Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 118
  1. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whitewitch1 View Post
    Technology lifts undetected genetic material
    By James Baetke, Camera Staff Writer
    Wednesday, July 9, 2008

    JonBenet Ramsey Archive
    Full coverage of the JonBenet Ramsey murder.

    [snip]

    Further testing, to rule out any contamination at the time of autopsy, was concluded late last month.
    Thanks for re-posting this article, WW. I understand what you're saying, but the following sentence (from that same article) negates any supposed validity of above sentence.

    “Some controversy surrounds this kind of collection: the sample can be so small, it’s hard to be reliable,” Brenner said.
    What people don't realize is that Lacy and Bode Laboratories can bellow all the want that they did further testing to rule out contamination, but when the sample is so small it can't be reliable to begin with, how in the world can ANYONE rule out contamination?!!

    The answer is: you can't. PERIOD.

    The person who wrote this article got their "further testing" info from Lacy and Bode Labs. Of COURSE, they're going to say contamination was ruled out. I want to see that statement FROM AN INDEPENDENT LAB! Then maybe I'll believe it, but the problem of the less than miniscule partial DNA sample still rears it's ugly head. Anyone who knows anything about DNA (and Lacy is counting on the general public to know less than she does, which wouldn't make a pinhead) knows that we are not talking about anything close to a full complement of DNA that is datable to the crime scene.

    The whole DNA thing is a hoax, perpetrated by the Ramseys and their buffoons. The Ramseys got lucky that partial DNA contaminant was found on JonBenet's never-washed, straight-from-the-package panties. If the DNA was from JonBenet's killer, it would have been fresh and whole, not bits and pieces that may have come from one or more sources. (Read the lab reports posted here at FFJ.)

    If someone wants to solve the Ramsey case, all they need to do is look at the RANSOM NOTE supposedly left by JonBenet's killer, which the Ramseys (and their supporters) conveniently never talk about. Once the handwriting was matched to Patsy's (and the bogus DNA was found), the Ramsey immediately tried to distance themselves from the Ransom Note, and they have NEVER talked about it in any interview since. Ask yourselves "why?" It is the one verifiable link to JonBenet's killer, and the Ramsey want nothing to do with it.
    Last edited by Cherokee; June 19, 2009, 2:09 pm at Fri Jun 19 14:09:09 UTC 2009.

  2. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karen View Post
    I'm shamefully bumping my own post 'cuz I wanna know, was it soemthing I said?? It got completely skipped over. If I'm really getting THAT boring I guess I'll just go collect my beercan allotment for the week and leave you all be. HeeHee!!!!
    Hang on, Karen, I did miss your post! Lord, it's hard keeping up with all you needy drunks in the Guttah while maintaining my own near-comatose state....

    "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.

  3. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Garbled minds think alike....

    The only thing I'd add is that the Bode Tec scientist who said she processed the "touch" DNA did say, on Nancy Grace, if memory serves, that they did get a complete DNA profile, matching the available markers in the partial profile already found in the underwear.
    Ah no, not exactly, my garbled twin.

    IF the Bode Lab tech called it a "complete DNA profile," then that is nothing but verbal slight of hand. What the tech might be saying is they were able to match available markers with available markers. But even that is a myth. If the panty DNA is partial, then how can they match a full complement of 13 DNA markers?!

    If the panty DNA only has nine makers out of 13, then there are four missing, and believe me, THAT MAKES A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE. There may be only one marker difference between your DNA and mine. So, theoretically, if a lab has 13 of your markers, but only nine of mine, and all nine of my markers match yours, Bode Labs could say they have a match "with a complete DNA profile" which is yours. However, they are not taking into account the missing four markers which may NOT match.

    Put it another way.

    Maybe it's my partial nine-marker, factory-worker DNA in the panties, but your full 13-marker DNA on the long-johns. You might match all nine of my markers, but not the other four, or three, or two, or even one. Do you see what I'm saying?

    Bode Labs jumped through all kinds of hoops to give Lacy the results she wanted, but their findings are still flawed. In addition, the testing samples are so small as to be worthless. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, without INDEPENDENT TESTING from another lab to replicate the results, all we have is a possibly contaminated match with nothing.

    DNA results are not as exact as CSI would have us to believe. There can be stutter and testing error and all sorts of problems. The Bode Lab tech was doing a promo for Bode Labs. That's all. Without independent verification, I don't believe a word out of their mouths because they are going to slant the results to make themselves look good. They want to sell this technology to law enforcement and the public. For them, the Ramsey case was nothing but an infomercial.
    Last edited by Cherokee; June 18, 2009, 11:46 am at Thu Jun 18 11:46:22 UTC 2009. Reason: for clarification

  4. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Once the handwriting was matched to Patsy's (and the bogus DNA was found), the Ramsey immediately tried to distance themselves from the Ransom Note, and they have NEVER talked about it in any interview since.
    Well...John did say (to Lou Smit in '98) that the ransom note looked like Patsy's writing. That was behind closed doors, of course, and but for greedy jams, we wouldn't have that little choice admission.... hehehe

    12 LOU SMIT: Do you have a mental picture of

    13 this person?

    16 LOU SMIT: ...

    19 You must have a mental picture of the type of

    20 person this is. I mean, in your mind. I know I

    21 have a mental picture of various people that I

    22 would look at. But I'm sure you think about this

    23 all the time.

    24 JOHN RAMSEY: Oh, absolutely, everyday. You

    25 know. Of course, my first instinct is, it was a

    0040

    1 man. Because of some of the similarities,

    2 apparently in Patsy's handwriting, I wondered if

    3 it was a woman.

    "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.

  5. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karen View Post
    Hmmm don't we really need to know whether or not he is or isn't running for office? If he is we need to get our voices out there again. Can Tricia find that out? i wouldn't know what to do. Thank you KK for bringing us these tapes. Although I don't subscribe to Wechts theory of what happened that night I still cannot deny all of the evidence about incest he points to is there. It just IS. I'm just not so sure that is what was going on that night. I also don't believe in the wet bed theory so my opinion about what really happened that night is still a blank in my head, even though I do think Patsy Ramsey is responsible and wrote the note. Anyway, thanks again KK!!
    Good idea.

    Hey, MODS! TELL THAT GOOD FER NOTHING TRICIA TO GET ON THE HORN AND FIND OUT IF JR IS RUNNING FOR OFFICE AGAIN!

    Whew! We have to do EVERYTHING around this dump!

    Interesting you should mention not ascribing to this or that theory, Karen. I have often wondered if all of it was a "family affair", and that different elements were done by different family members, all compiled into panic that night when someone lost it. I guess I think of it as the "The family that slays together, stays together" theory.

    I can run through several theories and they're plausible, as long as they include Patsy writing the note. The only one that stops at the door for me is involving any intruder. That didn't happen, IMO.

    "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.

  6. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Ah no, not exactly, my garbled twin.

    IF the Bode Lab tech called it a "complete DNA profile," then that is nothing but verbal slight of hand. What the tech might be saying is they were able to match available markers with available markers. But even that is a myth. If the panty DNA is partial, then how can they match a full complement of 13 DNA markers?!

    If the panty DNA only has nine makers out of 13, then there are four missing, and believe me, THAT MAKES A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE. There may be only one marker difference between your DNA and mine. So, theoretically, if a lab has 13 of your markers, but only nine of mine, and all nine of my markers match yours, Bode Labs could say they have a match "with a complete DNA profile" which is yours. However, they are not taking into account the missing four markers which may NOT match.

    Put it another way.

    Maybe it's my partial nine-marker, factory-worker DNA in the panties, but your full 13-marker DNA on the long-johns. You might match all nine of my markers, but not the other four, or three, or two, or even one. Do you see what I'm saying?

    Bode Labs jumped through all kinds of hoops to give Lacy the results she wanted, but their findings are still flawed. In addition, the testing samples are so small as to be worthless. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, without INDEPENDENT TESTING from another lab to replicate the results, all we have is a possibly contaminated match with nothing.

    DNA results are not as exact as CSI would have us to believe. There can be stutter and testing error and all sorts of problems. The Bode Lab tech was doing a promo for Bode Labs. That's all. Without independent verification, I don't believe a word out of their mouths because they are going to slant the results to make themselves look good. They want to sell this technology to law enforcement and the public. For them, the Ramsey case was nothing but an infomercial.
    I totally agree, and well said!

    But...just because I'm as anal retentive as you are...I thought that I said the same thing about the AVAILABLE markers from the Bloomies being matched. Anyhow, that's what I MEANT to say...but never could as well as you did!
    Last edited by Cherokee; June 18, 2009, 11:50 am at Thu Jun 18 11:50:57 UTC 2009. Reason: to clarify quoted post

    "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.

  7. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    It's well known that PR or JR were at a PARTY where they likely shook many hands, as well as touching many surfaces in someone else's home. As did JB. Those skin cells stay there till washed off. None of them bathed when they got home that night, and PR said herself that JB was not a "great hand-washer" and tried to avoid it when she could.
    Yet, Lacy and Co. never mention that possibility at all. That DNA could have gotten there in that way as well.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  8. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    It's well known that PR or JR were at a PARTY where they likely shook many hands, as well as touching many surfaces in someone else's home. As did JB. Those skin cells stay there till washed off. None of them bathed when they got home that night, and PR said herself that JB was not a "great hand-washer" and tried to avoid it when she could.
    Yet, Lacy and Co. never mention that possibility at all. That DNA could have gotten there in that way as well.
    Exactly right.

