Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 237
  1. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Southern Silicon Valley !!
    Posts
    2,285

    Cool Kold Kase,

    I also would like to thank you for your persistence in what you do in this case. I am a bystander and one who reads everything but doesn't write back. I too am outraged even at this late date that the Ramseys got away with one. Also I'm not computer savvy to be able to go back in this case to look things up.

    In some ways I've sort of given up hope of ever having the true guilty parties brought to justice. But I remain here and am amazed at how you pick a point and develop it in such depths. Thank you for your hard work. I also hope that someday perhaps when John meets his Maker that Burke will have the courage to speak up and once and for all end this case. But nothing surprises me about this case nor will it in the future surprise me. We haven't been given all the info that there is. I don't think we ever will have it because that would show the incompetence of law enforcement/or investigators and anyone else who has handled this case from the beginning. Do I think it will ever go to trial? Perhaps! If some missing pieces of the puzzle are sworn to by any of the doers of the deed then yes it will go to trial.
    "When are we going to get our heads out of the sand and understand that sometimes really nice people who look good on the outside are dastardly on the inside." Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, MA

  2. #26

    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?
    The only injuries I can think of are the ones on her back.


    -Tea

  3. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Does anyone else feel like I do when I read page after page of dialogue, especially when L. Wood is involved?

    Like you just want to reach through your computer screen and shake the cr*p out of him?
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    In a World With Too Much Crime
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    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.
    I agree Elle, isn't she amazing re: DNA? I have a plethora of information saved from her over the years...she has been very patient with me as well!
    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. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    KK, regarding the DNAX sample - I remember jameson's talking about DNAX, and if my memory serves me right, I think that DNAX may have been taken from a different part of the crotch of the underwear, and it was allegedly a better sample of the foreign DNA found in the first sample. IOW, it was the same DNA as the original sample but it had more markers in it. That was, I believe, the DNA(X) sample that finally got the sample into the FBI's CODIS system (the one with 9 good and 1 iffy marker.

    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.
    I'm not sure what you are referring to. The only unknown DNA source at the crime scene was the one we know about. It's confusing to follow some of the testimony in the transcript, but I'm sure Beckner was talking about the "unknown" DNA that was found in her underwear.

    I'd just like to mention the touch DNA that Lacy used to clear Ramsey. Touch DNA is just that - you touch something, you can leave skin cells there. Had Lacy one operating brain cell, she would have reasoned to herself - if this DNA was transferred through touch DNA, isn't it also possible that the touch DNA got there from the hand of a person who had transfer touch DNA on her hands?

    Here's the scenario:

    Patsy and John Ramsey and their two children attended a Christmas party at the Whites on Christmas night. While at that party they no doubt touched the hands or clothing of the other people at the party. They touched food dishes, they touched silverware (that had been touched by those who put the dishes and silverware there), they touched gifts, they touched doorknobs. Then Patsy delivered gifts to some of their friends on the way home, probably touching those people and their doorknobs, which had been touched by how many other people?

    They also touched the hands of their children, who no doubt were in contact with many other people that day and night. When Patsy or John pulled the long underwear up or down on JB, or when JonBenet went to the bathroom and pulled her clothing both up and down, who is to say they didn't transfer that touch DNA on the underwear, themselves?

    Here's another scenario: the panties themselves had apparently never been laundered but rather were taken straight from the package and put on JB. It would be very reasonable to assume DNA from the persons who handled the panties, both the person who sewed them and the person(s) who packaged them. to have their touch DNA all over the panties, which logically could have been transferred to the long underwear.

    What I'm thinking is that the DNA came from those involved in the manufacturing and shipping of the panties; however, transfer DNA from Patsy or John could also be the answer.

    If I, a mere observer, can figure that out, why on earth can't Lacy figure that out? The answer, I think, is that which could point away from the Ramseys, no matter how flawed the logic and science is, is allowed for consideration by Lacy. Why she thinks a defense lawyer would let her get away with that crap is beyond me, but she'll never try this case, anyway, so what does she care if she damages the case for a future DA who may be a cut above the two recent DAs in Boulder.

    KK's right - in the JBR case, justice will never be served, because there will never be a trial. Too many mistakes have been made - some of them intentional, too many egos have misconstrued and overruled good evidence that leads to the killer and accomplice, and above all, the arrogance and defiance of the Boulder DA and her cronies have forever ruined any chance of obtaining justice for a little girl who deserved to grow up and be everything she could have been. Someone stole her life from her, and the Boulder establishment helped them cover it up. What a sick world we live in.
    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. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moab View Post
    I agree Elle, isn't she amazing re: DNA? I have a plethora of information saved from her over the years...she has been very patient with me as well!
    You guys are making me out to be more than I am. I learned everything I know about DNA (and the wonderful things that are being accomplished, medically, through DNA) from my ex-boss, who is the real expert. I know only a smidgeon of what he knows, but I know enough to sort the crap from the real. Common sense does the rest. Common sense is a scarcity among the Boulder fools.
    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---

  7. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default Familial DNA Checking

    I have a hunch that this could solve the mystery of the foreign DNA in the Ramsey case. It's a system which has ben used in the UK for a little while and which is in the early stages of use in the US.

