Susan Bennett. Let the Spin and the Lies Begin

You've got to add some of Bob C's Nancy reviews WY! It can be the 'comic relief' chapter.

 

Too funny, you guys. jammy sue is so desperate for attention, she has to try to make waves this way. Gawd, she is so pathetic.

Now, I am very busy working on the book, so I'll depend on allya to keep me up to date on the whacky ones' latest.

:skank: :code6:

 

Here's a good one. Hir is stating that the DNA in the panties was MIXED with JonBenet's blood (true) therefore it could not have been in the panties to begin with (because it was mixed).

Even though tests have found DNA in sealed packages of panties....one would think if someone bled on the panties, or poured kool aide on them, the DNA that was present would mix with this. Not so, according to hir. I guess the blood or kool aide knows how to avoid the place on the panty where the dna was left by the factory worker that spit or sweat on it, so it won't mix.

And hir stated

"What he does not say is that the remaining panties (a children's size 12)had no matching DNA in them. (There were 7 pairs of panties in that package.)"

Do we have documentation that the panty package was collected by the police and tested. I am not sure it was, I could be wrong.

 

Sabrina, try this experiment. Take a pair of women's size 7 panties and place 3 red dots with a felt marker approximately where you would determine the hymen to meet the cotton crotch area of the panties. Now, lay the panties on the counter with the crotch open so that the red dots are visible - then from a distance of 1-3 inches above the red dots on the panties, pour 1/4 teaspoon of water on the crotch area of the panties. (Using 1/4 teaspoon of water is probably a safe choice based on the maximum dimension of the blood spots given in the autopsy.) Don't try to hit or miss the red spots, just pour the water. Odds are if you don't hit the spots directly, the water is going to absorb into the material within a few minutes and soak the spots anyway. The water has no way of knowing to go around those spots or that it should avoid them. The ink isn't going to prevent the fabric from absorbing the water so unless you just got lucky and totally missed the area where the spots where, those spots are going to get wet, hence the foreign DNA would have mixed with JonBenét's blood and Susan Bennett aka Jameson's spin is total bullsmit one more time.




:bsflag:



Susan Bennett aka Jameson banks on people not trying little experiments for themselves. Clearly hirself doesn't try them or think things through logically or hir wouldn't post such stupid statements (at least most people wouldn't want to look so dumb.)


From the autopsy: The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension.


http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/autopsy.html

 

Oh, fercrissake, any beanhead knows when liquid meets other substances, the liquid absorbs everything that is there and substances co-mingle. Experiments aren't even needed - it's common sense. Jameson doesn't possess any, so she makes chit up as she goes. Dumber than a box, that one.

 

Commingling

I'm almost positive ... I just can't find any reference to it right now ... that the panties JonBenet had on were not only too big, but the crotch of the panties DID NOT fit securely across JonBenet's crotch (vagina). The panties crotch was bunched up on to one side her crotch. This could explain why there were several "drops" of blood in the panties. IOW, there was probably seepage from her vagina, but when it hit the panties and was absorbed, it landed on a bunched up crotch creating several "drops" of blood.

Likewise, it could also indicate that JonBenet was not stripped down and cleaned, but instead, someone pulled the crotch of the panties to the side, used the paintstick to insert into her (to make it look like she'd been sexually assaulted) and then wiped down. It could also indicate that she was cleaned up first, removing the panties or after cleaning, putting the panties on her, and THEN as an afterthought, someone pulled the crotch to the side to insert the paintstick.

Anyway, "commingle" is a mixture of more than one element (in this case, dna and blood) where the elements remain distinguishable from one another. If one mixes or blends more than one element, the original elements disappear and create a new element. So I think it's important that Myer used the term "commingle".

It's possible that the dna came off the paintstick. When inserted into her vagina, it caused some bleeding and when the stick was pulled out, the contaminated blood seeped out onto the bunched up crotch.

Then again, it could be exactly as the BPD said...that the panties were contaminated prior to JonBenet's wearing them, and when her own blood seeped out from her vagina, it landed on top of the contamination and was absorbed, thus the commingling rather than blending/mixing.

 

There's something I never thought about, Ginja. The DNA could have been on the paintbrush handle and transferred to JBR upon insertion and co-mingled with her blood, or it could even been transferred to the panties from the handle during the insertion and thereafter co-mingled with the blood. That is a very good possibility.

 

Ginja,


Are you assuming JonBenét was still alive when part of this broken brush handle caused bleeding from her vagina? Would blood still ooze from the wound if she was already dead when this action was carried out?

 

If the broken skin was on the (gravitational) downside of her body as it lay, and if livor mortis had set in, then the blood could have certainly flowed from the defect.

 

Thank you JC. I was unsure of this.

 

:coffeeup: I love books, will check out this one too.

 

Just a reminder

To members and lurkers to completely disregard jameson's threads about the 911 tape and her images which compare the marks on JonBenet with stunguna marks.

Re the 911 tape - the "enhancement" which was done at jameson's forum was NOT performed by a neutral forensic audio expert, but by a diehard RST member called Dave who presents himself as an expert on most subjects. Dave is scathing of sophisticated equipment saying it isn't necessary. To perform his own analysis of the 911 tape, he used a Pentium III computer, a "Lite" version of some audio software and a little program he wrote himself. His report misses out one of the most crucial parts of forensic audio analysis - i.e. sprectrographical analysis. Since writing his report, he has refused to discuss his findings with anyone who hasn't performed the same analysis (remember he used his own program so this would, in effect be an impossibility). Dave dismissed questions posed by a leading expert in forensic analysis as though the person didn't know what they were talking about. In addition to this, he offered no evidence of control in his experiment.

Re the stungun comparisons - the images of JonBenet which is posted on jameson's website is not to scale and is shown at a size which makes it look as though the marks are the same distance apart as the stungun marks on a pig. In reality, the marks on Jonbenet were much smaller and closer together. It is telling that the rulers have been cropped out of the image on jameson's website.

The case will never be solved whilst people continually muddy the waters with such blatant (and potentially fraudulent) misinformation.

 

Well said! Thank you, Jayelles, for this information. Much appreciated!

 

Yeah, WatchingYou

It was Foster who turned in Susan Bennett aka jameson for killling JBR.

Posted 9/12/04 under her discredit Foster forum: "I was turned in as "the killer' by one Donald Foster - a Vassar college professor. I am not very fond of the gentleman ..."

 

Well, what did she expect? She talked like a man, pretended to be a man on the internet, talked about things no civilian should have known - and she set out to deliberately set Foster up. There are names for people like her, but I can't say them on the forum.

 

That's a good question.

 

Maybe she is a man. I mean visually, it's a tough call

 

I think she's a morphodyke. Or whatever. :winkaway: