Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 118
  1. #49

    Default

    Here is a link to a typical article, of many with a similar or the same quote, which wrote about the amount of DNA collected by Bode:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4247767.shtml


    While the amount of DNA they found was much less than would appear in a stain, there was enough to be processed in the routine way DNA is analyzed, Williamson said. (In other cases, so-called "low copy number DNA" has to be processed in a different way).
    There is also a video link on this page of Ms. Williamson "demonstrating" how she collects the "touch" DNA with her shaving method. I question some of her rather general statements that obviously serve to buttress the claim that this is "the intruder's DNA." For example, Ms. Williamson HERSELF admitted on the Nancy Grace program that she isn't even 100% certain the "touch" DNA she allegedly found is FROM SKIN!


    I still have yet to see anyone present the scientific research for this evidence this "touch" DNA can not have been transferred through contamination or secondary/tertiary deposits. It hasn't been admitted at trial yet, not that I've seen, anyway, and I googled this subject ad nausaum.

    I did run into an article where it's claimed some scientists are working on being able to do more in the way of "identifying" various "traits" from DNA that we have: ethnicity, hair color, , etc. I hope they can do that some day, as the really FABULOUS final outcome of the "touch" DNA debacle should be that the actual contributor IS identified, contacted, and questioned...and that "bugaboo" is put to rest once and for all.

    "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

    Okay, here is the quote about WHAT biological source this "touch" DNA came from. What the HECK are they saying here?

    Notice that not only does Ms. "Bode" Williamson NOT know proof positive if this sample is from sperm, as she ADMITS she didn't actually TEST IT, notice that the "matching" panty sample, according to Mr. "We've seen the evidence" Ollie Gray, was from a LIQUID source.

    I.e., they really don't seem to know WHAT the biological sample actually was! They're just SURE it was from the old INTRUDER!

    Did this intruder take off his gloves, deposit skin samples on the body, which were then "mixed" with the vaginal blood and deposited in the panties? Well, then, that's SECONDARY transference, is it not? So did he then deposit skin cells on the waistband of the Bloomies, too?

    Or did he sneeze or cough his DNA into the Bloomies--but NOWHERE ELSE? What other way did this "liquid" sample get onto the Bloomies? I think we know there was no "EXPECTED" SALIVA deposited by any intruder onto the body--and all I'll say here is we know "this" from the disgusting fantasies written to Tracey in emails by PERV Karr, which Lacy alluded to when she said PERV Karr's "story" about the murder was not "supported" by the evidence when his DNA was NOT a match.

    So this "intruder" sneezed or coughed into the Bloomies, but took off his gloves and got his SKIN CELLS onto the waistband of the longjohns?

    I just don't buy this. If he was sneezing or coughing around that child's body and clothes, and handling them without gloves, there HAS to be more DNA. It should be around on the items where the child was undressed and redressed: sheets, or the blanket, or the carpet, even. How about that paint tote? HOW ABOUT THE PAINTBRUSH? THE CORD? THE NIGHTGOWN? HER FACE?

    No wonder we're confused! Once again, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT! "Look at my right hand, so you won't see the 'SLIGHT OF HAND' TRICK taking place in my LEFT hand."

    How can ANYONE state this few cells of DNA belonged to an "intruder" when they don't even know what biological source they came from and have no SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TO PROVE IT WASN'T CONTAMINATION OR TRANSFERRENCE? Maybe it's NOT, but WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT IS REQUIRED TO MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT AS "THIS HAS TO BELONG TO THE KILLER?"

    Sorry, this just makes me a crazy person. WHAT do these PEOPLE think they're PLAYING AT? Are they SO completely corrupted by Team Ramsey they do not even CONSIDER they may be AGAIN running that INFAMOUS RAMSEY BUS over ANOTHER innocent person?

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


    GRACE: Straight out to the lines. Tonight a bombshell. Due to a highly sensitive new DNA technique called touch DNA, we now learn of more DNA discovered on the leggings beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey wore the night she went to bed, the night that she was killed. That DNA, a male DNA, matches DNA found in her underwear.

    Straight back out to Angela Williamson, the lead scientist who worked with Bode Technology on the Ramsey case. Was the DNA sperm?

    WILLIAMSON: The DNA profile we obtained was not from spermatozoa.

    GRACE: That only leaves hair, skin, nails. Do we know what substance it was?

