Will Something Be Done In This Case? Is Schiller In Trouble?

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tricia, Jul 7, 2006.

  1. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Yeah, either all of it's okay, or none of it is.
  2. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks to Little and Elle for putting up the Grand Juror picture from the Globe article.

    Anyone want to discuss this article, "JonBenet: Why Mom Was Never Charged"?

    Because I have to tell you, if you haven't read it, it has some things in it so strange, I am quite confused.

    Schiller was obviously "the source," almost quoted word for word. What's he up to? Is someone paying him to shill for the Ramseys?

    And either he's lying, confused, or we've been lied to for almost 10 years about some evidence in this case. There are some very strange things in this article. It doesn't even make sense at times. It starts out saying Patsy took the secrets of that night to her grave. Then it proceeds to Schiller shilling: it was an intruder.

    Not only that, but this time, Schiller/the source out and out states:

    So if this is true, I want to know from someone other than Schiller, who obviously has made so many statements conflicting known evidence now, I need a reliable source, and not just his spin.

    I hope some other reporter is on this. Surely this is big news among those who stood by the Judge's orders for all these years.

    Or not. Maybe reporters are so tired of the RST running the media into the ground and the truth with it, using the justice system to do their personal bidding, they've just all turned their backs but the shills still going for the money.

    So it's come to this. The truth is further than ever from being told, and the chance that it ever will be is now zero.

    This article also repeats the insanely illogical Schiller tripe that JonBenet was FED PINEAPPLE by the killer, WHO DRANK TEA WITH HER. Then the article says that the single fiber in the bed proves Patsy didn't kill JonBenet. Whether JB had a tea party with the killer BEFORE OR AFTER she was tied up in her bed, it doesn't specify. But with neither the glass nor bowl tested for DNA...darn. That old killer could have left his DNA right there, and we'd KNOW he ate and drank with JonBenet before murdering her. OR NOT. But the article neglects to mention PATSY'S AND BURKE'S FINGERPRINTS ON THE GLASS AND BOWL. How thoughtful.

    So...are we being told the grand jurors ALSO thought that IF the prime suspects SAID IT, it's the gospel truth? Because if that's true, then the jury was a bunch of idiots who shouldn't have been trusted to drive a car. NO REASON TO LIE? How about prison food?

    The article also REPEATS THE CAUCASION MALE DNA IN THE PANTIES story. But NOW the spin is that the killer is the one who "breathed or sneezed" on the panties during the murder.

    You think this is bad? It gets worse. Speaking of the grand jurors' reactions to seeing the brutal autopsy and crime scene pictures of the victim:

    What? When would that picture have been made? By the coroner or his assistant, moving the body to photograph at the home? But if that's the reference, wouldn't it have been worse to see her lying on her back, with her face revealed? OR is someone just getting it ALL WRONG?

    Then the article really commits a terrible error, IMO:

    Now that's just a lie. BIG LIE. HUGE LIE. The garrote cord was found to still be knotted at the back, and that means it was tied at the back and pulled from the back. PERIOD. The green paint chip on JonBenet's chin is evidence that JonBenet was on her face during this, because that paint chip matched the green paint in the paint tray.

    Why are they telling all these lies now?

    I'm thinking...the whole article is filled with lies, distortions, and exaggerations, in hopes of convincing the public that Patsy really didn't have anything to do with this murder. It states this time and time again.

    So...just WHAT SECRETS DID PATSY TAKE TO HER GRAVE, THEN? Remember way at the beginning, first paragraph in the article? Patsy took the secrets of that night to her grave? Were these makup tips? How to sleep through the murder of your child? WHAT SECRETS? If she's so innocent, then she has no secrets, as she would have certainly told any related to the murder to LE, right? So...which is it?

    Are these people on drugs?
  3. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef


    The new Globe has six pages devoted to this case. There is a photo of the panties she was found in! Did I miss this one too somehow, or is this another new revelation?!

    It also has the Grand Juror and her photo as well as covering her speaking on the Schiller documentary. So yeah.......I gave money to the tabs so now there is even less to sue me for!

  4. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    I know Keenan-Lacy is aware of all of everything concerning the grand juror. If she does nothing then there is nothing in the way for us to offer money to the grand juror members to get them to talk, which I am prepared to do.

    Lacy has to do something. I know she hates to lift a finger in this case but if she doesn't it will just be worse for her.
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Oh, yeah, forgot to mention the "stun gun" story is tied in with the "SINGLE CORD FIBER IN THE BED" story. The article states:

    So, STILL no one questions the SPIN that a stun gun would have KNOCKED JONBENET OUT. It's pure BS. She'd have screamed her head off with the pain of it. Not to mention...the BPD has stated, as well as Dr. Spitz, that the marks in question WERE NOT FROM A STUN GUN. Kane also said this. Only Lou Smit and Doberson--who seems to have fallen into the "hire an expert for any opinion" catagory--are the only "experts" I've seen pushing this as fact. If they wanted to find THE TRUTH, the LEAST they'd do is say MAYBE this is the source. They have both lost all objectivity to go on such an extended campaign to clear the Ramseys and sink the case against anyone, since their conflict of opinion with LE who investigated this case for so long would play out in court and raise reasonable doubt FOR ANY INTRUDER. Not that they really care, as finding the "intruder" isn't their goal, obviously. It's getting their faces on TV as Ramsey shills that they love, IMO.

    So...where are we now with the Schiller spin? The intruder had tea and pineapple with JonBenet. After she was carried to bed by her parents fast asleep, so deeply that she never stirred while having her coat, boots, and pants removed, nor while being picked up out of the car and laid on the bed, nor while having pajama bottoms pulled on her. But she woke with no complaints and had tea and pineapple downstairs with...someone so unknown to her that his DNA has never been matched in 9 years of testing everyone LE could think of to test. So the intruder took her out of bed, down to the table, took out his own pineapple in a bowl, which just HAPPENED to have Patsy's fingerprints on it.... Oops. that won't work. But don't tell.

    OK, so he BROUGHT his own pineapple, and found Patsy's bowl with her fingerprints and put his pineapple into the bowl. Then he pulled out HIS OWN TEABAG and put that in a glass that had BURKE'S fingerprints on it, and made tea. Heated the water in the microwave first? So they ate, quite CORDIALLY, this sleepy child in her dark home in the middle of the night with ONE OR TWO INTRUDERS, and THEN she was taken by this faction back up to her bed and tied up and stun gunned.... And all the time she ate the pineapple she never cried out. Nor when he/they stunned her.

    OKOKOKOK.... Just WHY would he/they take her BACK UPSTAIRS, where...you know...her FAMILY WAS...after feeding her IN THE DARK...instead of just heading on down to the basement?

    Or is the RST going with Sissi's newest brilliant theory? The faction tied her up in the bed, stun gunned her to get her to the table...AND TORTURED HER WITH PINEAPPLE! Don't mention that if she could eat, she could scream...and if she'd been stunned already...just maybe she'd have SCREAMED FOR HELP at some point during...oh...eating pineapple while the perp drank TEA!

    Dear god. Is there no low the RST won't go to so they can obstruct justice in this case?

    Apparently not. I'll try to wrap this up, as I'm about to throw my computer out the window:

    The article says one other thing I've never heard before:

    Had we heard this before? I sure don't remember it.

    OK, I have to go, so I'll have to come back for fixing typos. Please excuse until then.
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2006
  6. wombat

    wombat Member

    Crap, I have to go buy the Globe now.

    What's Schiller up to? In PMPT he listed huge amounts of evidence that point to Patsy, and he KNOWS the ransom note is in her handwriting. Even in the freaking movie of PMPT, directed by Schiller, he makes Patsy look not so good.

    He's obviously working to make money, and has been at this latest effort for a while, because the background in some of the video in the documentary includes orange trees, looks like last fall to me. In the video you can tell that the FBI agents and others have been edited -they may have said some other, more incriminating things.

    Did he cozy up to the Rs and Woody when Patsy got the brain tumor last fall? Is he setting all this up to do a big documentary about how he actually "solves" the case and declares PDI?

