LACY press conference - Tuesday - August 29, 2006

BobC, that's a bit of a stretch, dontcha think? I mean you are assuming a lot there.




You're assuming someone, someone powerful, would want to sleep with her.

 

well there has to be some explanation

 

Now that you mention it WN, I am once again confused.

Has it been stated by any expert that the DNA they in fact have, truly EXCLUDES the Ramseys, or is it one of those things that we have heard so many times, it got us sucked in as a fact?

 

From the artistic efforts of Jayelles, I recall, grabbing the appropriate sections of the broadcast paperwork and knitting them together:

 

It says "If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M were contributed by a single individual then..."

 

What SPERM FRACTIONS?

Hang on.

What were those exhibits?

We know they got JAR 's DNA on that blanket.

So, WHAT SPERM FRACTIONS could not be developed?

 

So this report is saying in the mixture, they have DNA from JonBenet that is the MAJOR component...but the MINOR component, IF it's from ONE SOURCE, eliminates the Ramseys and some other blacked out names?

But if that MINOR component was contributed by MORE THAN ONE person...the Ramseys are NOT eliminated?

 

Hang on.

Are we hearing that they only have THIS MINOR COMPONENT TO EVER MATCH TO THEIR INTRUDER?

That's what they are HOPING gets matched to some intruder?

AND THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT'S ONE PERSON'S DNA?

And if it's NOT...then it could be also A RAMSEY'S?

Oh...my head is swimming....

How on earth can a defense attorney not TEAR THIS TO SHREDS, even if they DO get a match?

It will be a match to a PARTIAL PROFILE...and ONLY IF ONLY ONE PERSON CONTRIBUTED TO THEM MINOR COMPONENT?

No wonder the defense attorney got that DNA expert lawyer to join him. No wonder Lacy threw in the towel. She'd still have had a hell of a time making this stick if Karr DID match.

 

Gee, I could have swore that I heard once or twice that this was NOT a DNA case......like maybe from a consultant for the Boulder DA???

 

It's 10:10 and I can't find the press conference anywhere on da boob tube! Where is it?

 

If you give someone enough rope.......

Bartender.......I like to send another round over to the Mary Keenan Lacy Michael Tracey table for two!

And keep them coming!

Love,
madd (Mutha's Against DamnDrunks)

 

Finally ....

Well this makes sense .... now I can see how the RST was able to respin the DNA angle, all the while knowing that it was really a useless bit of evidence that couldn't actually tie any one on the planet earth to the crime.

BTW, as an aside, I really get fired up when I see Nancy Grace, constantly putting up "evidence presentations" .... I want to throw a shoe at the TV, because these are all things that have been identified & put to rest, such as the tired old "palm print" (Melinda's), yada, yada, yada.

Is Pam Paugh feeding Nancy all this bullsmit .... they're both in Atlanta, so the calls probably aren't even long distance.

Regards,
Mandarin

 

Phil ... I *think* the press conference is supposed to be at 10 a.m. Mountain time.

 

D_OH!!!!! LOL! Man, got caught up in the excitement of it all and wasn't using my head. More coffee!!! Thank you! :404:

 

Ah, yes, another lovely coinky dink the RST tries to cover up every time they toot the DNA horn.

Before I go any further, though, where did THIS come from:

Does anyone have the evidence list - what are Exhibits 23A and 23B? And, what sperm fractures are they referring to?

Regarding the panty DNA, this report was of the first sample taken by the BPD and analyzed by the labs. jameson claims there was a second sample taken after Lacy took over, and that is the sample that yielded 9 good markers and one junk marker. It is also the sample that was submitted to CODIS database. The problem with jameson's comments is that nothing has been made public on that particular sample except through Lin Wood, Lou Smit, and jameson on her forum. Therefore, I do not trust the information to be fair and accurate.

The DNA mentioned in the above report indicates that the foreign DNA was so degraded, they couldn't tell if it was from one or two donors. In Steve Thomas's book, (I can't tell you the chapter or page numbers, because I don't have the book with me) he stated the following results for the first DNA collected: If the DNA came from only one donor, the Ramsey males (it was said to be male DNA) were excluded. However, if the foreign DNA came from more than one donor(excluding JonBenet)then the Ramsey males could NOT be excluded.

Because there has been so much secrecy regarding the (alleged) second sample of DNA tested, we can't make any assumptions or come to any conclusions regarding the DNA.

The DNA is always going to be the stumbling block in this case, no matter Lacy is the prosecutor or someone else. The reason for that is because no one can say for sure when the DNA got there. IMO, there is about one in 1 million chance that partial DNA could be from the murderer of JB. There is about 1 in 5 billion chance (IMO) that an intruder will ever be matched up with the DNA.

But, it's there, and it presents a problem for a prosecutor, because the defense will always use it as reasonable doubt, no matter the circumstances. If they tried someone whose 9 markers matched the DNA in CODIS, and if they had other evidence to put that person in the Ramsey house on Dec. 25, they might have a decent case, but the DNA would throw a monkey wrench into the prosecution's case, because the sample was degraded, and I'm suspicious of the chain of command on the second DNA sample, where that sample had been stored for all those years, the collection procedures, etc. If I'm suspicious, you can bet a defense attorney would beat that point to death in order to establish reasonable doubt.

In spite of the fact that the RST and Lacy managed to push that alleged second sample into the CODIS database, the fact remains that that first test still remains, and they cannot disregard what it says. If there are two donors, then Ramsey males cannot be excluded. No matter what Lin Wood and Lou Smit want everyone to believe, evidence doesn't change. Withholding vital records such as this one from the public is obstruction of justice - just another example of the obstruction that has gone on in this case.


And...there is a very, very good chance that the partial (degraded) DNA had absolutely nothing to do with JB's murder, which would, of course, open the scope of the investigation to include anyone and everyone who has already been investigated and those who were in the house that night. That the DA has disregarded this possibility, when noted experts in the DNA field have given their opinions that this is probably the case, is criminal intent, IMO, and has been done for the sole purpose of protecting the Ramseys from prosecution.

Lacy should be under investigation for obstruction of justice, and I'm dead serious about that.

 

{quote]Does anyone have the evidence list [/quote]

Yes, it's around somewhere. I've been looking for it. I'm oretty sure Why_Nut posted a screen capture of it once and someone typed it up.

Still looking....

 

Dna

You know, it really stinks that there is all this fuss over DNA, when we have such good evidence in the Ransom Note and Patsy's exemplars. If only there was a machine or a lab or something Scientific about handwriting analysis! We wouldn't even be here. But no, it's analyzed by human beings, and we know humans aren't reliable, but test tubes are. (sarcasm)

This DNA is not the main evidence, yet everyone is worshipping at the altar of gene testing. Makes me mad.

Heymom

 

The linguistics of the DNA report says a lot about the worthlessness of this DNA sample.

I've underlined in red the most important words in the part of the report (that we can see) ... a beautiful subordinate clause than begins with the word "if."

"If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M were contributed by a single individual ..."

IF. That's a big word.

If the minor components (temporarily remove the prepositional phrase "from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M") were contributed by a single individual ...

And there's another beautiful word ... the adjective "single." IF the components are from a SINGLE individual. One person.

We don't even know if the DNA is from one person or a mix of contaminent DNA!!!

Blast it from the mountaintops! As Henry Lee said, THIS IS NOT A DNA CASE!!!!

 

Yep here it is:-

LAB CLASS XX???-2136(?)-4153(?) SECTION: DNA TESTING
AGENCY(?) NAME – CD0878136 – F2 ACBLDER(?)

EXTRACTED(?) BY: blacked out EXTRACTION DATE: 123196(?)

ABSTRACT(X) AFA(?) ?/? ??? (would this be the control sample?)

RAMSEY, PATSY W/F
RAMSEY, JOHN W/M

RAMSEY, JONBENET W/F


Two lines BLACKED OUT

DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997

EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
#5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
#7 Bloodstains from panties
#14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
#14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
#14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
#15A, #15B Samples from tape
Bloodstains from white blanket
#17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??
#13A, #13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey

http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=1237&forum=DCForumID61

ETA - here's another thread that has the source document on it
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache...lanket"+jonbenet+CBI&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

 

I know that when that DNA was initially tested, they thought it probably came from John Ramsey--which didn't really mean anything since he was lots of contact with JBR.