Page 7 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 73 to 84 of 237
  1. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Okay...let me put it another way: I MISUNDERSTOOD you to say that I had "seen" Van Zandt in PERSON.

    Sorry, I'm having problems communicating all the way round today.... :stupid1:
    Don't give it a second thought. I have my moments like that as well.
    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. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Here is the thread with the transcript of Nancy Grace's show discussing Lacy's colossal blunder of clearing the Ramseys because of the "touch" DNA. While the Bode scientist kept calling the "touch" DNA "skin cells", SHE IN FACT LATER STATED IT WAS "MOST LIKELY" SKIN, NOT THAT IT ABSOLUTELY IS FACTUALLY FROM SKIN CELLS:

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=9273



    "WE BELIEVE...MOST LIKELY...MAYBE..."? WHAT?!!

    What kind of CLEARING is going on here? I can't see how this scientist can speak repeatedly of this "touch" DNA being SKIN CELLS left when "touching" the longjohns, and then when asked POINT BLANK if they ARE in FACT skin cells, say "most likely", as if it's not important enough to be 100% POSITIVE WHEN A CHILD WAS MURDERED!

    It kind of seems to be THE WHOLE POINT!!

    But hey, ANY DISINFORMATION IN A STORM !!

    It's called "hedging your bets"
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  3. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    If you remember the movie "Jurassic Park" the premise was that DNA from the blood of dinosaurs was contained in the bodies of mosquitos trapped in fossilized amber. While the movie was fiction, the premise is correct in that DNA remains unchanged by death, even fossilization, no matter how much time has gone by.

    The fact that bone marrow recipients will forever have the DNA of the donor is very scary. Even though in court, the procedure would be noted, DNA evidence is increasingly used to link people to crimes. I know certain religions forbid such procedures, like blood transfusions, and maybe they are on to something!
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    While DNA is one of the most important scientific discoveries since human life began on this earth, it does have its problems. I personally think that as time goes by, both the advances in the uses of DNA and the problems will grow, proportionately.

    Many people believe that using DNA as a means of identification is the extent of what DNA can do. But, DNA is so much more important than just identification. The experiments scientists are conducting right now may someday (even soon) provide cures for all kinds of diseases, including cancer, which is really not one disease but many, and I think that is, and should be, the number one goal for scientists.

    On the negative side, however, that manipulation of genes in the wrong hands could produce some not-so-wonderful results. Also, as scientists get more knowledgeable in the uses of DNA, so will the criminals, because, just because one is a criminal doesn't mean he's not smart. Already, the criminals know how to plant DNA at a crime scene in order to cover up their own involvement.

    What most of us know about DNA is not much. Understanding DNA itself requires a lot of serious study about molecules, proteins, chromosomes, sequences....
    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---

  5. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AMES View Post
    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9833167


    "Touch DNA" a relatively new analysis
    An area a person might have briefly touched, such as clothing, is scraped for cells.
    By Steve Graff
    The Denver Post
    Article Last Updated: 07/09/2008 09:08:06 PM MDT


    Related Articles
    Jul 10:
    There's only one victim in the Ramsey case12-year-old murder case likely to top DA's legacyDA clears Ramsey familyJul 9:
    DA clears Ramsey familyThe fresh DNA evidence prosecutors say clears the Ramsey family in JonBenet's death was analyzed using a new process known as "touch DNA" testing.

    The name "touch DNA" reflects that investigators extract samples from only a few cells left behind by a person who briefly touched an object, such as clothing. Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy decided to pursue the new line of testing in August after learning DNA could be analyzed from areas where there was no observable stain or other indication of DNA.
    Forensic scientists from the Bode Technology Group, the lab that performed the DNA testing, scraped areas of JonBenet's long johns that investigators suggested would be where a person would touch if pulling down her pants.
    Bode informed the district attorney's office in October that genetic material had been identified off the long johns.

    That DNA matched the DNA earlier found on JonBenet's underpants.

    Bode has performed "touch DNA" testing for about three years.

    Linda Wheeler-Holloway, a former Fort Collins detective who became involved in the Tim Masters DNA-based exoneration case, said she and DNA forensic specialists Richard and Selma Eikelenboom of Holland presented "touch DNA" testing to the Boulder County district attorney's office in October 2006.

    The district attorney's office never followed up, according to Wheeler-Holloway. Until Wednesday, she was unaware that Boulder County had pursued such a method.

    "We were hoping the Boulder DA office would try it," Wheeler-Holloway said. "That is the best technology to use to solve that case."

    Steve Graff: 303-954-1661 or sgraff@denverpost.com

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If they can scrape areas of JB's longjohns for touch DNA...then they can scrape....the broken paintbrush, the cord, the spoon, the blanket that she was wrapped in, the shirt that she was wearing, her bed sheets, the Barbie Nightgown that was found with her body, the ransom note, the sharpie pen used to write the ransom note, the remaining size 12 panties that the Ramsey's finally turned over after more than a year.....ETC...ETC...ETC....

    If the "intruder" left touch DNA on her panties...and on her long johns...places that he supposedly touched long enough to pull down, and to pull back up again...then you know that there is "touch DNA" left all over the things that he touched for a longer period of time. The pen, the RN, the garotte...etc. Wendy Murphy...I challenge you to test THESE THINGS TOO!
    I have Wendy on the brain, LOL..I MEANT MARY LACY!!!! Geesh! I tried to edit but it wouldn't let me.

