Fact or Fiction?

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by rashomon, Mar 29, 2008.

  1. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    This was one of many errors in Judge Cairnes' report. It was an ancillary hair. When first discovered, it was thought to be a pubic hair- that theory was jumped on right away. But tests showed that was not the case.
     
  2. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    mtDNA is capable of revealing race but not sex. I make reference to the vanDam case where hairs were found in Westerfield's RV. One blonde hair was said to be "Asian" - thus causing a bit of a stir. It was sourced to vanDam's Asian girlfriend Susan (?) who had bottle blonde hair. Another hair was sourced to one of Danielle, her mother or her two brothers. They didn't know which and that was when they explained about the maternal link in mtDNA. It was beautifully explained.

    So if mtDNA was performed on the hair on the Ramsey blanket, they wouldn't be able to say it was male - but they would probably be able to say it was Caucasian. However, if there was a root bulb still attached to the hair, they would be able to extract nuclear DNA from that and determine whether it was from a male or female. We don't know whether there was a root bulb or not.

    Re Mame claiming insider info from Lou Smit - this is what Mame does. In the years that I have been reading her posts, Mame has constantly name-dropped and claimed insider information about the case. She has also made numerous predictions about "something big coming soon" which have never panned out. Much of her "insider information" also proves to be completely wrong. I have seen Mame confronted with proof of something she is arguing against and for her to claim insider information that the proven info is wrong and that her sources are correct.

    Mame claimed for years that Fleet White's DNA was inconclusive - even when copies of the lab report were produced that showed his name on the list of people who weren't a match at the earliest stage of the investigation. You only have to read discussions in which she is participating to see how frequently she misreads another person's posts and gets everything ar*e-about-face to realise that she is thoroughly unreliable as a source of information. Look at how only last week she claimed the wiki had been hacked and sabotaged and implied that it might have been me! A closer look at the wiki revealed that only TWO changed had been made to the wiki - a typo corrected and a link to Sycamore added on the list of forums discussing the Ramsey case.

    I seriously doubt Lou Smit is sharing case information with someone who demonstrates such a lack of discretion - especially when she so often gets her facts wrong too. I know numerous people who are in regular contact with Lou SMit and they don't run to the forums to blab about it. Mame certainly doesn't have exclusive access to him. I also know for a fact that there are case insiders posting on the forums who chose to keep their identities private so that they can discuss the case without getting hassled by people like Mame, jameson and Candy. A few years ago one of them posted at jameson's. I cringed as this person even chose a hat which was very close to his/her real name and posted on an aspect of the case with which he/she was involved. It was hilarious to watch this person being challenged and dismissed by the DoubleBB members who "knew more" about the case than someone who'd actually been there!

    BTW, if I am wrong about this and Lou Smit IS sharing confidential case information with Mame then he's a fool. He's a fool to share information with someone who so reliably gets things wrong and who can never resist an opportunity to name-drop and to claim privileged information which she cannot share. Feeding the rumour-mill in this way is NOT discretion.
     
  3. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    DeeDee, do you have the source for the hair being an arm hair? For I can't wait to show it to a die-hard IDI on a on another forum (Mame), who claims to be in contact with Lou Smit. :D
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2008
  4. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    I read it in ST's book- you can still find it if you google "patsy ramsey ancillary hair".
     
  5. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    My guess is that the hair didn't have a root bulb and I'll tell you why. The only person to have claimed that the DNA was from a Caucasian male was Lin Wood. It hasn't been repeated from any official source. I think they tested the hair for mtDNA and discovered it was caucasian. They also tested the foreign DNA and found it to be male. I think Wood ASSumed that both forensics came from the same person and combined the findings.

    If the hair had a root bulb then they'd have been able to compare the nuclear DNA from that root bulb and match it as far as possible to the incomplete foreign DNA sample. The chances of the hair root bulb DNA being degraded would IMO be less likely that the underwear DNA which, as Elvis explained, could have degraded quickly and naturally due to enzymes in saliva. So if they had the root bulb DNA and it matched all the existing markers of the foreign DNA, they would have had a COMPLETE sample to enter into CODIS and not just 9 markers plus a weaker 10th one.

    IMO
     
  6. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    The revelation about the hair being Patsy's wasn't known until AFTER discovery process was over, rashomon. Hope that helps.
     
  7. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    Has it been definitely proven that the underwear DNA is saliva? I know it is one of the substances considered, but didn't think it had been conclusive.
     
  8. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I think it has. I know Lin Wood said this but bear in mind that Tom Bennett made a statement saying that it *could* have been from a cough or a sneeze at the stage of manufacturing - i.e. saliva

    They can tell whether DNA has come from saliva because of the cell structure. Saliva contains epithelial cells which are different in structure from ordinary "outside of the body" skin cells.
     
  9. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    When exactly was the discovery process over?
    When was Carnes' report written?
     
  10. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Bear with me here. Epstein was deposed in May 2002. I believe discovery ended shortly after that. The news didn't break until late August of that year, and her report was released late March 2003.
     
  11. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Hung by the wrists???

    A poster on another forum wrote that Tom Bennett swore under oath that JonBenet being hung by her wrists was consistent with the crime scene and the autopsy report.
    But the autopsy report does no mention any marks on her wrists Nor would the loosely tied knot on the sleeve have held if she was hung by the wrists.
    As for the other ligature, it was was not even on the wrist at all.

    Can Tom Bennett's testimony be accessed online?
     
  12. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Where is he supposed to have testified? To my knowledge, he was never even deposed.
     
  13. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    I don't care what he swore. The autopsy rules that out. Livor mortis prove that she was lain on her back right after she died and was not moved until she was brought up, rigor mortis also proves she was not hung by the wrists because her wrists were 17 inches apart and if she was hung by them, there'd be ligature marks on her wrists, especially as her weight would have pulled her body down, more so as primary flaccidity immediately after death.
     
  14. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I'm with Punisher and DeeDee. Why would Tom Bennett be swearing anything in this case under oath? He only came into the DA's Office under Kennan/Lacy in 2003 to investigate, and as far as I know, he never even got up to speed on the 30K pages of the case file.

    Is the poster talking about the warrant for John PERV Karr? Bennett didn't know enough about this case to prevent bringing media whore PERV Karr here, to dispute the BS Tracey and PERV Karr cooked up in their "book" outlines, which did NOT fit the evidence.

    There are no bruise lines around JonBenet's wrists to prove she had been "hung" from them. Just like the TWO BRUISE LINES around JonBenet's neck are SO OFTEN misread as her being strangled TWICE, by such inexperienced and misled people as LOU SMIT WHO SAID THAT ON THE TV GHOST FARCE ABOUT THE CASE TONIGHT, when in ACTUALITY the lower bruise on the neck is simply where the cord was first tightened before it then rolled up the neck as it was pulled from behind; where are the bruises and abrasions on the wrist if her body weight was pulling on ligatures around her wrist? Not there.

    And you can tell shill he's a big fat dumbazz, too.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice