Justice Watch Support JW "IS THERE REASONABLE DOUBT?" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... IS THERE REASONABLE DOUBT?, Holly, 11:21:26, 3/18/2001 My Take...., Charley, 11:36:03, 3/18/2001, (#1) I, too, thought, Holly, 11:39:30, 3/18/2001, (#2) Maybe why Hunter..., Charley, 11:44:51, 3/18/2001, (#3) I know what you mean..., Holly, 11:50:54, 3/18/2001, (#4) This thread somehow resonates..., Dunvegan, 12:05:36, 3/18/2001, (#6) Dunvegan, Holly, 12:06:48, 3/18/2001, (#8) Holly, ayelean, 11:59:27, 3/18/2001, (#5) Well, ayelean,, Holly, 12:05:47, 3/18/2001, (#7) Remember, v_p, 12:09:19, 3/18/2001, (#9) v_p, Holly, 12:18:00, 3/18/2001, (#11) APB report., Holly, 12:16:46, 3/18/2001, (#10) Holly, v_p, 12:22:49, 3/18/2001, (#12) v_p, Holly, 12:26:47, 3/18/2001, (#13) Thank you, v_p, 14:46:40, 3/18/2001, (#14) manicures, pinker, 15:15:57, 3/18/2001, (#15) can somebody PLEASE answer?, Edie Pratt, 15:27:36, 3/18/2001, (#16) EdieP, Holly, 22:10:04, 3/18/2001, (#29) Reasonable Doubt, Ginja, 16:31:27, 3/18/2001, (#18) OK, Ginja, Holly, 22:20:28, 3/18/2001, (#31) Did I hear DNA?, Greenleaf, 16:12:22, 3/18/2001, (#17) are we 100% sure, mary99, 16:54:00, 3/18/2001, (#21) I think..., LurkerXIV, 16:49:42, 3/18/2001, (#20) DNA=Doesn't Nail Anybody, Anton, 16:41:46, 3/18/2001, (#19) If there, Morgan, 19:06:44, 3/18/2001, (#22) Holly????, Mandarin, 21:06:52, 3/18/2001, (#25) Mandarin., Holly, 22:07:27, 3/18/2001, (#28) Holly, re Greenie, Mandarin, 00:42:39, 3/19/2001, (#39) When donkeys fly......, rose, 20:18:27, 3/18/2001, (#23) Rose ..., Mandarin, 21:09:52, 3/18/2001, (#26) Humm, Tricia, 21:03:26, 3/18/2001, (#24) Ginja makes a good point, ayelean, 21:23:48, 3/18/2001, (#27) Steve Thomas, Gemini, 22:28:49, 3/18/2001, (#32) just reread that post, Gemini, 22:36:31, 3/18/2001, (#34) Cheek brush..., Holly, 22:16:17, 3/18/2001, (#30) Now I'm thoroughly confused, janphi, 22:47:39, 3/18/2001, (#35) Janphi, Gemini, 22:56:53, 3/18/2001, (#36) Holly, Gemini, 22:30:10, 3/18/2001, (#33) Gemini., Holly, 22:58:32, 3/18/2001, (#37) Attempting Italics in Header, janphi, 23:18:24, 3/18/2001, (#38) I don't mean italics, Holly, 05:27:37, 3/19/2001, (#42) Thanks Ayelean ..., Mandarin, 00:49:42, 3/19/2001, (#40) Mandarin, in regards to your previous po..., sds, 05:26:26, 3/19/2001, (#41) sds, driver, 07:30:32, 3/19/2001, (#44) sds, DuBois, 07:26:55, 3/19/2001, (#43) we also know, ayelean, 07:35:12, 3/19/2001, (#45) 2 bits worth, fly, 07:49:39, 3/19/2001, (#46) Fly...., rose, 10:34:25, 3/19/2001, (#47) rose., Holly, 12:59:33, 3/19/2001, (#55) No sense in my, Watching you, 10:48:30, 3/19/2001, (#48) I agree with you, Rose, Mini, 11:30:43, 3/19/2001, (#49) Well, well, well, RiverRat, 12:03:37, 3/19/2001, (#51) Mini....., rose, 11:47:33, 3/19/2001, (#50) Right, Rose, and..., Britt, 12:36:42, 3/19/2001, (#52) hmmmmmmmm....., mame, 12:57:18, 3/19/2001, (#54) mame, I agree..., Britt, 14:50:07, 3/19/2001, (#79) Well, I'm not sure, Holly, 12:52:47, 3/19/2001, (#53) Britt, fly, 13:04:10, 3/19/2001, (#56) Britt, WY,RiverRat et al, Mandarin, 14:40:41, 3/19/2001, (#74) I know, Fly, Britt, 14:18:54, 3/19/2001, (#66) Total Conjecture on My Part, janphi, 13:58:15, 3/19/2001, (#60) Oh Holly are you seeing the light finall..., Nedthan Johns, 13:41:46, 3/19/2001, (#57) Charley..., Nedthan Johns, 13:47:18, 3/19/2001, (#58) Nedd..., Country Girl, 14:24:56, 3/19/2001, (#69) Ayelean.., Nedthan Johns, 13:56:29, 3/19/2001, (#59) V_P, Nedthan Johns, 13:59:36, 3/19/2001, (#61) Holly: , Nedthan Johns, 14:01:19, 3/19/2001, (#62) Pinker>, Nedthan Johns, 14:03:20, 3/19/2001, (#63) Edie>>., Nedthan Johns, 14:05:49, 3/19/2001, (#64) Ginja.., Nedthan Johns, 14:15:47, 3/19/2001, (#65) Greenleaf: , Nedthan Johns, 14:19:50, 3/19/2001, (#67) Mary..., Nedthan Johns, 14:23:17, 3/19/2001, (#68) Lurker X!&%^(), Nedthan Johns, 14:28:12, 3/19/2001, (#70) Ned, fly, 14:57:31, 3/19/2001, (#82) Anton..., Nedthan Johns, 14:33:54, 3/19/2001, (#71) So , Tricia, 14:37:42, 3/19/2001, (#73) Morgan..., Nedthan Johns, 14:35:04, 3/19/2001, (#72) Britt and ESP, Mandarin, 14:52:24, 3/19/2001, (#81) Mandarin., Nedthan Johns, 14:42:20, 3/19/2001, (#75) Nedd, FT, 14:49:52, 3/19/2001, (#78) Tricia.., Nedthan Johns, 14:46:52, 3/19/2001, (#76) Gemini..., Nedthan Johns, 14:49:22, 3/19/2001, (#77) Gemini..., Nedthan Johns, 14:50:48, 3/19/2001, (#80) Ned ...., Mandarin, 14:59:07, 3/19/2001, (#84) Janphi, Nedthan Johns, 14:58:29, 3/19/2001, (#83) SDS.., Nedthan Johns, 15:01:08, 3/19/2001, (#86) Write A Book!, Mandarin, 15:00:46, 3/19/2001, (#85) Fly..., Nedthan Johns, 15:02:44, 3/19/2001, (#87) See you later Mandarin, Nedthan Johns, 15:03:22, 3/19/2001, (#88) Rose..., Nedthan Johns, 15:11:15, 3/19/2001, (#89) Mini..., Nedthan Johns, 15:13:11, 3/19/2001, (#90) Hey Britt..., Nedthan Johns, 15:20:37, 3/19/2001, (#91) Britt and Mame..., Nedthan Johns, 15:22:42, 3/19/2001, (#92) Britt..., Nedthan Johns, 15:25:38, 3/19/2001, (#93) Mandarin..., Nedthan Johns, 15:34:11, 3/19/2001, (#94) Britt..., Nedthan Johns, 15:38:35, 3/19/2001, (#95) Janphi.., Nedthan Johns, 15:41:42, 3/19/2001, (#96) Country Girl..., Nedthan Johns, 15:53:31, 3/19/2001, (#98) Look..., janphi, 15:52:34, 3/19/2001, (#97) Fly: , Nedthan Johns, 16:04:22, 3/19/2001, (#100) If you are an arrogant, insufferable, Watching you, 16:00:23, 3/19/2001, (#99) Ned's replies, Stonegate, 16:05:50, 3/19/2001, (#102) Tricia..., Nedthan Johns, 16:05:43, 3/19/2001, (#101) Mandarin..., Nedthan Johns, 16:07:33, 3/19/2001, (#103) FT.., Nedthan Johns, 16:08:38, 3/19/2001, (#104) Mandarin..., Nedthan Johns, 16:09:59, 3/19/2001, (#105) Janphi..., Nedthan Johns, 16:11:27, 3/19/2001, (#106) Watchin You, Nedthan Johns, 16:13:42, 3/19/2001, (#107) You, who calls, Watching you, 16:18:45, 3/19/2001, (#111) Stonegate.., Nedthan Johns, 16:15:00, 3/19/2001, (#108) Ned....., rose, 16:58:04, 3/19/2001, (#113) OK I will, Nedthan Johns, 16:15:52, 3/19/2001, (#109) I'm new here, Nedd, FT, 16:18:42, 3/19/2001, (#110) Quick, DebDeb, 16:21:19, 3/19/2001, (#112) ................................................................... "IS THERE REASONABLE DOUBT?" Posted by Holly on 11:21:26 3/18/2001 A statement was made by mame, which really impresses me. On the JUDITH PHILLIPS thread mame says that the DNA under the fingernails, belongs to a male and not a Ramsey. It is supposed to be DNA from skin. She called a journalist friend who confirmed he had the same information. I have not heard this before. If this is solid information, it spells TROUBLE in terms of solving this case and getting it prosecuted. It is the one thing that I think