Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 237
  1. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    You sure were, TP!! Thanks so much.
    Does anyone know how that replicating process works?
    It extrapolates what the full profile might look like. They're called "shadow bands."
    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.

  2. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    I am currently wading through an excellent article about DNA. Everyone's DNA has repeats which enables them to project a full profile from a fragment. According to the article, unfortunately, not everyone's repeats are the same length so I think there is an error margin involved in this process.

    This is the article:-

    http://www.cs.wright.edu/itri/EVENTS...C03-Krane2.PDF
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  3. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Punisher View Post
    Hope I was of help
    According to the article that I've been reading (link provided in previous post):-

    Moreover, these identity claims can be misleading because they imply that there could be no alternative explanation for the “match,” such as laboratory error, and they ignore the fact that close relatives are far more likely to have matching profiles than unrelated individuals. They can also be misleading in that the DNA tests themselves are powerless to provide any insight into the circumstances under which the sample was deposited and are generally unable to determine the type of tissue that was involved.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  4. #40

    Default

    Thanks, Jay, for the article link.

    The following bears repeating for those who do not understand DNA; specifically

    Boulder DA Mary Lacy

    and others who would exhonerate the Ramseys based on pathetic and unscientific claims regarding DNA.

    "Moreover, these identity claims can be misleading because they imply that there could be no alternative explanation for the “match,” such as laboratory error, and they ignore the fact that close relatives are far more likely to have matching profiles than unrelated individuals.

    They can also be misleading in that the DNA tests themselves are powerless to provide any insight into the circumstances under which the sample was deposited and are generally unable to determine the type of tissue that was involved."

  5. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    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?
    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.
    For whatever it's worth, the IDIs don't have the sense to come in out of a good hard rain. It would NOT be unusual for DNA to leave only nine markers if that DNA got on the underwear during the manufacturing process. In fact, it would be MORE unusual for an intruder to leave only 9 markers, since the DNA should have been as fresh as JB's DNA - it was, after all and according to the IDIs - left the same time as JB's. DNA left on the underwear during the manufacturing process would stand more chance of leaving only 9 markers than the intruder's DNA. Logically, that is. But, whoever accused the IDI(ots) of using logic.
    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. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Don't know if this has been discussed already:-

    However, others — including some in law enforcement — don’t believe the new evidence completely clears the Ramseys.

    No free pass
    “Right now we don’t have the DNA of a killer. We have DNA that is unidentified and we don’t know how it got on this child’s underwear,” criminal profiler Clint Van Zandt told TODAY’s Natalie Morales in a separate interview. Noting that the chief of police in Boulder has refused to clear any suspects despite the new evidence, Van Zandt added, “It’s too quick to give anybody a free pass on this.”

    MSNBC’s senior legal analyst, Susan Filan, interviewed with Van Zandt, agreed with his assessment that many involved in the investigation remain unconvinced. “There are still some people very, very close to the case, both in law enforcement and in the prosecution’s office, who do not think this ‘touch DNA’ evidence is the ultimate exoneration,” she told Morales.

    A critical and objective review of everything that’s been written about the case doesn’t help. “There’s been so much written about the JonBenet Ramsey murder, and you can read everything there is to read and still come down 50-50,” she said.
    http://rss.msnbc.msn.com/id/25619141/
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  7. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles View Post
    Don't know if this has been discussed already:-



    http://rss.msnbc.msn.com/id/25619141/

    I have to post this at Topix. I hope that is okay. Thank you Darlin.

  8. #44

    Default

    Thanks, Jayelles. That Pam Paugh is hilarious! And oblivious. Here, she actually BERATES TEAM RAMSEY...and most certainly, SELF-APPOINTED "Internet reporter" JAMS...if unintentionally.

    Patsy's sister, Pam Paugh:

    “That has been a second tragedy all and of its own,” Paugh said, referring to the media reports. “I think in addressing the court of public opinion, I also must first address the media, because there are those unscrupulous journalists out there who write their name down as a journalist, and yet they report innuendo as though it were fact, from unnamed sources, from supposed leaks close to the investigation. That’s not factual truth.”
    And once again, to the RELATIVES of JonBenet, IT'S ALL ABOUT POOR, PITIFUL JOHN AND PATSY.... Pam hardly musters the idea that maybe JonBenet should be mentioned in the HORRIBLE INJUSTICE done to the Ramseys! Oh, poor Patsy and John! How typical. We've been listening to the Ramseys and their shills for 11 years now WHINING about how they've been wronged by suspicions and the media! WHINE WHINE WHINE. But they NEVER take responsibility for OBSTRUCTING THE INVESTIGATION FROM DAY ONE! And they are so APATHETIC about that old "intruder" they seldom think to BLAME THE KILLER.

    They should be deeply ashamed. But they're too proud for that. Nope, nothing like taking responsibility for THEIR CULPABILITY IN ALL THIS ever crosses their minds. I'd ONCE like to hear ONE RST shill say, Well, MAYBE if John and Patsy HAD COOPERATED WITH LE ALL ALONG, the KILLER would have been identified. MAYBE if John and Patsy hadn't played HIDE AND SEEK with the LE INVESTIGATORS, they'd have been CLEARED and the investigation COULD have moved on.

    Of course, I believe that would have led to the case being solved: and one or both of them was up to their necks in it, IMO. ANYONE being OBJECTIVE can see that by NOT HELPING LE FIND THE KILLER, but going on TV the day after they buried JonBenet and answering a REPORTER'S QUESTIONS FOR HOURS, the Ramseys brought suspicion on their OWN heads. By refusing to even be interviewed by LE for FOUR MONTHS and then only with a two hour each time limit and questions PRE-QUALIFIED--NO POLYGRAPHS, either, so don't ASK--the Ramseys put THEMSELVES into the PRIME SUSPECT AND PUBLIC FIGURE category. THEY ALONE BEAR THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

    But never expect the RST to admit THAT. It's always EVERYONE ELSE'S FAULT...except, of course, THE KILLER'S....

    "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.

  9. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    What about this Clint van Zandt person. Does he have a sound reputation? It's not a name I'm familiar with.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  10. #46

    Default

    Yes, Clindt Van Zandt is a former FBI profiler, and he's quite good. He's been commenting on this case since the murder. He knows it well.

    http://www.threatlink.com/about/ourpresident.htm

    "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.

  11. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles View Post
    What about this Clint van Zandt person. Does he have a sound reputation? It's not a name I'm familiar with.
    He is a profiler. I thought he was FBI.

  12. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Yes, Clindt Van Zandt is a former FBI profiler, and he's quite good. He's been commenting on this case since the murder.
    I've not read anything he's written before, but he does seem to be quite well respected. I did like this advice for hostages:-

    Eat what you are given, when you are given it.

    Sleep when you can and as much as you can.

    Take every opportunity to exercise, even if it’s just isometrics from a sitting or prone position.

    Record a mental picture of your surroundings and commit everything you can to memory: for example, the physical description of your captors.

    Keep a positive outlook: keep up your basic hygiene by taking a bath or shower if given the opportunity.

    Thank your guards if they show you even the smallest kindness. Try not to demonstrate disapproval at their harsh treatment.

    Keep conversation with your captors light and on the surface. Avoid topics such as political views which could agitate your captors.

    Remain calm.
    I think this is also pretty sound advice for anyone who is suffering from stress/trauma or a stress/trauma related illness (substituting "guards" for just "others").

    http://www.cbn.com/700club/guests/bi...ndt110206.aspx
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission



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
  •