  9. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    It's well known that PR or JR were at a PARTY where they likely shook many hands, as well as touching many surfaces in someone else's home. As did JB. Those skin cells stay there till washed off. None of them bathed when they got home that night, and PR said herself that JB was not a "great hand-washer" and tried to avoid it when she could.
    Yet, Lacy and Co. never mention that possibility at all. That DNA could have gotten there in that way as well.
    Yet, like Patsy Ramsey, DeeDee she got away with it. I am so teed off at how half of the valuable evidence was never truly discussed. Is it any wonder Steve Thomas left in disgust(?).
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  10. #46

    Default

    Okay, found the transcript of the Nancy Grace show. Here is the link to it.

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

    I'm tired and going to my box, so see ya' tomorrow, Guttah buddies!

    "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 koldkase View Post
    Okay, found the transcript of the Nancy Grace show. Here is the link to it.

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

    I'm tired and going to my box, so see ya' tomorrow, Guttah buddies!
    Thanks for posting the link, KK. I may have missed it, but I read through the article and didn't find any place where the Bode Tech, Angela Williamson, said anything about a full complement of DNA markers. In fact, I couldn't find anything about how many markers were matched. They just claim they found "touch DNA" on the long-john waistband that matched the partial DNA profile found in the panties.

    Once again, we're talking about a less-than-microscopic sample with iffy technology that hasn't been formally recognized in the United States. "Touch DNA" is not certified to be used in US courts. That's why it's imperative that the Bode Lab results be replicated in another lab.

  12. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Thanks for posting the link, KK. I may have missed it, but I read through the article and didn't find any place where the Bode Tech, Angela Williamson, said anything about a full complement of DNA markers. In fact, I couldn't find anything about how many markers were matched. They just claim they found "touch DNA" on the long-john waistband that matched the partial DNA profile found in the panties.

    Once again, we're talking about a less-than-microscopic sample with iffy technology that hasn't been formally recognized in the United States. "Touch DNA" is not certified to be used in US courts. That's why it's imperative that the Bode Lab results be replicated in another lab.

    Thanks, Chero. Sorry. I should have read the entire transcript before I posted it. It's that faulty memory of mine again. I could have sworn it was in this transcript, but obviously not.

    And there's the rub: my memory. Having admitted that things are melting together now, as to what I once knew about this case, I have to say that I am still under the impression that during the week or two that Williamson was appearing all over TV on the case interviews/discussions about this "touch" DNA finding and Lacy's ridiculous "exhoneration" of the Ramseys, I did see the Bode Tec scientist asked directly if there was now a full DNA profile and she said yes. Whatever the wording exactly was, all I can say is that I know the issues of the number of markers involved and I was left with the answer it was a full, 13 markers. In fact, Williamson claims to have found enough cells that she didn't have to do the LCN process to get them.

    I wonder if Why Nut copied that particular show? It wasn't Nancy Grace, because I looked at all of Grace's shows during that period and the transcript we have is the only one about this topic I could find. I can't remember exactly what other shows Williamson was on, but I'm sure it was the usual suspects. I tried for hours to find any transcript to other shows that discussed this at the time, but only found articles, and none of them specified the number of markers. The problem we have is that it's been some time since many of us--ME, for example--have had the ability or motivation to "tape" these shows anymore. I don't have Tivo. My VCR was borrowed and I didn't have it available and didn't think it necessary to bother with getting it back at the time...AS PER USUAL, A MOVE I ALWAYS REGRET DOWN THE #$@!%*& ROAD.

    Oh WHYYYYYYYYYYY_NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT.... :uthere:

    Quit hiding now! You MUST have this taped! Come on! Just because you have a life and I don't, is NO EXCUSE! We NEED this info! Are you a red-blooded, TRUE BLUE Guttah Gossip, or no?!!

    "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. Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 3, 2014, 5:38 am, Thu Jul 3 5:38:29 UTC 2014
  2. A quick interview with Boulder DA, Stan Garnett, about the Ramsey case!
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 25, 2010, 5:51 pm, Mon Oct 25 17:51:47 UTC 2010
  3. Wecht has doubts
    By Show Me in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 17, 2006, 12:14 pm, Thu Aug 17 12:14:34 UTC 2006
  4. Links to CNN Interview Transcripts: Ramsey Murder Case
    By Dunvegan in forum Transcripts: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 14, 2001, 9:35 pm, Wed Nov 14 21:35:05 UTC 2001

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •