Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 237
  1. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zoomama View Post
    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.

    Aw, thanks for your kind words, Zoomama.

    I don't know how anyone can be brought to trial, however. In spite of the Ramsey spin, there is always one ace up the sleeve ANY defense attorney would play PDQ: Patsy wrote the note. Even if one thinks that's only "possible" based on the handwriting and linguistics, "POSSIBLE" is REASONABLE DOUBT all day long. What DA in Boulder is going to indict and hold a trial which would cost the citizens of Boulder MILLIONS, would bring that media frenzy back to Boulder, and would last longer than OJ's trial, when that ransom note will always be reasonable doubt for ANY defendant...but Patsy. She, unfortunately, will never have to answer in a court of law for writing that note.

    "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.

  2. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    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:



    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....
    Lets not miss the opportunity to note that Pam Paugh was none other than the BPD guest Uniformed bandit who loaded up the police car with her evidence list of must not forget items for attending the funeral such as golf club and at that forgot sister socks and they couldnt hardly shut the tunk lid and as the vehicle drove off the only sound was get me to Mc D's and pay for it!! Chop Chop !!

  3. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coloradokares View Post
    Lets not miss the opportunity to note that Pam Paugh was none other than the BPD guest Uniformed bandit who loaded up the police car with her evidence list of must not forget items for attending the funeral such as golf club and at that forgot sister socks and they couldnt hardly shut the tunk lid and as the vehicl drove off the only sound as get me to Mc D's and pay for it!! Chop Chop !!
    Oh, lord yes, let's not forget that Aunt Pam is up to her double chin in destroying evidence at the crime scene. I don't know if Pam knew what she was doing, but she said "Patsy has her VICTORY" when Patsy died, and that is really wicked any way you look at it. I'm positive John and Patsy are eternally grateful to Aunt Pam.

    "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.

  4. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    I've been Googling more van Zandt and the more I read, the more I like this man:-

    On the John Mark Karr spectacle:-

    "My whole message those two weeks was caution--show me where he has ever encountered her in his life, show me where he knew the name JonBenet Ramsey before Dec. 24, 1996," Van Zandt said.
    On John Mark Karr:-

    the wall-to-wall coverage was a dream come true for John Mark Karr.

    "He has achieved stardom," said Van Zandt, a Spotsylvania County resident and former FBI profiler. "In his darkest, happiest dreams, he has done what he wanted to do--forever linked his name with JonBenet Ramsey."

    Karr had long fantasized he was involved with the child, and found millions all too anxious to hear details--even imaginary ones--about her murder.
    (This is precisely what I said about JMK. Why I stopped reading the DoubleBB when they gave him the time of day and had him post there, why I condemned the posters who joined his forum.)

    On the handwriting "expert" who proclaimed that JMK's handwriting was a match for the ransom note:-

    During one MSNBC show, Van Zandt openly mocked a supposed handwriting expert who said he was "110 percent" sure Karr was the killer, based on his examination of a faxed copy of the ransom note.

    Van Zandt said he bit his lip and thought, "How can I deal with this without saying, 'You're crazy as a loon--you're talking voodooism.'"

    He told the TV audience there is no way a serious opinion could be offered on whether Karr's handwriting is a match without an examination of original documents. He said some of the "experts" who had Karr convicted "have disqualified themselves for life."
    On himself:-

    He said that before he goes on the air, he constantly reminds himself not to fall into that kind of trap.

    "You're gonna get my opinion," he said, but that's all it is when you don't have all the information the police have.

    He never forgets that.

    "If I'm not careful, I can get sucked in," he said. "I'm responsible for the words that come out of my mouth."

    And Van Zandt said he believes getting "sucked in" can be dangerous, not just to his own reputation, but to the public.
    Awesome.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  5. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default van Zandt on the ransom note

    From the WIki (KK you never mentioned you'd seen the guy)

    FBI Profile. Internet poster koldkase saw retired FBI agent Clint van Zandt answer questions on a book tour. In responding to questions, he asserted that he had been one of several FBI agents asked by LE to work up a profile of the RN writer. He claimed that within a couple of weeks after the murder, they had determined the RN writer was a well-educated female between the ages of 29 and 40 who knew the family and knew the home well; they further deduced that JonBenet was already dead when the RN was written. The caring and nurturing language in the note--"be well rested," etc. helped convince them the writer was female.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  6. #54

    Default

    For what it's worth, Mum always thought Pam did it. (I think Mum was a little crazy at the end, RIP)
    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.

  7. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Some RSTers are getting in a wad about the article whose link I posted above. MArgoo and Athena have both been dismissive of it. Athena says it uses information from 1999-2001. Actually, although it may reference papers from 1999 and 2001, it was written in 2003. It is perfectly common for academic papers to reference much earlier papers if they are still relevant.