    I'm boggled, too, KK. Something is up. As Tricia has said, if that grand juror is not going to get in trouble, can we talk to them too?
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Oh, good, you have it, too, RR. Because I need for you to tell me I'M NOT MAKING IT UP! Because right now, I'm thinking someone has slipped me a mickey...this just CAN'T be for real.

    Here's one other thing I missed that I want to know if anyone has an explanation, as I've never heard THIS before, regarding the ransom note:

    WHAT? Now I'm even MORE confused. If that's possible.

    The article goes on to state the intruder had plenty of time, of course, as he wrote the ransom note while the family wasn't home. Then hid...meant to kidnap JonBenet...kidnapping gone wrong...left quickly after the murder.

    Which happened after he had tea and pineapple, ran up and down the stairs with JonBenet repeatedly, tied her up, stunned her, with no duct tape over her mouth while she didn't scream and ate pineapple, molested and garroted her, bashed her head in at some point...AND THEN PANICKED AND RAN OUT LEAVING THE RANSOM NOTE where he'd carefully put it on the stairs while carrying the tied up JonBenet to eat pineapple and/or molest, murder, and clean her up and redress her...wrap her in her blanket...AND THEN PANICKED AND RAN OUT THE DOOR!

    Ok, I'm done. The human race is doomed, if people can actually get this crap published by so many sources without so much as one person in our entire American press standing up and saying STOP WITH THE LIES! A CHILD IS DEAD AND THIS IS NOT RIGHT!
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2006
  8. guppy

    guppy Member

    Schiller said in an interview with MSNBC that Patsy was "overwhelmingly exonerated" by the DNA.
  9. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Now Guppy......that doesn't include the DNA samples not tested.


  10. YumYum012

    YumYum012 Member

    I'm behind in reading this thread. However, I DID read a couple posts that I want to address. They are related to whether or not Lacey knows about Schiller's contact with the Juror. Evidently some didn't read the Matt Sebastian article that I provided the link to. It's an OUTSTANDING article ... READ IT!


    Judge Roxanne Balin is the person that has to be informed of Schiller's dealings with the Grand Juror ... NOT LAcey. Here's a quote from the article:

    Should jurors decide to disregard the court order and discuss the Ramsey case, they wouldn't be targeted by prosecutors, said Bill Nagel, Boulder County's assistant district attorney. Instead, any contempt charges would be levied by Chief Judge Roxanne Bailin, who oversaw the grand jury.

    Barking up the wrong tree is like goin' down a dead end street ... it ain't gonna git ya where ya wanna git to!

    Also in that same article, Matt points out that such Juror indescretions are RARELY punished. Sooooo ... IF Roxanne Balin is aware of the situation, she still would weigh the impact of the infraction and ask the ultimate question: "What would Star Jones do in this situation?" Generally, if there is no harm, then the judge would call No Foul. I don't see a serious foul in this instance.

    Read the article ... it's excellent.

  11. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Good points, Dim!

    The Daily Camera Ramsey Archive
    Jury's findings still secret

    By Matt Sebastian
    Camera Staff Writer

    It may be the best-kept secret in Boulder County: What really happened in the waning days of the grand jury investigation into the death of JonBenét Ramsey?

    Rumors and speculation abound. Did the 12 jurors vote to indict JonBenét's parents, only to see then-District Attorney Alex Hunter decline to press charges?

    Or did prosecutors quietly quash an attempt by the jury to issue a report clearing John and Patsy Ramsey of their 6-year-old daughter's death?

    Police and prosecutors won't say. But it appears that several of the jurors, who spent 13 months listening to testimony, would like to. Yet they can't — they're gagged for life.

    Some observers call it a double standard: In a case where law enforcement officials and defense attorneys leaked like sieves from Day One, and lead investigators went public on television and in books, a group of ordinary citizens devoted to the search for answers can't say what they found.

    "There comes a point where the public interest in the topic and the speech rights of the grand jurors trump any remaining interest in preserving the secrecy of the investigation," said Tom Kelley, a Denver media lawyer.

    With the five-year anniversary of JonBenét's death approaching, the Ramseys' attorney says that time has come.

    "The public has a right to know what happened to all of that money and effort," said L. Lin Wood, an Atlanta libel attorney. "The grand jurors ought to be released in this case to disclose what happened — and let the chips fall where they may in regards to the Ramseys."

    In the more than two years since the grand jury inquest wrapped up, no juror has gone public. But this year, sources told the Daily Camera, at least three have tested the waters — only to be rebuffed by unwilling listeners who feared prosecution.

    People have good reason not to talk to the Ramsey jurors.

    Colorado law forbids grand jurors from discussing an investigation until an indictment is announced or a report released. Neither happened in the Ramsey case.

    Furthermore, Boulder District Judge Daniel C. Hale issued an order on the first day the grand jury met in the Ramsey case that bars anyone from contacting the jurors about their service.

    And on the jury's last day, Judge Morris Sandstead reiterated that order. In his discharge to the jurors, Sandstead reminded the panel that "the oath of secrecy that you swore at the time that you began your grand jury service remains in effect."

    Any violation of the order, either by jurors or people attempting to talk to jurors, will result in criminal contempt charges, Sandstead warned.

    Michael Kane, the prosecutor who led the Ramsey grand jury presentation, said there's good reason for the gag.

    "The main purpose of grand jury secrecy has always been to keep witnesses candid," Kane said. "There's almost a compact with witnesses that when they come in, what they say is not going to breach those four walls."

    While grand jurors traditionally have been silenced, the same isn't always true for witnesses.

    The federal government and 36 states allow grand jury witnesses to talk under the theory that they may decide whether to publicize what they know. In Colorado, grand jury witnesses couldn't go public until recently.

    A federal judge this summer struck down Colorado's gag on witnesses, ruling former Ramsey housekeeper Linda Hoffmann-Pugh could discuss her testimony before Boulder County's grand jury.

    But witnesses like Hoffmann-Pugh, who sued on First Amendment grounds, don't know the whole case; only the jurors do. So far, none has challenged the gag order in court.

    Should jurors decide to disregard the court order and discuss the Ramsey case, they wouldn't be targeted by prosecutors, said Bill Nagel, Boulder County's assistant district attorney. Instead, any contempt charges would be levied by Chief Judge Roxanne Bailin, who oversaw the grand jury.

    The charges carry a penalty of fines and jail time.

    "When there's information to believe someone violated a court order, the court usually issues a 'show cause' order," Nagel said. "In effect, they'd be saying, 'Come on in and give me your side of the story.'"

    Legal experts say that rarely happens.

    It didn't two years ago when Daily Camera reporters interviewed four former grand jurors about the failed investigation of the 1983 slaying of Sid Wells.

    The Camera published the jurors' comments — some critical of the district attorney's handling of the case — in four separate articles. Nothing happened.

    Nor did anyone react when a Camera reporter contacted alternates on the Ramsey jury after their dismissal.

    Bailin did slap contempt charges on two Boulder men who provided jurors with portions of a book that postulates JonBenét was killed by someone involved in a child pornography ring.

    The judge ultimately dismissed those charges, but not before hauling Evan Ravitz and Bob MacFarland into court and giving them a stern warning.

    Colorado's most famous example of breached grand jury secrecy came after the investigation into environmental crimes at the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant.

    Members of that grand jury, a federal panel, leaked portions of its sealed report to Westword in 1992 after learning that a plea deal precluded indictments against any plant operators.

    "There were threats, but no one was prosecuted for that," said Len Ackland, a University of Colorado journalism professor who wrote a book on Rocky Flats.

    The Flats jurors still are fighting in federal court for the right to tell their tales.

    Grand jury experts often point to the Rocky Flats case as an example of when jurors should, in fact, be allowed to discuss what happened behind closed doors.

    "We ought to permit grand jurors to go public under certain circumstances, namely where, in their opinion after hearing the evidence, the government has chosen to prosecute or, even more likely, not to prosecute — for reasons which are clearly improper," said Peter Davis, a grand jury expert at the Touro Law School in New York.

    Others point out that there isn't much to keep secret anymore about the death of 6-year-old JonBenét, who was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her parents' Boulder home Dec. 26, 1996.

    A former lead detective on the Ramsey case, Steve Thomas, wrote a 356-page book detailing the Boulder police investigation. The Ramseys, who remain under suspicion in their daughter's death, have published their own account of the case.