    WILLIAMSON: The area that we sampled from, there was no visible staining. We believe it to be touch DNA, most likely skin cells from maybe someone`s hand.

    GRACE: Skin cells, OK. Angela, Ms. Williamson, the DNA found inside the 6-year-old`s underwear, the inside crotch of her underwear, mingled with her blood -- was that DNA sperm?

    WILLIAMSON: We actually did not do that testing. It is my belief that it was not from sperm, though. However, that testing was done by the Denver PD.

    GRACE: Thank you. Back to Nia Bender with 710 KNUS. The DNA found in JonBenet`s underwear, was it sperm? Do we know what it was?

    BENDER: We do not know what was in the underwear. They have never really clarified whether there was sperm in the underwear or not.

    GRACE: OK, let`s ask Ollie Gray. Ollie, you and John San Agustin say that you have had inside information, that you`ve been able to review the files. Was the DNA in her underwear sperm?

    GRAY: As far as I know, it was not sperm.

    GRACE: What was it?

    GRAY: It was a liquid, and it could have been either from the mouth, or it could have been from an insertion into the vagina area of part of the paintbrush that caused the fluid. As you remember, it was also mixed with blood.
    Might I add that Team Ramsey member John San Agustin goes on to STATE that IT WAS THE INTRUDER'S BLOOD! And this from the man who uses the argument HE has SEEN THE EVIDENCE!

    GRACE: Back out to Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor and author.

    Wendy, the evidence we were discussing earlier regarding the erosion of JonBenet Ramsey`s hymen and the evidence of repeated, over time, molestation, where did that come from?

    MURPHY: This is a direct quote from the autopsy. And I sure do hope that the other guests who claim to have examined all of the important evidence in this case can resurrect it so that they`ll know what we all know.

    Chronic inflammation is seen in the vagina mucosa, epithelial erosion, and as I mentioned, an eroded hymen.

    Nancy, those are very important words to anybody and I think Dr. Perper can even get to answer some of these questions about what does that mean. To some of us who`ve done these kinds of cases, it`s very clear, to a layperson not so much. The word erosion, the word chronic -- those are terms of art in medicine that mean over time.

    GRACE: You know what, Wendy? They certainly are.

    Dr. Perper, weigh in, explain what they mean.

    PERPER: Well, an abrasion means a scratch and chronic means long standing, so it means that those scratches were there for a significant period of time over and over if they are, indeed, chronic manifestation of physical injury.

    GRACE: To John San Agustin, private investigator who worked on the case, you just told me that was not in the autopsy report. It is.

    SAN AGUSTIN: No, I did not. I did not say that. I say I`m not aware. That was a comment. I said what I know of the autopsy is that we have reddish hyperemia, an abrasion to the distal part of her vaginal wall.

    And all I`m trying to look at here is to say, look, this little girl has blood in her underwear that is a mixture of this bandit, this criminal that her blood and his blood is -- there`s a mixture.

    GRACE: OK.

    SAN AGUSTIN: . in there and now we`ve got blood on the long johns.
    BAM! One RST "witness" loses HIS credibility completely. Obviously San Agustin suffers from the same Ramseyitis disease as Michael Tracey: if you believe it, the intruder will come...."

    "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. #51

    Default

    But there is other important info in this Nancy Grace show...now that we've brought it into this thread. And that's the CORROBORATION of the PRIOR MOLESTATIONS by TWO OTHER LEGAL PROFESSIONALS, one respected medical examiner Dr. Perper, who certainly also understands the language of autopsies, as does Dr. Wecht. (Okay, I HAVE to mention the obvious here: Dr. Perper has one of those odd, coincidental names specifically ironic to his profession. )
    MURPHY: Well, first let me say it would take me a long time to go into all of it, Nancy. But you mentioned my book. I have an awful lot of stuff in there, more than one chapter with good, solid, based-in-fact information and evidence about the case that says nothing about an intruder.

    Most important evidence -- this child -- and the autopsy confirms this. It`s publicly available. This child had chronic vaginal trauma. Her hymen was nearly gone. Only a tiny piece of it remained. She both acute, meaning fresh, and chronic, meaning old, vaginal injuries. That to me doesn`t sound like some bogeyman showed up on the night in question. She had epithelial erosion in her genital area. Erosion -- Nancy, what does erosion mean? Wearing away over time.

    GRACE: Over time.