  6. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    Has any info been released about Patsy's or John's DNA being found on the longjohns also?
    Of course it would be 'normal' for at least Patsy's DNA to be there (and even John's since he carried the dead body upstairs), but supppose Patsy's DNA was found in exactly the same location as the foreign DNA, then wouldn't this support a transfer theory (= she as the stager of the scene touched the DNA in the underwear and transferred it to the longjohns)?
    Haven't heard a thing, BUT...the process used for touch DNA totally destroys or removes "irrelevant" DNA. My guess would be that Patsy or John Ramsey's touch DNA would be "irrelevant", and therefore destroyed in the process of getting the "relevant" touch DNA that belonged to the "intruder". How CONVENIENT!

  7. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AMES View Post
    I have Wendy on the brain, LOL..I MEANT MARY LACY!!!! Geesh! I tried to edit but it wouldn't let me.
    I just did it for you.

    After so many minutes have gone by, only mods can edit a post.

  8. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    I just did it for you.

    After so many minutes have gone by, only mods can edit a post.
    Thanks Cher!

    LOL..yeah, I posted that DAYS and DAYS ago, so no wonder I couldn't edit. I had never tried to edit something that old before, so I didn't realize that only the Mods could do it after many minutes had gone by. Thanks again, you are a real sweetheart!! I should have noticed that HUGE, HUGE mistake..but, evidently it slipped right by me. That's what I get for not proof reading my own posts.

  9. #81

    Default

    Yes, thanks so much, Chero, for joining these threads.

    Ames, proof reading doesn't always work, either. It's because you know what you "meant", so when you read it, you put in the thought rather than the words. And if the "thought" had Mary Lacy's name mixed up with Murphy's, proof reading wouldn't necessarily have caught it. I proof read my posts to death, and yet sometimes I go back and read and there is a GLARING error. Sheesh.

    Topix forum is really hard, because I can't catch my errors in that little "post" box all the time. Only when it's in the larger format of the post do I see the mistakes. Too late!

    "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.

  10. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AMES View Post
    Haven't heard a thing, BUT...the process used for touch DNA totally destroys or removes "irrelevant" DNA. My guess would be that Patsy or John Ramsey's touch DNA would be "irrelevant", and therefore destroyed in the process of getting the "relevant" touch DNA that belonged to the "intruder". How CONVENIENT!

    The problem with this whole "clearing" based on this "touch" DNA, as I see it, is that it's entirely plausible that the "killer" got that "unsourced" DNA on his/her hands from the Bloomies when pulling them down or up, or from the paintbrush if that's where it came from, wherever, and then pulled the longjohns back up, leaving the few cells of "unsourced" DNA on them. That could have been done wearing gloves, as well!

    So how does this "touch" DNA NAME who really put those cells there? It can't. And that's why this is just another RST propaganda cycle. It's like Judge Carnes stating that the "footprints" in the cellar room were left there AROUND THE TIME OF THE MURDER! HOW DOES SHE KNOW THAT? Last I heard, you can't DATE a FOOTPRINT just because it's there. Carnes totally missed that, AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION IT BELONGED TO THE INTRUDER!

    I swear, I believed once upon a time we had educated, competent, and ethical LE in this country. How naive was I?

    When Mary Lacy CLEARS ALL THE OTHER SUSPECTS IN THIS CASE BASED ON THIS "TOUCH" DNA, then maybe I'll at least believe she's not just another RAMSEY SHILL! Ain't gonna' happen, though, is it?

    "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. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    The problem with this whole "clearing" based on this "touch" DNA, as I see it, is that it's entirely plausible that the "killer" got that "unsourced" DNA on his/her hands from the Bloomies when pulling them down or up, or from the paintbrush if that's where it came from, wherever, and then pulled the longjohns back up, leaving the few cells of "unsourced" DNA on them. That could have been done wearing gloves, as well!

    So how does this "touch" DNA NAME who really put those cells there? It can't. And that's why this is just another RST propaganda cycle. It's like Judge Carnes stating that the "footprints" in the cellar room were left there AROUND THE TIME OF THE MURDER! HOW DOES SHE KNOW THAT? Last I heard, you can't DATE a FOOTPRINT just because it's there. Carnes totally missed that, AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION IT BELONGED TO THE INTRUDER!

    I swear, I believed once upon a time we had educated, competent, and ethical LE in this country. How naive was I?

    When Mary Lacy CLEARS ALL THE OTHER SUSPECTS IN THIS CASE BASED ON THIS "TOUCH" DNA, then maybe I'll at least believe she's not just another RAMSEY SHILL! Ain't gonna' happen, though, is it?
    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.

  12. #84

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Yes, thanks so much, Chero, for joining these threads.

    Ames, proof reading doesn't always work, either. It's because you know what you "meant", so when you read it, you put in the thought rather than the words. And if the "thought" had Mary Lacy's name mixed up with Murphy's, proof reading wouldn't necessarily have caught it. I proof read my posts to death, and yet sometimes I go back and read and there is a GLARING error. Sheesh.

    Topix forum is really hard, because I can't catch my errors in that little "post" box all the time. Only when it's in the larger format of the post do I see the mistakes. Too late!
    LOL..but NOBODY and I mean NOBODY...mixes up Wendy Murphy's name with Mary Lacy. That is...well....its just a sin. The M's must have had me confused...along with my 8 month old screaming her lungs out. Yeah, I will just blame it on her, she is little...she won't know the difference. So...its all HER fault.



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
  •