yes.

    6 Q Why would it be compared against if it had

    7 already been identified as known?

    8 A Well, again --

    9 MR. MILLER: I don't think he can answer

    10 this question.

    11 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Well, the DNA evidence from

    12 Mr. Wolf was obtained in February or March of 1998,

    13 right?

    14 A To the best of my recollection, yes.

    15 Q Why would you have tested it, and maybe

    16 you didn't, why would you have tested it against

    17 foreign DNA that you had already had a match on from

    18 someone else?

    19 MR. MILLER: He didn't say he already had

    20 a match on. That's why --

    21 MR. WOOD: I may have been reading too

    22 much in because he made reference to known DNA. And

    23 I thought he was -- I was assuming that maybe they

    24 had gotten a match and you knew the source.

    25 A We have JonBent's DNA; that's known DNA.




    126



    1 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Right. And then you have

    2 foreign DNA?

    3 A Yes.

    4 Q And the question was has any of the

    5 foreign DNA, foreign to JonBen t, you have indicated

    6 to me has not been matched to Chris Wolf?

    7 A Correct.

    8 Q And I asked you had it been matched to

    9 anyone and you initially said no; is that correct?

    10 A The DNA on her body or clothing, the

    11 answer is no; that's right.

    12 Q What about the crime scene?

    13 A That's what I can't answer.

    14 Q But here is the dilemma. I want to know

    15 if whatever this we'll call it DNAX, okay, was Chris

    16 Wolf's DNA compared to DNAX?

    17 MR. MILLER: He answered that yes.

    18 A Yes.

    19 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Okay.

    20 A I can tell you it does not match DNAX.

    21 Q Right. At the time that Chris Wolf's DNA

    22 was compared to DNAX, had it been compared to any

    23 other DNA and found to be a match?

    24 A Compared with other -- no, it's not

    25 been -- his DNA has not been matched to anything at




    127



    1 the crime scene.

    2 Q But the DNAX at the time that you compared

    3 Chris Wolf's DNA to the DNAX, had you compared the

    4 DNAX to other individual's DNA and found there to be

    5 a match or been able to identify whose DNA it was?

    6 A Well, you're time line is all way off

    7 base.

    8 Q Well, my time line is limited to the

    9 moment --

    10 A Yeah.

    11 Q -- to the fact that you took the DNA from

    12 Chris Wolf, you obtained it in February or March of

    13 1998.

    14 A And we did not have DNAX at that time.

    15 Q So DNAX came along subsequent in time?

    16 A Yes.

    17 Q And when it came along, was Chris Wolf's

    18 DNA which had been kept on file, right, you maintain

    19 it?

    20 A Um-hum.

    21 Q Was it compared to DNAX?

    22 A The lab would have to answer that.

    23 Q Well, would you have expected it to be?

    24 A Not necessarily.

    25 Q Why?




    128



    1 A Well, if -- hypothetically?

    2 MR. MILLER: No, not hypothetically.

    3 Q (BY MR. WOOD) I would rather you --

    4 A I don't know how to answer it without

    5 giving away information.

    6 MR. MILLER: Well, then don't answer it.

    7 Then don't answer it.

    8 Q (BY MR. WOOD) You know, part of the

    9 process here is going to require you ultimately to

    10 give away information.

    11 MR. MILLER: He doesn't have to give away

    12 information that is related to the ongoing

    13 investigation and that's really the key here.

    14 MR. WOOD: Well, unfortunately that's the

    15 argument we will have.

    16 MR. MILLER: That's the --

    17 MR. WOOD: I'm defending clients on a

    18 murder charge in a civil case.

    19 MR. MILLER: Well, you're not really.

    20 You've got a civil case --

    21 MR. WOOD: Yes, I am.

    22 MR. MILLER: You've got a civil case and--

    23 MR. WOOD: Where the allegation is murder.

    24 MR. MILLER: Well, you've got a -- you

    25 could classify it that way. The legal claims are not




    129



    1 murder.

    2 MR. WOOD: Let me just tell you that Judge

    3 Julian Korns, a former United States attorney, as you

    4 have been, has clearly characterized this as a

    5 defense against a charge of murder. And I have the

    6 transcript to show that to you.

    7 MR. MILLER: Well --

    8 MR. WOOD: And the point is, we don't need

    9 to argue about it today. But I am being met with a

    10 lawsuit that is in fact supported in part by Boulder

    11 police detectives or former Boulder police detectives

    12 as witnesses and information leaked and provided to

    13 the public, the media from the Boulder Police

    14 Department as part of the basis of Darnay Hoffman's

    15 case against my client. It may be painful down the

    16 road for information to come out but that's just the

    17 way things may have to be.