    And former police detective Lou Smit, hired specifically for the case by the district attorney, went on national television this year to give a PowerPoint demonstration he presented to the grand jury.

    "I'm very suspicious of the claim that disclosure of information about the investigation would hurt it," said Wood, the Ramseys' attorney.

    Wood has been keen to unlock the secrets of the Ramsey grand jury. On CNN's "Larry King Live" last year, he goaded Kane, the former prosecutor, into agreeing to seek the release of grand jury transcripts.

    "I'll tell you what, Mr. Wood," Kane said, according to a transcript of the television show, "if you will go to the court with me, and ask the presiding judge to authorize a release of that information, I will release it."

    The next day, Hunter announced his office would do no such thing.

    Wood still is trying to find a way to make the grand jury's findings public. Last week, he said he is considering suing Boulder officials "to see if we cannot get the truth of this investigation before the public."

    Still, some legal experts warn that the public's insatiable thirst for news doesn't always supersede the very real need for secrecy in police investigations.

    "It's a rare case where having grand jurors talk would jeopardize an investigation," said Scott Robinson, a Denver defense lawyer. "And this is that rare case."

    Contact Matt Sebastian at (303) 473-1498 or sebastianm@thedailycamera.com

    December 17, 2001

  12. Greenleaf

    Greenleaf FFJ Senior Member


    Koldkase, it couldn’t be more obvious.
    There are people in high places that, for whatever reason, want to perpetuate the intruder theory. The main reason they have gotten away with it for so long is apathy. Yes, apathy among the public and apathy among the media. Where are the investigative reporters? Where are the professionals, who do the background checks, along with the grueling gathering of facts? There are no shortcuts to fact gathering. It is tedious and time consuming.
    By the time all this disinformation filters down to the lazy media, they just keep on repeating all the old falsehoods, over and over again.
    Every now and then the tabloids add a little something here and there to spice up the same old same old.
    The lazy media has yet to address the core of the problem, and that is: Who are these people who adamantly and frequently proclaim this absurd theory?
    More importantly, WHY? What stake do they have in the outcome of this case? Indeed! Besides the defense lawyers, and the guilty party/and or parties, why should there be so many that continue to try so hard to protect the real perpetrators of this horrible crime?
    Methinks that there is much more to this than meets the eye. Yes, there is! I am no conspiracy nut, but I am convinced that there is a conspiracy to keep the truth hidden.
    Anyone with half a brain should dismiss the intruder straightaway. There is no evidence that there ever was an intruder. The RST is grasping at straws. They keep on manufacturing “evidence,†and proposing the most outrageous theories.
    And, they are getting away with it because there are not enough people, like us, here at FFJ, who gives a damn about trying to solve this convoluted mess.
    No, Koldkase, you are not loosing your mind. You are just an intelligent, caring citizen trying to make sense of stupidity personified. Yes, it is enough to give one a huge headache.
  13. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Yes, it is.

    We know Keenan-Lacey isn't going to do anything about flappy-mouthed jurors. Heck, she's such a close, personal friend of the Ramseys, she attended Patsy's funeral as a special guest right along with Lou Smit and other case players who pandered to the Ramseys. You know it's bad when the DA and assorted "investigators" don't even try to project an air of impartiality in the case anymore. Their bias in favor of the Ramseys is now out there in the wide open for the whole world to see.

    I don't think Bailin is going to do anything either. So, it's really open season on the Grand Jurors. I say we send an FFJ delegation to Boulder with $118,000 in a nice brown attache', and let them know we're ready to do business!
  14. guppy

    guppy Member

    OK, I'll bite. What DNA samples haven't been tested.
  15. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Hahahaha, guppy, I think RR might mean the goons at the swamp who are offering to send in their own DNA and pay for testing it just to eliminate themselves as the perp.

    I think I may never stop howling over this one.
  16. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    OMG! I'M RUINED FOREVER!!!!!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :moron: :moron: :moron: :floor: :floor: :floor:

    I swear to the highest court in the land that I thought for sure this was a joke. I wandered over and lo and behold YOU'RE SERIOUS!!! When I go over yonder, I mainly just browse for certain posters and don't pay much attention to things like DNA threads cause I figure it's more of the same old, same old, so I never stopped to read it....UNTIL NOW!!!