    Basically, LE go to the DNA database and ask for a check to be run on a DNA sample. If it turns up a match, fine and good, but if it doesn't, LE then ask them to run a familial DNA check. This checks the database to see if there is someone on file who may be related to the person whose DNA is being investigated.

    You know these tv programs where people want to trace relatives and they use DNA testing to do so? Well it's similar to that. They can also tell HOW someone is related to another person (with a certain degree of probability) and it has to do with how DNA is inherited from our parents - so they can tell if Person A is the parent of Person B or if Person A is a sibling of Person B. That's the simplistic version, in reality it's much more complicated but has yielded excellent results in solving cold cases in the UK. All it could take would be for a relative of the owner of the Ramsey foreign DNA to get a DUI charge and police could use science and a bit of legwork to track him down. How exciting would that be? Of course, they'd still have to explain the presence of this DNA on Jonbenet's clothing and it might be that this would eliminate him as her killer.

    Familial Dna has ethical issues - more so in the US than in the UK. Here, it complies with out very powerful Data Protection laws for reasons for reasons of crime detection and prevention. It's facing harsher opposition in the US but according to one article I read, the only state where it is actually unlawful seems to be Maryland (the article I read may be out of date).

    Would it work in Boulder? That is another story. It appears to me that in Boulder, criminals have more rights than anyone else! There are also objections to familial DNA from Hispanic quarters on the grounds that they have larger families and it would therefore invade the privacy of more of them than any other ethnic group in the US!

    This article offers a good primer on familial DNA:-

    http://www.gov.im/dha/police/csi/familial.xml

    Also, here are som articles that I found on the subject and posted at Crimelibrary:-

    http://boards.library.trutv.com/show...290733&page=16

    You'll have to scroll past Shill's ramblings I'm afraid. He completely misunderstood the whole point about familial DNA that the process would be used to search for a relative of the foreign DNA (he seems to think they'd be using it to search for a Ramsey relative). Ignornace (as they say) is bliss :-)
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  8. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Meant to say:-

    The owner of the Ramsey foreign DNA isn't on CODIS and may never be on CODIS. Familial DNA checking will greatly increase the chance of finding him and investigating him.

    Wouldn't it be nice if John Ramsey campaigned for this to be done? (Won't hold my breath waiting on him to do anything to find justice for little JonBenet).
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  9. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    You're right- you won't find any Rs pushing for this testing and you won't find the Boulder DA pushing for it either, even the new DA.
    They don't want to follow the evidence; they know where it leads.
    They don't need to solve the case- they already have.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  10. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watching You View Post
    I'd just like to mention the touch DNA that Lacy used to clear Ramsey. Touch DNA is just that - you touch something, you can leave skin cells there. Had Lacy one operating brain cell, she would have reasoned to herself - if this DNA was transferred through touch DNA, isn't it also possible that the touch DNA got there from the hand of a person who had transfer touch DNA on her hands?
    Since the stager of the scene touched both the underwear and the longjohns, it is a likely scenario imo.
    The IDIs are currently having a field day with that touch DNA of course, claiming it was from 'skin cells'. True or false?
    Also, they claim it is unusual for DNA to leave nine markers if that DNA was deposed on the underwear during the manufacturing process through a cough or sneeze. True or false?
    I myself know very little about DNA - any help with these questions would be much appreciated. TIA.

  11. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    Since the stager of the scene touched both the underwear and the longjohns, it is a likely scenario imo.
    The IDIs are currently having a field day with that touch DNA of course, claiming it was from 'skin cells'. True or false?

    Not enough to tell

    Also, they claim it is unusual for DNA to leave nine markers if that DNA was deposed on the underwear during the manufacturing process through a cough or sneeze. True or false?

    FALSE! They had to use a replicating process just to get that many!

    I myself know very little about DNA - any help with these questions would be much appreciated. TIA.
    Hope I was of help
    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.

  12. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Punisher View Post
    Hope I was of help
    You sure were, TP!! Thanks so much.
    Does anyone know how that replicating process works?
    Last edited by rashomon; August 3, 2008, 5:47 pm at Sun Aug 3 17:47:51 UTC 2008.



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
  •