    18 Q (BY MR. WOOD) The point here is maybe

    19 this will at least help us know if it's a total waste

    20 of time. Was DNAX obtained before or after Chris

    21 Wolf was cleared from under the umbrella of

    22 suspicion?

    23 A I would have to go back and look and see

    24 what the time frames were.

    25 Q Was the DNAX discovered prior to June of




    130



    1 1998 when the VIP presentations I have called it or

    2 it's been referred to was made?

    3 A No.

    4 Q Do you know in relationship to the grand

    5 jury whether it had been discovered prior to the

    6 grand jury convening in September, I believe, of

    7 1998?

    8 A Prior to?

    9 Q Yes.

    10 A I don't believe so.

    11 Q So does that help you relate to Chris Wolf

    12 how it might time out?

    13 A Yeah, it probably would have been

    14 afterwards time-wise.

    15 Q After he was cleared?

    16 A You're using the word cleared. We've

    17 never cleared Chris Wolf.

    18 Q Well, maybe that's -- I meant to go over

    19 that with you. To take someone out from under the

    20 umbrella of suspicion, does in effect say, as you

    21 said in the statement to Chris Anderson, that that

    22 person is no longer an active suspect, right?

    23 A Correct.

    24 Q Without trying to invent a new

    25 classification, I think that what you're saying from




    131



    1 a practical standpoint is that the person is

    2 basically until the crime is solved, would remain an

    3 inactive suspect?

    4 A Not necessarily. You could develop new

    5 information all the time.

    6 Q That's what I mean until the case is

    7 solved they would remain an inactive suspect --

    8 A Not necessarily --

    9 Q But could they --

    10 A -- solve it.

    11 Q Well, wait a minute.

    12 A Not necessarily solve it.

    13 Q But perhaps get information that would put

    14 that person back under the umbrella or maybe even

    15 make that person a suspect?

    16 A Absolutely.

    17 Q That possibility still exists today as it

    18 pertains to Chris Wolf, doesn't it?

    19 A Absolutely.

    20 Q I mean, you have not excluded Chris Wolf

    21 as being involved in this murder?

    22 A As far as clearing him, no, we have not.

    23 Q And would I be safe without going into

    24 specific names, would I be safe in saying that there

    25 are, it's a considerable number of individuals who




    132



    1 have not been cleared, even though they may not at

    2 this moment be under the umbrella of suspicion?

    3 A I think that's true any time you have an

    4 open case.

    5 Q And it's true in this case?

    6 A Yes.

    7 MR. MILLER: It's about noon, Lin. How

    8 long do you think we're going to go here?

    9 MR. WOOD: Well, I would like to try to go

    10 until 1. I think we'll be through by 1 with this

    11 area that we've agreed to. That would get us lunch

    12 and get us back to Weinheimer on time so give or

    13 take a few minutes or depending on your all

    14 preference we can grab a sandwich now.

    15 MR. MILLER: No, I would rather -- let's

    16 just take a break now. We've been going for awhile,

    17 and then come back.

    18 MR. WOOD: Why don't we at least take a

    19 break for a while and then we can continue.

    20 VIDEO TECHNICIAN: We're off the record at

    21 approximately 11:57 a.m.

    22 (Recess taken from 11:58 a.m. to 12:12

    23 p.m.)

    24 VIDEO TECHNICIAN: We are on the record at

    25 approximately 12:12 p.m.




    133



    1 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Chief Beckner, the DNAX, I

    2 want to make sure because I'm still not clear, were

    3 any samples of Chris Wolf's DNA compared to DNAX?

    4 A I don't know the answer to that question.

    5 Q Would you have expected them to be?

    6 A Not necessarily.

    7 Q Why not?

    8 A Well, again, I think we're going down the

    9 road of talking about the evidence.

    10 Q I mean, I have to talk about the evidence

    11 because you've got DNA. You have DNA from Chris Wolf

    12 and you've got an open investigation. Chris Wolf has

    13 not been cleared and the question to me is very

    14 logical. Why would you not have compared Chris

    15 Wolf's DNA to this DNAX?

    16 MR. MILLER: First of all, I don't know

    17 that he said that he didn't. He doesn't know.