    MURPHY: Over time. Now, unless this man, this mystery man, had ongoing intimate access to the child, it really doesn`t make me feel better about the case at all.

    [snip]

    GRACE: Back out to Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor and author.

    Wendy, the evidence we were discussing earlier regarding the erosion of JonBenet Ramsey`s hymen and the evidence of repeated, over time, molestation, where did that come from?

    MURPHY: This is a direct quote from the autopsy. And I sure do hope that the other guests who claim to have examined all of the important evidence in this case can resurrect it so that they`ll know what we all know.

    Chronic inflammation is seen in the vagina mucosa, epithelial erosion, and as I mentioned, an eroded hymen.

    Nancy, those are very important words to anybody and I think Dr. Perper can even get to answer some of these questions about what does that mean. To some of us who`ve done these kinds of cases, it`s very clear, to a layperson not so much. The word erosion, the word chronic -- those are terms of art in medicine that mean over time.

    GRACE: You know what, Wendy? They certainly are.

    Dr. Perper, weigh in, explain what they mean.

    PERPER: Well, an abrasion means a scratch and chronic means long standing, so it means that those scratches were there for a significant period of time over and over if they are, indeed, chronic manifestation of physical injury.


    GRACE: To John San Agustin, private investigator who worked on the case, you just told me that was not in the autopsy report. It is.

    SAN AGUSTIN: No, I did not. I did not say that. I say I`m not aware. That was a comment. I said what I know of the autopsy is that we have reddish hyperemia, an abrasion to the distal part of her vaginal wall.

    And all I`m trying to look at here is to say, look, this little girl has blood in her underwear that is a mixture of this bandit, this criminal that her blood and his blood is -- there`s a mixture.

    GRACE: OK.

    SAN AGUSTIN: . in there and now we`ve got blood on the long johns.

    GRACE: I was asking you about the chronic vaginal trauma, the fact that she had very little hymen left, incidents that happened before the night of her murder. Whatever happened before the night of her murder, we may never know.
    Whitewitch, to address your questions/theory about the DNA being from some unknown male we don't know about, someone Patsy Ramsey would have written the ransom note to protect (I believe this is your line of thinking, and apologize if I'm wrong), then it would HAVE to be someone who had access to JonBenet before that night. Why would Patsy and John BOTH refuse to even try to THINK of who that person might be, if they are so innocent?

    "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

    Default Hey karen! Kaaaaaareeeen!! Hellooooooooo?

    UH...Karen...did YOU miss this post TO YOU, this time around? Hm? Hm? HM?

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    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.

  5. #53

    Default

    So sorry KK! I did miss it. I don't get here as often as I used to because goshdarnit I have a beautiful new grand-daughter and she keeps us all quite busy! Thanks for responding. Has anyone heard anything about this from Tricia?

  6. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karen View Post
    So sorry KK! I did miss it. I don't get here as often as I used to because goshdarnit I have a beautiful new grand-daughter and she keeps us all quite busy! Thanks for responding. Has anyone heard anything about this from Tricia?
    Uh...NO! I swear, am I gonna' have to resort to the whip, mods?!

    "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. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Uh...NO! I swear, am I gonna' have to resort to the whip, mods?!
    Um That might not do any good. I hear Tricia likes the whip. J/K!!!

  8. #56

    Default

    Oh shoot! Forgot about that. What to do...what to do...?

    "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. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Oh shoot! Forgot about that. What to do...what to do...?
    Like I said, get out the powderpuff. I bet she would hate that! ( LUVYA TRICIA!)

  10. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    But there is other important info in this Nancy Grace show...now that we've brought it into this thread. And that's the CORROBORATION of the PRIOR MOLESTATIONS by TWO OTHER LEGAL PROFESSIONALS, one respected medical examiner Dr. Perper, who certainly also understands the language of autopsies, as does Dr. Wecht. (Okay, I HAVE to mention the obvious here: Dr. Perper has one of those odd, coincidental names specifically ironic to his profession. )


    Whitewitch, to address your questions/theory about the DNA being from some unknown male we don't know about, someone Patsy Ramsey would have written the ransom note to protect (I believe this is your line of thinking, and apologize if I'm wrong), then it would HAVE to be someone who had access to JonBenet before that night. Why would Patsy and John BOTH refuse to even try to THINK of who that person might be, if they are so innocent?
    Hi KK. No, I don't think Patsy wrote the RN to protect anyone (except herself and John and maybe Burke.)
    My thoughts are that maybe the Ramseys had help with the cover-up.
    Some think that is a far-fetched notion but I am not so sure. It would explain the foreign male DNA, at any rate.
    I'm not 100% sure about anything in this case. No matter how many pieces of the puzzle you put together, there are some that still just don't fit; whether it be RDI or IDI.