    Margoo is dismissive of the authors saying that Dan Krane is the only one who seems to have a credible science based accreditation (more).

    They both point out that the article was written for the benefit of legal defence counsels.... as though that somehow undermines its relevance! LOL

    Margoo has never claimed to be a DNA expert but she has over the years posted a lot of articles about DNA and there are some who believe that she IS some kind of expert (Mame for one). Some posters at Sycamore have recently challenged Margoo's authority on DNA and rather sneakily, although she isn't claiming to be an expert, she refuses to deny it either and even makes compelling (and typically condescending/pompous) statements like this:-

    It has been very difficult discussing the DNA information over the years with a broad range of readers - from those who have zero or next to zero understanding on out. The terms of reference are constantly having to be adjusted to create a "language" of sorts in order to 'communicate' with those who don't research the subject (and at times, it just loses a lot in the translation). I've seen a LOT of comments about the DNA that are so far out in left field, they're not even in the same universe let alone the same ballpark as the "facts" of DNA. OTOH I'm VERY IMPRESSED with those who have taken the time to learn something, but it's also very difficult to let pass the ridiculous comments that just are NOT based on anything factual.
    The thing about *real* experts is that they have the ability to do two things:-

    1) explain things in simple terms
    2) evaluate someone else's explanation

    If Margoo was an expert on DNA, she wouldn't have dismissed the article outright. Instead she would have stated WHY it is to be dismissed and not just because it had been written for a legal defence counsel or because she couldn't find accreditation for some of the authors! She would have challenged the actual statements and told us if and why they are incorrect.

    The mere fact that it was written for legal defence counsels speaks for its relevance to the Ramsey case - not its irrelevance. Also, the fact that it was written for LAYMEN should speak for it's relevance for us on the forums. These facts seem to be missed by Margoo and Athena - both of whom are good at copying and pasting article but not necessarily at analysing them and discussing them.

    In fact, since this article was written for the benefit of the legal profession, some of the authors are likely to be legal experts. The significant expert amongst the authors is, (as Margoo did glean) Dan Krane and he really IS an expert on DNA. He is a world renowned expert on DNA and travels the world lecturing on the subject. In fact, if Margoo herself was an expert, she wouldn't have had to look him up - she'd surely have heard of him! As a result of his expertise, he was called in to work on high profile cases such as the Madeleine McCann case and others.

    Not only that, he seems to be a thoroughly nice guy and has gained a reputation amongst the students at the unversity where he is based for explaining things in nice simple terms (something I'd noticed myself in the article).

    Athena challenged the statement that they are:-

    generally unable to determine the type of tissue that was
    involved.
    saying that:-

    Significant advancements in the technology of DNA have occurred since then INCLUDING identifying the biological components of saliva v skin cells. People have been convicted because because of the saliva found on the victim because they were bitten.
    But that isn't at odds with the statement in the article! The article doesn't say they can't tell the difference between saliva cells and skin cells!

    In fact, they have most liekly been able to tell the difference between them under the microscope for longer than DNA has been around. Saliva contains cells called epithelial cells which are different in construction to the cells we shed from our skin. I found medical papers discussing epithelial cells dating back to the 1960s and 70s so I don't think this is a new development since 2003. However, DNA can be found from many sources - DNA is contained in blood, semen, skin cells, tissue, organs, muscle, brain cells, bone, teeth, hair, saliva, mucus, perspiration, fingernails, urine, feces.

    Incidentally, epithelial cells are also present in the urinary tract and in the rectum and other internal organs. Can they tell the diffrerence between epitheilial cells from urine and those from saliva without resorting to other types of tests?

    (Dan Krane has also written a nice easy to follow powerpoint presentation on this too! )

    I strongly suspect that Margoo is not an expert on DNA. Not only does she NOT attempt to counter other peoples' "misconceptions" about DNA with simple explanations as an expert COULD do, but I also remember her posting once on a thread at the doubleBB and she didn't know or believe that we leave our DNA all over the place. I remember that Why-Nut thoroughly showed her up on her lack of basic understanding of DNA transfer and she had a major meltdown.

    I think she might have a relative who works in a lab or something (but then again, when push comes to shove, she'll always be able to say that she never actually said she was an expert!).
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  8. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watching You View Post
    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.

    The fact that JonBenét was washed down and redressed after she was dead, I was just wondering WY if JonBenét's DNA still produced the same results as when she was alive (?).
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  9. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Jayelles, getting into the ephithelium is like opening a can of worms. Here's a pretty good explanation of ephithelia cells. This refers to animals, but it describes humans, too.

