Dr. Wecht interview on this case

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Jun 16, 2009.

  1. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    :idea: Good idea.


    Whew! We have to do EVERYTHING around this dump! :rant:

    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.
  2. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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! :winko:
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2009
  3. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    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.
  4. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Exactly right.
  5. Elle

    Elle Member

    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(?).
  6. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

  7. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    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.
  8. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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.


    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?!! :bee: :yes:
  9. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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:


    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. :sick:

    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.
  10. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

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

    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?


    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.

    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...."
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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. :eek: )
    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?
  12. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Hey karen! Kaaaaaareeeen!! Hellooooooooo?

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

  13. Karen

    Karen Member

    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?
  14. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Uh...NO! I swear, am I gonna' have to resort to the whip, mods?! :whipit:
  15. Karen

    Karen Member

    Um That might not do any good. I hear Tricia likes the whip. J/K!!!
  16. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

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

    Karen Member

    Like I said, get out the powderpuff. I bet she would hate that! ( LUVYA TRICIA!)
  18. whitewitch1

    whitewitch1 Senior Member

    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.
  19. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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.
  20. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    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.
  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