  11. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whitewitch1 View Post
    Hi KK. No, I don't think Patsy wrote the RN to protect anyone (except herself and John and maybe Burke.)
    My thoughts are that maybe the Ramseys had help with the cover-up.
    Some think that is a far-fetched notion but I am not so sure. It would explain the foreign male DNA, at any rate.
    I'm not 100% sure about anything in this case. No matter how many pieces of the puzzle you put together, there are some that still just don't fit; whether it be RDI or IDI.
    Oh, I see. That's an interesting idea, and I don't think it's any more nutz than any other theory, when you consider what was done to this child over at least several days.

    I will always believe the Ramseys had help, and that's why Hunter refused to allow the BPD to get a subpoena for the Ramsey phone records. What the extent of that help was, that's the question we probably will never know the answer to, unless someone comes forth with the info on the phone records. Those records could be in the BPD evidence room to this day, if the case file for the husband and wife who were prosecuted for illegally obtaining them is still intact.

    Think about that: that file could be in the evidence room RIGHT NOW. Did Mark Beckner ask the NEW DA to subpoena that file? If he didn't at least TRY, then they're lying about "re-opening" the case, because you can bet the farm Beckner knows what is in that file.

    In addition to that, does anyone believe the PI and his wife never made a copy or looked at the records themselves? Since they were prosecuted, I can understand why they have never publicly spoken about this, but SOMEONE has seen those files besides LE.

    What about the cell phone company? I believe to this day someone wiped the month of Dec. blank for that "lost cell phone" Patsy made up such a pack of lies about. Who did that? If he/she came forward, would he/she be prosecuted for tampering with evidence? Maybe not--statute of limitations and all that, but it is a murder case, so maybe there is no statute of limitations on any crime related. But if someone came forward claiming evidence the Ramseys used that phone that night was on the phone record and was tampered with, he/she be sued by John Ramsey if he/she doesn't have actual physical proof to back it up. Also, that person might lose his/her job or be hounded by the media and have that affect his/her life and career.

    See, the media was a double-edged sword in this.

    The refusal by Hunter to subpoena those phone records IMMEDIATELY will always be the pivotal moment in destroying any case against whoever murdered JonBenet, IMO. The continued efforts by Boulder LE to cover up all the facets of the conspiracy to bury this case by their very own is always proof for ME that the fix was in before 911 was ever called that morning.

    So yes, any number of things could have been done to "help" the Ramseys that fateful night. Was someone physically there to aid in the cover up? A "cleaner", so to speak? Who knows?

    Or the very few cells and strands of DNA it took LE 11 years to uncover might simply be artifact. No one has proven to me that these "invisible" cells, as Williamson called them, could not have been transferred. No one has that proof, and the value of DNA collected this way with this technique is still so unproven it isn't even admitted in trial in the U.S. yet, and it's being challeged in the U.K.

    "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.

  12. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Or the very few cells and strands of DNA it took LE 11 years to uncover might simply be artifact. No one has proven to me that these "invisible" cells, as Williamson called them, could not have been transferred. No one has that proof, and the value of DNA collected this way with this technique is still so unproven it isn't even admitted in trial in the U.S. yet, and it's being challeged in the U.K.
    Exactly! And yet, this unproven, legally-challenged, not-admissible-in-court technology was good enough for "I'll get the Ramseys off the hook any way I can" Mary Lacy. What does that tell you about Mary Lacy's desperation to clear the Ramseys? And why hasn't the media done more research and QUESTIONED Lacy's exhoneration instead of swallowing it hook, line and sinker?

    I daresay if any other major suspect in a criminal case was cleared by such iffy technology, there would be a huge outcry against the DA and an investigation into the lab techniques, as well as a demand for independent verification.

    But no. As always, the bobble-headed media just play along and join the Ramsey love-fest. The governor of Colorado and the powers-that-be look the other way and let Lacy make an absolute farce of the justice system. NO ONE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT THE ENTIRE DISGRACE except those who have not been blinded by the Ramsey Spin Machine, and those voices are ignored.



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
  •