Results 13 to 24 of 40
-
July 28, 2008, 1:08 pm, Mon Jul 28 13:08:44 UTC 2008 #13
Here we go, I'll tackle this little by little as time permits. For anyone who isn't familiar with Louisadelmar/Tipper, she has posted on the forums for years and is very good at producing references - I will give her that. However, although terribly sweet on the forums, what she says in private and what she says publicly aren't always the same thing and she did show her true colours recently at Crimelibrary.
I lost respect for Tipper when she made a post at Websleuths claiming that she had no axe to grind and that she was unbiased. In fact, she defends the Ramseys to the hilt to the point of lacking reason and so she is either wearing a pair of blinkers which she is unaware of or she is playing a rather devious game. Either way, I would place her in the top ten RST members of all time :-)
Now to her attack on this journalist:-
1)First, we must question how reliable the DNA testing that was recently performed is. It was done through a private lab and is fairly new. The FBI DNA database, CODIS, is compiled of DNA from local, state, and federal labs. As Atlanta District Attorney Eleanor Dixon pointed out, it is unknown if this could even be admissible in court. It was sufficiently admissible to get an innocent boy released from a life sentence.
Tipper conveniently doesn't cite the case in question so that we can look at it, but it should be pointed out that an incomplete set of markers may be enough to get someone off the hook but still not be enough to incriminate them. That has been stated all along in the Ramsey case. If there are markers in the incomplete sample which do NOT match a person - it will be exculpatory. However, if all of the markers in the incomplete sample match the suspect, it wouldn't be enough on its own to incriminate them because it might be that the missing markers were NOT a match.
In fact, I have been studying some rather interesting articles from the New Scientist and other equally respectable sources today about "familial checking" of DNA. Quite a few cold cases have been solved recently because although a perp is NOT on the DNA database, a relative is - a relative with whom they share common DNA markers. The relative is NOT a match, but close enough to suggest that they are related to the person who owns the DNA. This scenario alone tells us that an incomplete sample of DNA will not be enough to incriminate someone in the absence of other evidence because relatives can share a significant percentage of their DNA profile. What if that was all that existed in a partial sample? They wouldn't be able to tell which family member "did it"!
So, bottom line, the only thing that Stacy D could be legitimately criticised for here would be if DA Eleanor Dixon did NOT say what Stacy D claims she said. Either way, it doesn't seem as though she's being accredited with false information!
Therefore, it seems as though this was simply a snide remark for the sake of it so....
Stacy D 1 Tipper 0Last edited by Cherokee; July 28, 2008, 4:02 pm at Mon Jul 28 16:02:59 UTC 2008. Reason: highlight score
This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission
-
July 28, 2008, 1:14 pm, Mon Jul 28 13:14:24 UTC 2008 #14
Love this one:-
Next, we have the initial DNA sample taken from the underwear at the time of JonBenét's murder. It was described by the Boulder DA's office as a significant blood sample. Not so, says forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee. The amount of the sample was so minute on the brand new underwear JonBenét was wearing, that it could have possibly come from the manufacturer itself. Did you take DNA samples from everyone at the manufacturing company, Mary? Both Elvis and I believe, Lonesomepolecat have addressed this.
Was this worthy of a comment? Not sure because Tipper doesn't elaborate on what she means. Is she saying that she, Elvis and LPC have already asked the questions that Stacy D is asking... or that they have already answered Stacy D's question?
In either case, what IS Tipper's point? Does she think that Stacy D has no right to reiterate something that has already been addressed on the forums?
Stacy D 2 Tipper 0Last edited by Cherokee; July 28, 2008, 4:03 pm at Mon Jul 28 16:03:15 UTC 2008. Reason: highlight & correct score ;-)
This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission
-
July 28, 2008, 2:22 pm, Mon Jul 28 14:22:55 UTC 2008 #15
Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Posts
- 517
-
July 28, 2008, 2:52 pm, Mon Jul 28 14:52:04 UTC 2008 #16
OK, moving on.
The following is where I take the biggest issue. As we all know, the initial investigation into the murder was comparable to a street carnival. No sense of order or evidence preservation commenced in this "panic." Once the body of JonBenét was located by her father (pictured right), the body was handed off and touched by approximately three or four people before it was secured and evidence preserved. John and Patsy had two couples and their minister in the home by the time police arrived.
I'm curious. Did each and every one of these people submit DNA samples? Patsy admittedly pulled up JonBenét 's long johns prior to the arrival of law enforcement. Yes, she pulled them up the night before when she changed JonBenet into the longjohns. Did this woman attend the Steve Thomas School of Misleading Phraseology?
SD>>The following is where I take the biggest issue.
SD>>As we all know, the initial investigation into the murder was comparable to a street carnival. No sense of order or evidence preservation commenced in this "panic."
SD>>Once the body of JonBenét was located by her father (pictured right), the body was handed off and touched by approximately three or four people before it was secured and evidence preserved.
1) John Ramsey himself when he carried it upstairs
2) Linda Arndt when she moved it
3) PatsyRamsey when she threw herself upon it
ANyone else? That's at least three - Stacy D says "approximately 3 or 4" - I'd say that was pretty accurate.
SD>>John and Patsy had two couples and their minister in the home by the time police arrived.
SD>>I'm curious. Did each and every one of these people submit DNA samples?
SD>>Patsy admittedly pulled up JonBenét 's long johns prior to the arrival of law enforcement.
Tipper>>Yes, she pulled them up the night before when she changed JonBenet into the longjohns. Did this woman attend the Steve Thomas School of Misleading Phraseology?
So - a better question would be "Did Tipper attend the Susan Bennett aka jameson School of Misleading Phraseology?" (It must surely be the finest in the land).
FTR - On many, many occasions I have responded to Tipper on the forums pointing out to her how misleading HER posts have been - how she has omitted a significant part of a quote or left out an important counter argument.
(Moab - could this be added to the smilie collection please)
Stacy D 3 Tipper 0Last edited by Cherokee; July 28, 2008, 4:03 pm at Mon Jul 28 16:03:28 UTC 2008. Reason: highlight & correct score ;-)
This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission
-
July 28, 2008, 4:44 pm, Mon Jul 28 16:44:46 UTC 2008 #17
Chero
Thanks for editing the scores. I hadn't actually been keeping a running total - it was just a facetious "comment" on each point - but yours is a better idea.
Also good to see that Margoo has been reading my posts about familial DNA either here or at CL where I made several posts earlier. She's started a thread about it at Sycamore - maybe some of her buds will take it more seriously now that it's coming from one of their ownThis is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission
-
July 28, 2008, 9:45 pm, Mon Jul 28 21:45:09 UTC 2008 #18
Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- In the Federal Witness Protection Program
- Posts
- 1,311
PR admitted in her depos to dressing JBR in the long johns after getting home that night. JR reports carrying her to her bed and taking off her shoes, and leaving PR to "take care of the rest" as she usually did. PR then says that she couldn't find the pink pajamas from the night before, so she got the long johns and pulled them on her. That much isn't in dispute. If the DNA on the long johns is skin cells, PR could easily have gotten them on her own hand at the party, all it takes is a handshake. If she hadn't washed her hands after that (and she or her kids weren't known to be especially into cleanliness) those skin cells and subsequent DNA could have been transferred to the waistband of those longjohns.
What I'd like is to see that DNA matched against all the males of any age at the party, and also any males at the homes the Rs stopped at on the way home. There could be a very innocent explanation for that DNA and Lacy knows that very well.This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
-
July 29, 2008, 5:00 am, Tue Jul 29 5:00:42 UTC 2008 #19It'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.
-
July 29, 2008, 5:18 am, Tue Jul 29 5:18:10 UTC 2008 #20
Excellent! Many thanks.
This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission
-
July 30, 2008, 10:05 am, Wed Jul 30 10:05:50 UTC 2008 #21
OK, Louisa's big brave friends are over at Topix posting under anonymous hats and using anonymous servers accusing me of being a coward because I'm posting snide comments about this here under the protection of FFJ (just like Louisa/Tipper posted her snide comments at Sycamore under the protection of Athena/JustMe? LOL) How awful of me, addressing snide spin with snide FACTS.
Nevertheless, since Louisa/Tipper's friend seems to want more - here we go.
(Tipper's comments in red)
December 25, 1996 10:00 p.m. - John Ramsey is the last person in the family to see JonBenét alive. She was "on her bed." No. Patsy was the last to see her. Where does this woman get her information?
Tipper is right (even if she had to be snide about it).
December 26, 1996 05:52 a.m. - Patsy Ramsey wakes up, walks downstairs and finds a ransom note claiming to have kidnapped her daughter. The note claims she is being watched and not to call the police or JonBenét would be killed. Without hesitation, Patsy calls the police. Again, No. Patsy did several things before calling 911.
Here Tipper acts obtuse in interpreting Stacy D's words. She presents it as though Stacy D means that Patsy found the note and immediately - i.e. without hesitation - called 911. Of course, in reading Stacy D's words, it is clear that in saying "without hesitation", Stacy D is referring to the note's instructions not to call police and NOT to Patsy's sequence of actions. By all accounts, the Ramseys did not hesitate in calling the police - i.e. hestitate because of the threats in the ransom note that Jonbenet would be beheaded if they did.