    18 MR. WOOD: Yeah, but he said not

    19 necessarily. I'm trying to find out why would they

    20 not necessarily have done so.

    21 MR. MILLER: I think what he said is that

    22 because of the other factors going on in this

    23 investigation that he knows and that shouldn't be

    24 part of this case tends to make him believe that it

    25 wasn't necessary. And therefore we're asserting the




    134



    1 privilege on that.

    2 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Has a source for DNAX been

    3 identified. I don't want to know who it is, but has

    4 a source for DNAX been identified?

    5 THE DEPONENT: Do I answer that?

    6 MR. MILLER: I don't think so. I don't

    7 think you should answer that.

    8 MR. WOOD: You're taking the privilege?

    9 MR. MILLER: Yes.

    10 Q (BY MR. WOOD) If a source hasn't been

    11 identified the question would be why would you not

    12 compare the DNA that you have in your investigation

    13 from people under the umbrella of suspicion to DNAX;

    14 you would, wouldn't you?

    15 A I'm not sure it hasn't been.

    16 Q So do you -- DNAX stands out in your

    17 mind's eye obviously? I mean it came back to you

    18 today when we were talking about DNA from the scene

    19 and do you have knowledge that DNAX, that a number of

    20 individuals' DNA specimens have been compared to what

    21 you call DNAX for analysis?

    22 A I don't know how many people have been

    23 compared to that.

    24 Q But could you give me a ballpark estimate?

    25 A No, I couldn't.




    135



    1 Q Why not?

    2 A Because I didn't speak to the lab about

    3 that.

    4 Q Do you think it was a considerable number?

    5 I mean, you know --

    6 MR. MILLER: I object.

    7 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Did you go back, Chief --

    8 MR. WOOD: Maybe it's just my own

    9 inability to frame the question correctly, Bob.

    10 But I've got Chris Wolf here who has been

    11 taken out from under the umbrella of suspicion. It

    12 appears at a subsequent time that there is another

    13 sample of DNA found foreign to JonBent somewhere on

    14 the crime scene other than on her body or her

    15 clothing. I'm trying to find out whether Chris Wolf

    16 who has not been cleared, whether his DNA would have

    17 been expected to be compared to the DNAX. I just

    18 think that's --

    19 MR. MILLER: He's answered he doesn't

    20 know, Lin. I mean that's the answer. It may not be

    21 the one you want, it's still the answer.

    22 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Who would know? Who would

    23 I talk to to get the answer to that question?

    24 A Of whether his DNA was compared --

    25 Q Yes.




    136



    1 A The FBI laboratory.

    2 Q The FBI laboratory?

    3 A (Deponent nods head.)

    4 Q Is there any reason why FBI versus CBI? I

    5 thought maybe the DNA testing had been done by FBI

    6 all along. I don't know.

    7 A Yes, there is a reason.

    8 Q But wouldn't the specimens have been sent

    9 from the Boulder Police Department, whoever the FBI

    10 tested, wouldn't it have gone to the FBI from the

    11 Boulder Police Department?

    12 A Well some explanation is in order here.

    13 Once you have the markers for DNA, you don't

    14 necessarily have to have the DNA sample to compare

    15 those markers to other DNA.

    16 Q But the FBI didn't keep those markers on

    17 file; the Boulder Police Department or CBI did I

    18 would take it?

    19 A CBI has those.

    20 Q So somebody would have to send those

    21 markers because there are reports that show the

    22 markers, right?

    23 A Correct.

    24 Q Somebody would have to send that to the

    25 FBI from either CBI or the Boulder Police Department,




    137



    1 right?

    2 A Yes.

    3 Q Do you believe that samples -- clearly

    4 there were some samples sent?

    5 A Yes.

    6 Q Possibly Chris Wolf's?

    7 A Possibly.

    8 Q Possibly a number of other individuals who

    9 had been under the or were under the umbrella of

    10 suspicion?

    11 A Possibly.

    12 Q Can you just give me your best estimate as

    13 to when these materials would have been sent to the

    14 FBI?

    15 A No, I really can't. Because the FBI is so

    16 backed up, I know we waited a long time on some of

    17 the lab tests to be done. And so it would be hard to

    18 pin down when we sent it in without actually checking

    19 the records.

    20 Q Can you ballpark when you started getting

    21 the results back?

    22 A I'm not sure. I believe it was sometime

    23 in 2000.

    24 Q Can you back that up now to months or

    25 several months to try to figure out when --




    138



    1 A I would sure hate to do that under oath

    2 because I'm just not sure enough.

    3 Q I don't want you to just purely speculate.

    4 If you have a reasonable, you know, if you reasonably

    5 can estimate then I would ask you to do that, but I

    6 don't want you to just pull something out of the air.

    7 A I wouldn't be comfortable right now doing

    8 that.

    9 Q Okay. That's fair. Recognizing it was

    10 2000 that you began to get results back, in your

    11 mind's eye, Chief, can you ballpark the number of

    12 results that you got back?

    13 A Well, you have misinterpreted a little bit

    14 of what I said.

    15 Q Okay. Help me out.

    16 A When you say start to get results back,

    17 the FBI has been involved in this case from the

    18 early, the early days.

    19 Q From day one.

    20 A So there has been -- there have been

    21 different results coming back at different times

    22 throughout the year so we didn't just start to get

    23 results back in 2000.

    24 Q Right. But I'm talking about DNAX.

    25 A Well, the result starts and ends on one




    139



    1 day basically. I mean, you get the result back and

    2 there it is.

    3 Q But did it cover a number of individuals,

    4 one report back, is that what we're talking about?

    5 A I don't know that I have ever actually

    6 seen the written report.

    7 Q Well, based on what you know about it.

    8 A I don't know. I really don't know whether

    9 they included others on that report or not.

    10 Q Well, I'm clearly speculating but I think,

    11 with some degree of a reasonable basis, that John and

    12 Patsy's DNA would have been sent to compare to DNAX.

    13 So maybe the question ought to be just put to you,

    14 were other individuals' DNA samples sent to the FBI

    15 markers for comparison to DNAX, other than John or

    16 Patsy Ramsey?

    17 A Yes.

    18 Q Okay. Would it be fair from your

    19 recollection to say that it was a number of

    20 individuals?

    21 A Mr. Wood, I don't know that for a fact,

    22 but that would be my guess.

    23 Q Okay. And whether Chris Wolf is in there

    24 or not is something we could ascertain by someone

    25 researching the record?




    140



    1 A Yes.

    "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. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watching You View Post

    As I told my daughter this past weekend, JB's killer is dead, IMO; however, there are still some live ones who know exactly what happened that night.
    Well said
    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.

  9. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Thank you WY for your replies. You were always very patient with DNA queries from me, and it was good to have someone on the spot who knew what they were talking about.

    Patsy is no longer with us, but I believe she was responsible for JonBenét's accidental death, and staging a cover-up. If JonBenét wasn't actually dead at the time of the cover-up, then it could be a homicide. I definitely feel John Ramsey assisted in the staging which incriminates him in this crime, and maybe some day he won't be walking free out there(?).
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  10. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Thank you KK for your reply. I'm exhausted trying to read it. You do work very hard to find answers in this case. Hopefully your hard work will pay off some day.

    Geesh that was some long drawn out questioning with Chris Wolf and Company. Does it ever make me glad I'm not a criminal lawyer.

    I often feel Dr. Henry Lee could have done a lot more than he did.

    It's good your energy level is holding up with all the posting you're doing here. DA Lacy's news about clearing the Ramseys was quite a hard blow to take.

    Good luck with all you're doing KK to still find justice for this innocent little mite, JonBenét Ramsey.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  11. #23

    Default

    I once gave John Ramsey a pass. Then I'd go back and forth. Now I have seen too many examples of him lying to LE in this case, as well as in TV interviews, etc., to believe he doesn't at least know what happened. I was recently reading the LKL interview in Dec. of 2006, after Patsy's death and for the 10th anniversary of JonBenet's murder, and John just kept on lying and lying. He said early that he NEVER saw Patsy angry. Before the hour was over, he started talking about HOW ANGRY PATSY WAS OVER GERALDO'S "MOCK TRIAL". He even caught his own lie, but too late, so he just smoothed over the rest of the story.

    "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.

  12. #24

    Default

    Oh, gosh, Elle, I guess at this point I just can't help myself. It's a combination of being stubborn, MORALLY against injustice of any kind, but in the abuse and murder of a child, relentlessly unable to accept it and let it go, no matter how futile any hope of justice being done in our courts.

    Honestly, if the RST didn't keep up their BS attempts to hoodwink the public, I probably would have eventually let it go. But like "the Godfather" said in III, I keep TRRRRYYYYYYYYIIIIIIIG to get out...but they just keep PUUUUUUUUUULLING me back in....

    "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
  •