    Epithelium
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Types of epitheliumIn biology and medicine, epithelium is a tissue composed of layers of cells that line the cavities and surfaces of structures throughout the body. It is also the type of tissue of which many glands are formed. Epithelium lines both the outside (skin) and the inside cavities and lumen of bodies. The outermost layer of our skin is composed of dead stratified squamous, keratinized epithelial cells.

    Mucous membranes lining the inside of the mouth, the oesophagus, and part of the rectum are lined by nonkeratinized stratified squamous epithelium. Other, open to outside body cavities are lined by simple squamous or columnar epithelial cells.

    Other epithelial cells line the insides of the lungs, the gastrointestinal tract, the reproductive and urinary tracts, and make up the exocrine and endocrine glands. The outer surface of the cornea is covered with fast-growing, easily-regenerated epithelial cells.

    Functions of epithelial cells include secretion, absorption, protection, transcellular transport, sensation detection, and selective permeability.

    Endothelium (the inner lining of blood vessels, the heart, and lymphatic vessels) is a specialized form of epithelium. Another type, mesothelium, forms the walls of the pericardium, pleurae, and peritoneum.

    In humans, epithelium is classified as a primary body tissue, the other ones being connective tissue, muscle tissue and nervous tissue. Epithelium is often defined by the expression of the adhesion molecule e-cadherin, as opposed to n-cadherin, which is used by cells of the connective tissue.
    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. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles View Post
    From the WIki (KK you never mentioned you'd seen the guy)

    Gosh, Jayelles, so THAT'S why SuperDave thought I had "seen" Van Zandt.

    Obviously, I saw Van Zandt on TV. I have a fuzzy recollection, now that it's been brought to my attention TWICE that I "saw" Van Zandt during his book tour. The problem is--11+ years. I've seen and read so much on this case by now, my brain reached critical mass on this topic about two years ago, and now I don't remember half what I once knew, saw, or read.

    What I'm THINKING happened is while channel surfing one night, I came across Van Zandt on a channel that used to have authors speaking during their book tours. I saw some very interesting authors on that channel. It was at a book store located near Washington, DC, I'm thinking, but honestly, it's been so long, and I haven't seen this particular "special events" program in years. I don't think they do that program anymore. It was kind of like public televistion...maybe the channel that aired Congressional hearings and speeches and such?

    Anyhow, SuperDave brought this up when I joined WS a few weeks ago, and he seemed to think I actually "saw" Van Zandt in the flesh, as well, so...I must have not been clear on that point. Much to my embarrassment. This is why I write such loooooooong posts...trying to be VERY CLEAR. heh Obviously, I failed on this one.

    Hm. Now I want to find that post I made....

    "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. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    This guy Dan Krane seems to excel at explaining DNA in understandable terms. I'm wading through papers and presentations he has written. There's one on DNA degradation!

    http://www.bioforensics.com/downloads/index.html
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  12. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles View Post
    Athena challenged the statement that they are:-

    Quote:
    generally unable to determine the type of tissue that was
    involved.
    saying that:-


    Quote:
    Significant advancements in the technology of DNA have occurred since then INCLUDING identifying the biological components of saliva v skin cells. People have been convicted because because of the saliva found on the victim because they were bitten.

    But that isn't at odds with the statement in the article! The article doesn't say they can't tell the difference between saliva cells and skin cells!
    The scientist who DID the "touch" DNA test said HERSELF that the DNA was "most likely" from skin. Which is just another way of saying SHE DIDN'T KNOW, THEY HAVE NO PROOF OF THE ACTUAL ORIGIN, other than it didn't come from semen or blood.

    I strongly suspect that Margoo is not an expert on DNA. Not only does she NOT attempt to counter other peoples' "misconceptions" about DNA with simple explanations as an expert COULD do, but I also remember her posting once on a thread at the doubleBB and she didn't know or believe that we leave our DNA all over the place. I remember that Why-Nut thoroughly showed her up on her lack of basic understanding of DNA transfer and she had a major meltdown.

    I think she might have a relative who works in a lab or something (but then again, when push comes to shove, she'll always be able to say that she never actually said she was an expert!).
    Margoo is typical RST, and no wonder maimed loves her DISINFORMATION so much. Maimed doesn't have the IQ to fathom that there is a difference between civil and criminal law, so how could she possibly go beyond what she's "been told"? Margoo gives her the source maimed needs for that when arguing for the child sex ring. Margoo and maimed are fully willing to argue stupid positions, twisting, warping, or just disclaiming information, all to support their "intruder" as such and the Ramseys as so wronged.

    "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
  •