Stacy D's account of this is accurate. Tipper's snide and classic :spin: almost certainly intended to detract from the FACT that the Ramseys didn't stop to consider the threats in the ransom note before calling over friends and police and not even asking them to be discreet!This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission
-
July 30, 2008, 10:48 am, Wed Jul 30 10:48:10 UTC 2008 #22find it "off the beaten" path that a highly organized group of kidnappers seeking money would resort to low-grade child rape and murder. Or, on the flip side, a low-grade child rapist who has the "kahunas" to perform the rape and murder inside the home taking a high and probable risk of getting caught.
Kidnappers don't stay in the house for hours after they kidnap the victim in order to rape and kill the victim.
You know, all these years later, after millions of posts on the subject, just the thought of what this "kidnapper" was supposed to have done (climb through a small basement window, take her from her bed and two floors down to the basement, sexually assault, bash her in the head, and strangle her - all without leaving fibers, hairs, DNA, fingerprints) just seems even more ludicrous. How could anyone be so stupid as to believe any of this stuff, and where are the professionals who could stop it? Why do they continue to be silent and protect the participants of one of the biggest farces in the history of crime? Is there no one powerful enough who will step up to the plate and end this travesty of justice? Is there no honor left in this country?
Future true crime buffs will read about the JonBenet case, some day, and they will shake their heads in disbelief at the incompetence and corruption evident in the case. They will also ask, why didn't anyone stop Mary Lacy and her thugs? I can tell them - it's because our public officials who could have stopped Lacy were all Gutless Wonders who should have been run out of office. And, because a six-year-old child's murder became a nuisance to the people of Boulder who should have been screaming bloody murder for the truth.
Anyone who thinks our justice system isn't broke and corrupt is crazy.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---
-
July 30, 2008, 1:17 pm, Wed Jul 30 13:17:05 UTC 2008 #23
Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Posts
- 517
-
July 30, 2008, 1:35 pm, Wed Jul 30 13:35:25 UTC 2008 #24
Here's an old favourite piece of :spin: - in fact, it will identify RST - especially those who educated themselves at the Susan Bennett School of Spinology!
06:10 a.m. - The first officers from the Boulder Police Department arrive on scene. One of the first priorities in a missing child investigation is to search the house. They do not search the house at this point. Instead, they wait on a promised 10:00AM phone call from the kidnappers as stated in the ridiculous ransom note. They do, however, check the exterior of the residence and find it is completely locked, no signs of forced entry, and there are no footprints in the thin layer of snow and frost that covers the Ramsey lawn. An incredible feat for any experienced criminal to pull off. So much for the RDI claim that the 'no footprints' claim is no longer believed by anyone
IN her article, Stacy D noted that :-
there are no footprints in the thin layer of snow and frost that covers the Ramsey lawn.
Sgt Reichenbach states in his report that he had arrived at the Ramsey home at approximately 0600 hours on December 26 and that he had examined the exterior of the Ramsey home as well as the yard. Sgt Reichenbach noted that the air temperature was approximately 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Sgt Reichenbach noted in his report that there was a very light dusting of snow and frost on the exposed grass in the yard outside the Ramsey home. Some of the grass and yard was covered with snow from previous snowfall(s) and this snow was described as being crusty and measuring one-two inches deep. Sgt Reichenbach states that he saw no fresh footprints in any of the snow or in the frost on the grass..."
Nowhere did Reichenbach say that the snow covering was universal, nowhere did Stacy D suggest this either. Straight thinkers fully appreciate that there was early and erroneous reporting of the case but that this was clarified a LONG time ago. ONLY diehard RSTs still jab about the "no footprints in the snow".
Stacy D 5 Tipper 0This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission
Similar Threads
-
Exposing Ramsey Spin Team games and dishonesty
By Jayelles in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 293Last Post: February 28, 2010, 4:07 pm, Sun Feb 28 16:07:28 UTC 2010 -
Fantastic Article! Actions of Hunter/Haddon/Smit/Tracey/Lacy In Ramsey Case
By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 31Last Post: September 10, 2006, 12:14 pm, Sun Sep 10 12:14:36 UTC 2006 -
Gaylord Times article about Support Ramsey Truth
By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 56Last Post: June 14, 2004, 2:37 pm, Mon Jun 14 14:37:43 UTC 2004 -
Charlie Brennan's new Ramsey article
By Watching You in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 27Last Post: May 10, 2004, 8:12 pm, Mon May 10 20:12:39 UTC 2004 -
This week's Globe article about Patsy Ramsey
By Dunvegan in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 21Last Post: May 13, 2002, 7:55 pm, Mon May 13 19:55:24 UTC 2002