    After almost 10 years, FINALLY, something that made it all worthwhile; all the time and hours discussing this case, all the books, all the mags, all the rags, all the interviews, all the TV specials, all the ridicule, FINALLY, something that made me laugh so hard and so long (thank goodness I had my crack pipe handy down here in the gutter and my Thunderbird to calm me down long enough to type this) that my face is permanently frozen in my "I can hardly breathe from laughing so hard" expression.

    This solution to the murder has got to be the finest yet!!!

    See those penguins down below?

    If I were the one on the right, and she/he were the one on the left I would NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER stop slapping her!


    P.S. I think we should all write letters to Cherokee so that she can eliminate us all based on our handwriting. I am sure she can already recognize each and every one of us on our linguistic tendencies, so her job is already cut in half. She's a smart one, our Cherokee

    Hey, it's a start. After she's finished with us, she just has to eliminate the rest of the world.

    Oh, I have to stop.
  17. guppy

    guppy Member

    For the RST, it is not our finest hour.
  18. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    No, it's not, but through no fault of yours Guppy.

    Welcome (really) :wave:
  19. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    "Now that's just a lie. BIG LIE. HUGE LIE. The garrote cord was found to still be knotted at the back, and that means it was tied at the back and pulled from the back. PERIOD. The green paint chip on JonBenet's chin is evidence that JonBenet was on her face during this, because that paint chip matched the green paint in the paint tray."

    RIGHT! The killer couldn't even look her in the face.

    "So, STILL no one questions the SPIN that a stun gun would have KNOCKED JONBENET OUT. It's pure BS. She'd have screamed her head off with the pain of it. Not to mention...the BPD has stated, as well as Dr. Spitz, that the marks in question WERE NOT FROM A STUN GUN. Kane also said this. Only Lou Smit and Doberson--who seems to have fallen into the "hire an expert for any opinion" catagory--are the only "experts" I've seen pushing this as fact. If they wanted to find THE TRUTH, the LEAST they'd do is say MAYBE this is the source"

    Again, that is correct.

    "Schiller said in an interview with MSNBC that Patsy was "overwhelmingly exonerated" by the DNA."

    Then he's either lying or stupid.
  20. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I don't think any of us are having our finest hour right now.

    I called a DNA lab in California, Acadiania Criminalistics...or something like that. I spoke with a woman who very nicely explained to me that DNA can "lean" toward one race or another, but there is only one lab she knows of which is pioneering this type of profiling, a company in Florida named DNA Print Genomics, or something like that.

    She said this is a very expensive test. She said that company can give you PERCENTAGES of race in the DNA. For example, 98% European. She said the mixture of races can be a problem, because if a person is more black or white, you don't know how that influence shows up in physical appearance. The DNA test will not tell you what race they appear to be. If that makes sense.

    But she did say that her lab had once used this company to profile a serial rapist, the S. LA Serial Killer, and the technique worked. He was black and profiled as black in the test. She said because it's so expensive, it would most likely be used by LE for a COLD CASE, or one like their serial rapist, something where LE really needs some help with anything they can get.

    I asked if a person is full Asian vs caucasion, would that be clear. She said yes.

    I asked if this race test could be done on 10 markers, as opposed to a full 13. She said to do the race ID test, they look for different kinds of markers or some such science type of big words stuff, and uh ah oh different kinds of processes...and um which uh ah...so it's different and she couldn't say yes or no. Which was fine with me, because at that point I was deep in the weeds. (Sorry, but she talked fast and she was at work and I wasn't pushing my luck by asking her to repeat herself.) But I did jot down some more notes, and here they are:

    She said this particular test that this Florida company does is a different kind of DNA test...and this is going to be very sketchy from my notes and not at all clear, maybe plain wrong: 10 15 13 markers (?); SDRs; SNIPS; looking for single match ions...? Yeah, that makes lots of sense. :takeabow:

    So...I guess now we know that the race CAN be ascertained by this Florida company. What we don't know is if the BDA DID that test.

    Anybody want to call Tom Bennett? :tsmile:
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2006
  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