could stop any prosecution of DNA tested people, dead in its tracks, because it is reasonable doubt. Could any of us convict if we were convinced that there was DNA from skin cells under JonBenet's - or any victim's nails, and that DNA does not match the defendant? The DNA is supposedly considered "defensive" - and if that is the case, that alone, may be the reason no one has been charged. In what ways could the DNA appear under the nails? Casual contact? With whom? Her last known stop was the Stines - and their DNA was collected and must not match. Could JB have grasped someone playfully and collected the skin cells? If so, when could that play have occurred? Or is it more likely there was a struggle? If there was a struggle, doesn't that eliminate the stun gun theory? The stun gun theory says JB was asleep and then stunned and incapacitated. If Steve Thomas, "the lead investigator" knows of this element , how can he be convinced Patsy killed in a bed wetting rage? How does he explain the DNA under the nails? How does he explain that it might indicate to a jury, that a struggle occurred and the DNA donor is currently unknown? And that means the case is just too risky to prosecute. How is that Alex Hunter's fault? How is that the fault of the BPD? How can anyone be faulted for thinking outside the box, or even looking hard at Nancy Krebs' information. For this case to be prosecuted, the fingernail DNA must be confronted. Until it is identified or explained, charging and prosecuting is nearly impossible. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "My Take...." Posted by Charley on 11:36:03 3/18/2001 Wasn't it classified as minute and degraded? You think if JB was awake and she didn't know her assailant, then she would have put up a fight! You would have found much more skin cells and DNA under her fingernails. If there were no skin cells matching her own under her nails...then we would have to assume that Jonbenet was unconscious and not clawing at her own throat, when she was having her last little breath choked out of her. With that, we would again have to assume that the head blow came first. If JB knew her assailant, she was either concered into going with them or her parents were active, participants in the events that were unfolding that night and she was comfortable in doing what was ask of her.. The DNA believes me to some suspicion that someone else was involved in either JB's death or the coverup of her death. I can't shake the feeling however that Patsy was involved in the murder and somehow John too. Good post Holly! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "I, too, thought" Posted by Holly on 11:39:30 3/18/2001 it was degraded and basically useless. But mame states otherwise. Taking she and the other journalist she called at their word, the DNA may as well be spelled REASONABLE DOUBT. This is just sooooo frustrating. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Maybe why Hunter..." Posted by Charley on 11:44:51 3/18/2001 made that statement that we would all be surprised of who they almost arrested! Ok....then I could guess who that someone might be who was involved...but heck I'm afraid, it would start a war, and I'll be sued! I'm sure Holly, you may know...but everything about this person, comes back to bite you in the *ss! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "I know what you mean..." Posted by Holly on 11:50:54 3/18/2001 Whoever it was, the threat of the "unknown DNA" must not have been too worriesome. That can only mean it worked with the "SUSPECT" or Hunter thought he could maneuver around it. Tap, tap, tap... What the heck is going on here? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "This thread somehow resonates..." Posted by Dunvegan on 12:05:36 3/18/2001 ...John's recent struggle/tussle/scuffle with the BIM... Gotta wonder: was JR attempting to show us how one could put up a fight with an assailant...for a long time (even if not the originally reported "15 minutes") and not have "definitive DNA" under one's nails? The GBI did roll on the break-in, from what I've heard, along with the APD. Just a question...(Dunvegan now dons an asbestos "birthday-suit"....) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Dunvegan" Posted by Holly on 12:06:48 3/18/2001 Now that is interesting thinking. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Holly" Posted by ayelean on 11:59:27 3/18/2001 The amount and quality of the speciman is important and I don't think we know that. We don't even know when JB was bathed last. If the dna is scant, and her last good hand washing was several days before her death then for sure she could have collected it from non violent episodes. If she scraped skin from a perp at the time of attack, that dna would be pretty pristine, clear cut and incriminating to someone other than the known suspects. Somehow I doubt that it represents clear evidence, like shreds of skin of an attacker because they would have known that soom after the event and would not have concentrated on the Rams. I would guess that most of us right at this minute have foreign dna under our nails, and I would suspect children playing with other children would have even more. When the dna was being collected for this case the subjects chosen suggest it was as much for elimination as looking for a suspect. If actual shreds of skin were found I think the vibes we would have received, would have indicated they were looking for a perp. I do wish they would have sampled all her classmates and I never heard that they even interviewed them. Too bad, it may have been revealing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Well, ayelean," Posted by Holly on 12:05:47 3/18/2001 I'm with you, but the fact that mame reports that the forensic experts/cops say they have determined it is DEFENSIVE in nature bothers me. From where is this revelation coming? Does it fit what we know about the case? I agree the DNA could have been deposited through active play. If I grasped your hand to play ring around the rosie, couldn't I have dug my fingernails in for a good grip? Did this child use a nailbrush? None exists on the evidence list, and maybe the same skin cells are on that brush. This is really troubling. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Remember" Posted by v_p on 12:09:19 3/18/2001 The DNA under JBR's fingernails was said to be cross-contaminated due to the ME's use of contaminated or previously used clippers. From what I remember, the DNA could not be definitively determined to be male or female or even matchable to any one person. Both Henry Lee and Barry Scheck have said this is not a DNA case. I don't know who mame's friend is, but I give a lot of credence to what they have to say. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "v_p" Posted by Holly on 12:18:00 3/18/2001 Yes, but couldn't the coroner have matched the skin to other recently autopsied corpses, if that explained it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "APB report." Posted by Holly on 12:16:46 3/18/2001 "Unidentified DNA material was found in JonBenet's underwear, and unidentified skin was found under her fingernails." APB That was reported by APB in April 1999. They confirm there is skin that is unidentified. I'm wondering if since then, DNA was extracted and remains a mystery. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Holly" Posted by v_p on 12:22:49 3/18/2001 Do you have a url for the apb report? I'd like to read all of it. Thanks :o) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "v_p" Posted by Holly on 12:26:47 3/18/2001 http://www.consultwebs.com/dmholmes/clientbb.htmmesg/279.html I think this is it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Thank you" Posted by v_p on 14:46:40 3/18/2001 . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "manicures" Posted by pinker on 15:15:57 3/18/2001 not only is contamination from the coroner possible but also from a professional manicure, just as fungal infections can be spread via that route DNA follows suit. Most implements aren't required by law to be sterilized between customers. JB was in a pageant of some sorts close to the murder, wonder if a manicure could have been part of the 'pageant scrub'. I doubt if they ever considered exhumation of the bodies autopsied proir to JB, maybe afraid of the bad publicity. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "can somebody PLEASE answer?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:27:36 3/18/2001 is the fingernail dna the same as the undies dna? I asked on the other thread, maybe someone will know here:-) Because, if it doesn't match, then what? 2 creeps messed with her? And another thing, is it ABSOLUTELY etched in stone that the foreign dna in her panties came from blood? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "EdieP" Posted by Holly on 22:10:04 3/18/2001 I am wondering exactly the same thing. Are the two DNA's from the same donor? I will see what I can learn, but I almost don't know where to start. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Reasonable Doubt" Posted by Ginja on 16:31:27 3/18/2001 Reasonable doubt works both ways, not just from a defendant's perspective. Holly wonders: In what ways could the DNA appear under the nails? Casual contact? With whom? Her last known stop was the Stines - and their DNA was collected and must not match. Could JB have grasped someone playfully and collected the skin cells? If so, when could that play have occurred? Jurors would be confronted with these same questions...questions that point away from an intruder/third-party. IOW, it could belong to the murderer; then again, it might not. I go along with Ayelean with this "clear evidence" point. Just because the skin was found under the nails isn't proof positive it's evidence in the murder. How much? how fresh? and was it under all the nails or just a few? Is it indicative of a struggle? or a hug? The problem with the nail clippers at the autopsy wasn't that they weren't sterilized or even cleaned after previous use. The same clippers were used in clipping each of the fingernails...and they weren't cleaned between each clipping. And how were the clippings saved? In one container? or individual containers? IOW, the integrity of the chain of evidence was shot to hell right there on the autopsy table with cross-contamination of each individual nail, the matter under each nail, and the clippers. I think the idea that this 'evidence' is defensive is simply a matter of semantics. As Ayelean noted, if JBR struggled with her attacker, or even scratching at her own throat, the amount of matter found would have been substantial, and mixed. Because in defending herself, she would have scratched away more than a few skin cells, including, literally, blood, sweat and tears (and perhaps a facial or arm hair or two). Investigators look to 'defensive' wounds for forensic evidence. I think a good analogy here would be a person putting their hands up in front of them to protect them from someone wielding a knife. Will the victim have a few "scratches"? or deep slashes? In the case at hand, the victim has so little forensic evidence, can we reasonbly believe it's enough to find one guilty of murder? Then there's the negative evidence issue. This could very well be a good example. If, in fact, there is so little matter under the nails defying any great struggle, then one could reasonably assume the victim didn't struggle. We could reason that she was immobilized for one reason or another (stun gun or unconcious from the blunt trauma). But I also think we're placing too much emphasis on the "when" of this struggle (or not). Wouldn't she struggle if a stranger molested her? Would she willingly eat pineapple given to her by a stranger? What if she knew her "attacker". And which attack are we talking? If a stranger sexually abused her, that would definitely be an "attack". But she had signs of chronic abuse, so this wasn't the first time she was molested. So was this 'molestation' an "attack" (in the literal sense), or was it something done that she didn't like, but done by someone she knew. Bottom line, quite a few other factors have to be considered. This matter under the nails does not stand alone. And as noted, both Lee and Scheck have stated, Lee emphatically, that this is not a dna case. Reasonable doubt is based in reasonableness. It's certainly unreasonable to dismiss an entire case built on material and strong circumstantial evidence because you can't identify every single minutiae found at the crime scene. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "OK, Ginja" Posted by Holly on 22:20:28 3/18/2001 your well thought argument gives hope. It seems from Court TV, that juries - except the Simpson case - are often pretty shrewd. But you have to admit, it takes just one juror to screw up things. Only one of twelve has to balk based on this supposed defensive DNA. In Boulder, I sort of think there could be one. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Did I hear DNA?" Posted by Greenleaf on 16:12:22 3/18/2001 Imho, a good sleuth must look at the totality of the clues, while attempting to grasp somewhat of an overview. When we consider the wee bit of "foreign DNA," supposedly found, we can only marvel at the sterile, squeaky-clean, "other-world," dripless, hairless, naked, androgynous "intruder," sans all body fluid and discernible skin. Fingerprints? Don't ask. He was also nimble enough to pen a ransom note, while gloved, on an uneven surface, writing upside down, while copying not only Patsy's handwriting, but her unique idioms as well. What a fellow! When my girls were little, I clipped their fingernails when needed, maybe about once a month or so. Little kids are prone to get all kinds of foreign matter under their nails. It is conceivable that we all have some "foreign DNA" under our nails. If that's all the Rams have to hang their hat on, they are in big trouble. Greenleaf p.s. Sorry, Edie, I know not from whence that DNA came from. That's my final answer. LOL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "are we 100% sure" Posted by mary99 on 16:54:00 3/18/2001 JonBenet was murdered in the Ramsey home? Stephen Singular theorized the actual killing took place elsewhere and the HellHole 'death scene' was staged. If JonBenet was moved from the location of her death back to the home, and the death scene was staged, it follows that the site would be clear of DNA except on her body. Also, many people were in the Ramsey home on the 23rd, and considering JR never gave a complete guest list, it could be argued that any and all non-Ramsey clothing fibers, DNA, hairs, etc. were deposited 'innocently' and can't be considered evidence of an intruder. We know many of the Ramseys friends were tested but we don't know if ALL of them were tested (from the party on the 23rd). Lee's recent book said something to the effect there was evidence of more than one crime scene. Cryptic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "I think..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 16:49:42 3/18/2001 ...most jurors are commonsensical enough to recognize red herrings while weighing the evidence as presented. A smidgin of foreign DNA under the child's fingernails, which could have come from any number of sources, at any time in the days preceding the murder, could not cause reasonable doubt in a sensible person's mind. Looks like the Rams defense is hanging by a fingernail. And can anyone tell me how it can be determined that the tissue under the fingernails was caused as a DEFENSIVE action, as opposed to any of the following actions engaged in by young children: squeezing, teasing, grabbing, scraping, scratching, or clutching? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "DNA=Doesn't Nail Anybody" Posted by Anton on 16:41:46 3/18/2001 It's reasonable doubt in both directions, IMO. The Ramseys can say "it's not ours or our friends' so it must be the intruder's" and everyone else can say "we don't know when it was put there so it doesn't matter". IMO, the coroner's (apparent) fumbling technique obviates any DNA comparisons. I wonder if BPD ever took Meyer's DNA? My impression of him is that he wanted as little to do with this case as possible. I've never seen or heard any evidence that he pushed to get to the crime scene; on the contrary, he stood around waiting (properly) for the search warrant but apparently did not speak with BPD detectives about what they saw. My impression is he is/was a small-county coroner with little to do with crimes (the Alex Hunter of coroners, perhaps). Even so, if the skin DNA could be matched directly with Person A, what does it prove? It shows personal contact with JonBenet but it doesn't show when or under what circumstances. If there was a lot of skin and blood under her nails and Person A was found to have "nail tracks" on his body, that would indicate a very active contact and would be suspicious. If there was evidence that Person A had access to JonBenet within an hour or so of her death, that would combine with the DNA evidence to promote a conviction. But there's no Person A and no good evidence that a Person A had access to JonBenet after 10:00 p.m. The Ramseys say she was "pure" when they put her to bed at that time. Given the apparent sloppiness of the autopsy procedures, the lack of evidence of an intruder and the minute and indeterminate nature of the DNA, no one on either side of the bench need be quaking over this issue, IMO. Anton [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "If there" Posted by Morgan on 19:06:44 3/18/2001 was foreign DNA under JBR's nails that came from someone's skin, then obviously they need to test more people. We have no information on the DNA collection process, if contamination is likely a factor or not. If contamination is unlikely, then another person is involved. This information should have been made public a long time ago. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Holly????" Posted by Mandarin on 21:06:52 3/18/2001 Sorry Holly, but I have to go with Ayelean and most of the other posters, regarding the likely irrelevance of the degraded DNA. I'm really surprised that you are "impressed" with mame's report and her journalist sources. After slogging through 3/4 of that mother of all posts by mame on the Patriarch I thread, I almost screamed at my computer "WHO LET THE DOGS OUT"? The post should have been called 6,000 degress of separation. Sorry, but I feel strongly that mame has a serious beef with the BPD and so I usually keep a large shaker at hand whenever I come across any of mame's posts, whether it's "rumour has it", the MW saga, yada, yada. And sometimes I wonder which side of the fence she is on lately. But back to the tiny speck of "skin" under Jonbenet's fingernail. Don't forget the Ramseys tell us they did not give her a bath that day and the child was obviously playing ALL day, inside homes and outside on her bike. She may also have visited Jacques at the Barnhills or outside and perhaps Jonbenet may have been tickling his tummy either that day or the previous day. Bijons are notorious for rolling over constantly to have their tummies rubbed or scratched. Just a thought, because your repeating of mame's report of JP's, etc. only says "skin" - not identified as female or male, nor even human or animal. My feeling is that this minuscle, degraded skin speck is a red herring that only became something for the Ramseys & their spin team (lawyers, etc) to latch onto, when all else was failing, very, very late in the game. Sorry Holly, I usually enjoy pretty much all of your posts, but lately I've given up on most of mame's posts, espcially when she labors deep into the conspiracy and sex ring theories. It's almost as if she wants us to take our focus off the Ramsey family. At least that's the sense I am getting lately. Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Mandarin." Posted by Holly on 22:07:27 3/18/2001 Yes, mame raised this issue, but there is a link I wrote to v_p above that is an APB article saying the same thing. To me it is imperative to nail the nail DNA. If it were not characterized as "defensive" skin cell DNA, I don't think I'd have a concern. But I have anxiety that a jury - even looking at reasonablness and totality (excellent reminders, Lurker and Greenie, BTW), will say we just can't ignore A - the DNA and B - what it could mean. That said, this could have been what has gummed up the works. It's hard to tell, because we don't really know too much. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Holly, re Greenie" Posted by Mandarin on 00:42:39 3/19/2001 Strange Holly, but I thought Greenleaf was trying to convey the exact opposite. In other words, I thought she was more or less saying (what I think) that this whole minuscle DNA thing is nothing more than a red herring dredged up by the Rams and their Spin team to hang their hats and overbown egos on. This ain't a DNA case, never was, never will be and the Rams know that, BUT, of course, they know that a portion of the public (the gullible and naive ones who've been living in outer space for the past 4 years) will nibble at this little tidbit they keep droning on about like a broken record. To me, in the Ramsey case, the only things DNA ever meant were "Do Nothing Alex" and "Does Not Apply" Sorry Holly, you're so good at sleuthing, and even better at describing your humorous attempts to recreate every aspect of the crime. I'd really like to see you post more of those types of things. When you do that, your are unquestionably at your best and it gives everyone some comic relief, which I think we need lately. Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "When donkeys fly......" Posted by rose on 20:18:27 3/18/2001 Will I believe that Hunter sat on this kind of unquestnable info and lost his reputation,carrer, and did not reveal this info that would have set him free of blame for not fileing charges against the Ramseys. Some body is blowing smoke IMHO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Rose ..." Posted by Mandarin on 21:09:52 3/18/2001 About Alex Hunter - I couldn't agree more. You took the words right out of my mouth. Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Humm" Posted by Tricia on 21:03:26 3/18/2001 according to Steve Thomas's book the amount of dna under JonBenet's fingernails amounted to a light touch of a cheek. In other words she might have touch someones check lightly and picked up some cells. Defensive? Not according to anything written so far by the people involved. If it was defensive scratching then a whole lot more of those "intruder" skin cells would be under her nails. Then they could match the dna and case solved. That is the problem. It is such a small amount, that is degraded no less, that it wouldn't matter who's it is. Let's say it is Santa Bill's dna. So what? If she had fought back her nails would have had a much bigger amount of dna. But as it stands she could have picked up Santa's dna from the last time she saw him. Now we know the dna is not Santa's. I was just trying to make a point. What was my point... oh yeah. I think mame is great. I love reading her stuff. but unless somebody can disprove what Steve Thomas wrote in his book about the amount of dna, unless someone can prove this really IS "a dna case" then I have to rely on the written, printed, confirmed information. But my mind is open. Please feel free to show me why I should change it. Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Ginja makes a good point" Posted by ayelean on 21:23:48 3/18/2001 When the nails were clipped, did they keep the fingernails separated? It would matter greatly which nail or nails had 'skin' under them. Ring or pinky fingers would be less likely to be used clawing at a perp unless the material was under all the nails. Rose and Mandarin are right on when they say 'if Hunter could have used this to cover his cop-out he would have'. Very astute reasoning. This nail DNA is the spin team grasping at straws, which is indicative of their desparation. The best experts available say it is NOT a DNA case. Mandarin is also pretty savvy at interpretting Mame's reactions lately too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Steve Thomas" Posted by Gemini on 22:28:49 3/18/2001 has never been a Mark Beckner fan. Beckner took over the JBR case from John Eller as lead detective. And, no matter how ofter Thomas is introduced as "former lead detective" for the case, I'm pretty sure Eller's the one who held that position before Beckner. Anyway, as far as we know, a concentrated effort to gather DNA via mouth swabs did not start until Beckner took over. Why not? I hope it was because the test results weren't in, confirming the foreign DNA/skin, but I'm not sure that's true. Beckner was given the case in fall '97 and shortly after he took the reins (post summit at Quantico), the swabbing began. Reports seemed to concentrate on the children who were being swabbed. To me, that sounds an awful lot like they were trying to get samples from all the people JB had been in contact with in the days prior to her death. She didn't see Linda H-P's daughter on Christmas day, so it appears they sere going back several days. This being the case, it then seems probable they did run test from samples of all known perple she had contact with. That would have to X out the possibility she picked up skin under her nails through innocent means. Wouldn't it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "just reread that post" Posted by Gemini on 22:36:31 3/18/2001 and it's a bit of a scramble. Let me try again (just got home and apparently my mind's still out there on the road somewhere). According to reports in late '97, early '98, it appears to me efforts were being made to take mouth swabs and test all those with whom JB had come in direct contact the last few days before her death. If that is the case, I believe it would go far toward ruling out an innocent reason for the skin under her nails. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Cheek brush..." Posted by Holly on 12:54:31 3/19/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:54:31, 3/19/2001 Well that is the million dollar question. I'd say there is a pretty big difference between DEFENSIVE type DNA and cells collected from nothing more than a gentle brush across a skin surface. Going with the preferred gentle brush -- here is a possibility - Carolers came to the White's home 12/25/96 and Fleet and the children joined them in caroling. Have the carolers been identified and swabbed? On 12/25/96 at the Ramsey home, what exactly did JB do? Was there a time when she went out with a parent and someone may have embraced her or shook her hand? A neighbor? Store clerk? Gas station attendant? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Now I'm thoroughly confused" Posted by janphi on 22:47:39 3/18/2001 We have to assume that all the people who were at the Whites' dinner were checked, right? Including the two redacted guests, right? I mean, can we automatically presume that this nail DNA doesn't match Priscilla, Fleet, Daphne, Fleet III, Alyson, Cliff, Heather, William, R.A. Brown, Mrs. R.A. Brown or the two redacted people? Posters have given conflicting reports as to whether JonBenet actually went caroling with FWJr. and others. Some say she did; some say she didn't. No one seems to be able to tell for certain when FWJr. went, who went with him, where they went, or how long they were gone. Which books even talked about this caroling interlude? Do we need to patch together passages from different sources to figure it out? Also, did anyone else come over to visit the Whites while the party was going on--at least while the Ramseys were there? Had the Whites and/or their guests gone to church that Christmas morning or afternoon? IOW, had they mingled with a lot of people, shaking hands, hugging, and so on, rather than just being in contact with their "closed group" in the house? Don't forget JR had been at the airport all day, too. Didn't he mix, mingle, shake hands with other pilots out there doing the same thing? Other plane mechanics? With the FBO operators? You always go in and check in and get coffee and talk about the weather and flying conditions, or to file your flight plan. Was Mike Archuleta out there that day? I'm sure he was checked. Were any stores open in Boulder on Christmas? I lived in a very large city where I couldn't even buy a can of frozen OJ concentrate for my cranberry salad one Christmas morning--not one single store open. Where I live now, I can. If there was a store open (Wal-Mart? K-Mart--for jewelry), did JR stop anywhere else? Several of the DNA websites have said it's not as easy to pick up "stray" DNA as everyone thinks--that it's not just floating around in the air. You definitely have to have contact, such as skin-to-skin, though not confined to that--and it can be transferred from 2nd to 3rd parties and on and on. Kitchens and bathrooms most likely places. Point being, could JBR have lightly drawn her fingernails over someone else's skin and have picked up yet another person's DNA that had been deposited there through shaking hands, kissing, hugging, whatever? Seems so miniscule. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Janphi" Posted by Gemini on 22:56:53 3/18/2001 i thought White and the children went out and sang with some carolers who came to their house, but like you, am not positive of the exact details. Personally, I doubt they checked everyone ... just the people for whom they had varification of direct physical contact with JB. Unless one of the adults went off, out of sight of the others, with her ... that many adults should have been able to know who she was in direct contact with ... if their stories are alike. Of course this would be all aside from a conspiracy theory involving the Whites, their guests and the Ramseys. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Holly" Posted by Gemini on 22:30:10 3/18/2001 Forgot, but wanted to say that, in spite of the ALL CAPS : ) ... this is a good thread. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Gemini." Posted by Holly on 22:58:32 3/18/2001 THANKS! :-) If I could figure out how to italicize... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Attempting Italics in Header" Posted by janphi on 23:18:24 3/18/2001 Did it work? Nope. That header has < i > and < /i > in the right places, closed up, but it didn't make italics. Guess you can't. It's already bold, so I guess you can't do anything else to get attention! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "I don't mean italics" Posted by Holly on 05:27:37 3/19/2001 in the header. I mean in the reply. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Thanks Ayelean ..." Posted by Mandarin on 00:49:42 3/19/2001 Mucho Gratios Amigo! For a minute there I thought I was going to get blasted off the forum, realizing that many posters listen avidly to everything mame has to say. BTW, that was a great rundown of your version of what took place at the hellhole. In almost 95%, I agree, except I believe the rage/accidental killing happened as a result of "enuresis". But of course, I also believe that the enuresis was due to perhaps some prior sexual abuse (by whom, I'm not sure. Could have been anyone, or kids playing doctors, could have been JAR since he lived there a lot and did get drunk and of course, it could have been Patsy trying to MAKE it look like a sexual abuse thing to cover up the rage/accident. Additionally, I do have a sense that Patsy might have been abused sexually when she was younger. I'll post my reasons about her comments (in DOI) about Don vs her comments about Nedra. Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Mandarin, in regards to your previous post......." Posted by sds on 05:26:26 3/19/2001 I thought that JBR wasn't feeling well and was in bed all day before the Ramseys went to the Whites. From what has been stated, she wasn't outside playing and did not go to the Barnhills. She also didn't eat much that day. Will anybody back me up on this? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "sds" Posted by driver on 07:30:32 3/19/2001 I remember that, too. Also, I am almost positive that I read that JB had NO defensive injuries (no bruises, scrapes, etc) suggesting that the blow to the head came first. Anyone else remember this? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "sds" Posted by DuBois on 07:26:55 3/19/2001 Yes i heard that as well. She was not feeling well, and had a visit from a friend or friends. I wonder if those other children have given DNA. If she didn't have a bath that day, and was probably in close contact with another child playing with toys ect. that could also be the source. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "we also know" Posted by ayelean on 07:35:12 3/19/2001 She spent a bit of time riding her bike and wanted to do more but John put her off. How would we know how JB spent that day? We would have to get that info from someone there. I think most of what we have heard is from the Ramz so it can be taken with a grain of salt. Who were the children that were there? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "2 bits worth" Posted by fly on 07:49:39 3/19/2001 The fingernail DNA would not be the primary problem for the DA, unless there was a significant amount of fresh tissue (i.e., from scratching the killer). If the amount is very small and was such that it could have been very light contact, they could handle that. The DNA in her panties is the case killer in any attempt to nail the Ramseys. That will be much more difficult to attribute to casual, innocent contact. Not impossible to dismiss, but pretty tough - unless there is something we don't know (which is certainly possible). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Fly...." Posted by rose on 10:34:25 3/19/2001 Having raised 3 children, I as a jury member would not be influenced by such a small DNA sample under the nails or in the panties of a 6 year old. Children that age waller and touch every thing they come in contact. They scratch themselves with unclen hands. We have been lead to believe that JB did not wipe her self when she went to the bathroom. Her moist little potootie and panties would hold any DNA they came in contact with. I still say if you took any child and checked DNA from their nails and panties you would find mystery DNA in small amounts. As Lee said this is not a DNA case. Now if JB had big amounts of skin and tissue under her nails, then that would be a different matter, but I am going to have to go with Thomas's description. I see no reason that he would lie about this. There would be too many people in the know to refute his statement. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "rose." Posted by Holly on 12:59:33 3/19/2001 I agree. There would be those in the know to refute his statement. But both the BPD and the DA are supposed to be livid with ST. Bill Wise could scarecely control his disgust when I talked to him as couple of times about Thomas. Maybe part of the reason is statements like "brush across a cheek". - dunno. And yes, the amount of flesh is what is really striking. If someone wants to say "defensive", there had better be a significant amount. Anything less would be less likely to pose a reasonable doubt problem, IMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "No sense in my" Posted by Watching you on 10:48:30 3/19/2001 posting anything. Mandaran and Ayelean said it all. Bravo, 10-4, and goodnight. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "I agree with you, Rose" Posted by Mini on 11:30:43 3/19/2001 If ST's description of the DNA's condition is not correct, it means he was terribly ignorant about the evidence or he was lying. There's been no public refutation by the Ramseys or Lou Smit which I certainly think there would be if Thomas were wrong. JB was at Pasta Jay's on the 24th--another potential source for picking up foreign DNA. As I mentioned in a previous post, if a DNA test can cost up to $5,000 per test, they really can't go around testing hundreds of possible contacts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Well, well, well" Posted by RiverRat on 12:03:37 3/19/2001 Mandarin & Company - would have loved having you on the Judith Phillips 2 thread the other day. Read up and maybe we will see each other on thread 3. Was gonna comment on this thread but now I can't stop laughing at the thought of Holly recreating a brush of the cheek and the transfer to the panties! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Mini....." Posted by rose on 11:47:33 3/19/2001 You are right, Smitt would have jumped on this defensive DNA under JB's nails to justify his position. He had all the info and did not refrain from useing all he had available to defend the Ramseys. This defencive DNA would have justified his theory of an intruder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Right, Rose, and..." Posted by Britt on 12:36:42 3/19/2001 ...speaking of jumping on the "defensive DNA," here's the problem I have with this type of free-floating, inflammatory tidbit of "information": Someone like, oh say, Ned comes along, reads it, doesn't stop to realize that (1) it contradicts all other, reliable characterizations of the nail DNA in this case and that (2) the term "defensive DNA" is a subjective assessment of the DNA material (to which the word "flesh" is now added as well) found under JB's nails, and not a new piece of evidence ...and he runs with it. Before you know it, (people like) Ned will embellish the "defensive flesh DNA" into great globs of intruder skin, male of course, probably add some blood to the mix (like he did with the panty DNA) and faster than you can say SPIN, we've got a whole new forensic element to this case. Ned will be along shortly to demonstrate this for us. Watch. Maybe it's deliberate spin, maybe it's not, call it what you want. The point is, it results in the dissemination of misinformation, muddies the already confusing waters, and does not help the case. JMHO Mandarin - excellent posts! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "hmmmmmmmm....." Posted by mame on 12:57:18 3/19/2001 i'm continually shocked at the responses to posts containing information that is not what we've been led to believe.... i posted the DNA info as just that...information...it was not posted to be perceived as "pro ram" or to "spin"...i do not believe that this information exonerates the ramsey's or prevents them from prosecution, if they are guilty. BUT, any defense attorney or intelligent legal mind will tell you that DNA such as this is considered "reasonable doubt"...no attorney worth his salt would walk into a courtroom in a circumstantial case and try to talk his way out of such damning DNA...in fact i'm told that prosecutors could very well be charged with prosecutorial misconduct if they attempted to do so. i sincerely hope that continued investigations can find an answer for this DNA and that further advancements in DNA testing will provide the answers needed to clear up this mystery DNA...it may well point right at the ramsey's....i could care less one way or another. as far as the "mother of all posts"...who cares it's all information...good/bad/indifferent. i had never read this info before...while it seems far out and crazy...so is this case. i did not post it to suggest i agreed with it....i posted it for more information to chew on. maybe someone here should call an attorney and ask about the DNA and how it could be dealt with in a courtroom... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "mame, I agree..." Posted by Britt on 14:50:07 3/19/2001 ...that the DNA in this case may be problematic for the prosecution, and it needs to be explained. But... you said ...any defense attorney or intelligent legal mind will tell you that DNA such as this is considered "reasonable doubt"... CAN be considered reasonable doubt. It depends on the totality of the expert scientific testimony/evidence. ...no attorney worth his salt would walk into a courtroom in a circumstantial case and try to talk his way out of such damning DNA... We don't know if it's "damning" or not without hearing from the scientific experts. To call it "damning" is a lot like calling it "defensive" -- it's a subjective characterization. All we know for sure is that it's DNA, period. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Well, I'm not sure" Posted by Holly on 12:52:47 3/19/2001 there are huge amounts of skin and we don't know which hand or which fingers. If BPD is characterizing this DNA source as defensive, well OK - but I haven't a clue if it's true or rumor. I think mame passes along the best information she has and another journalist has confirmed they have the same information. The Ramseys told Barbara Walters the fingernail DNA did not match them. And an APB article from 4/99 says that skin tissue was under the nails. I don't know if a brush across the cheek could explain it. And whose cheek? I do think a tight grasp between JB and another person - like hand holding during a game could be the answer. I'd check out those carolers and any nail brushes she might have used. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Britt" Posted by fly on 13:04:10 3/19/2001 Britt - Ned certainly thinks the DNA evidence is important, and you might argue about some of the conclusions he has reached or the information that he says exists. That said, I think you might be attributing things to Ned that should be attributed to others, unless I've missed something or misinterpreted your post. Mame posted the bit about the DNA coming from defensive actions and that tissue was involved, not Ned. In fact, Ned didn't even post on the "transcript #2" thread after mame posted her info, and Ned hasn't posted on this thread (yet). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Britt, WY,RiverRat et al" Posted by Mandarin on 14:40:41 3/19/2001 Britt ... you said it all my friend! Why can't some others cut through the b.s. the way you do. You perceive things in "black & white", not shades of gray. The DNA spin here is making me dizzy and as you so succinctly put it, only adds more soap to an out of control Ram spin cycle. Watching You ... thanks so much for the vote of confidence - you made my day. RiverRat .... I'll have to scan the Judith Phillips 2 thread and see what's up there. Funny, I thought I posted there, maybe not? You know, I too, can visualize Holly actually recreating the cheek brush to the panties and can't wait till she gets the time to relate her scientific pursuits. That's when she's at her best. Rose ... you speak for all Moms when you say kids regularly come in contact with everything under the sun, 24/7. I'm certain the GJ had like-minded moms in their midst but alas, Alex never gave anyone the chance to air their opinion publicly, then or now. ayelean ... thanks very much for responding to sds and dubois re Jonbenet's activities on Xmas day and before. As you logically say, NO ONE really knows how Jonbenet spent that day or any preceding day, except the Ram's very sketchy and dubious account of anything Jonbenet ever did, prior to her demise. re: Steve Thomas - I have NEVER ever felt this man was lying and like so many, I see absolutely no reason for him to lie, but I do see a lot of people's noses out of joint, because they fear he is in fact, the most believable character in this tragic homicide and unlike so many others connected to the case, he does not have a hidden agenda. He wrote a book ... big deal. Hasn't every one else on the planet published or aired their 2 cents worth on this case? Re DNA .... Where's Greg McCrary when we need him? He's the only sensible person I can stomach when reading or listening to anything concerning DNA. He turned down the Rams immediately, before any of us ever knew who they were. What a quiet genius!! I've become infatuated with him, can you tell? Okay, that's it ... as directed by RiverRat, I'm off to check out the JP thread. Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "I know, Fly" Posted by Britt on 14:18:54 3/19/2001 The info came from mame. I only mentioned Ned because he so predictably creates spin from such info. My point was that little bits of "orphan" information (i.e. information with no stated source nor scientific corroboration accompanying it) of an explosive nature (foreign DNA) characterized in a certain subjective light (defensive) and (I'll say it again) without corroboration or reliable scientific source, perpetuates spin, deliberately or inadvertently. Fly, I'm like you. I only ask for accurate, responsible, reliable information. And there is a huge difference between info being presented as opinion and info being presented as fact or evidence. I think the difference is obvious to most of us. Well lookie down there. Looks like Ned has started already. See? I'll let him demonstrate my point :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Total Conjecture on My Part" Posted by janphi on 13:58:15 3/19/2001 (disclaimer above) I'm going to make a stab at a couple of things, after reading this thread and the others preceding it. I've already stated my belief that the panty DNA came from the paint brush tip end and that it was flushed out with her own blood onto the panties. As far the fingernail DNA, which I never considered important or even "readable," here's my guess. mame brought us this info as a fairly new wrinkle, right? We had always heard this particular DNA was either (1) "degraded" or (2) "contaminated." "Degraded" came from a description of it being "old, cracked" gradoo. Patsy laughed in ST's face and said "Oh, please" at the VERY IDEA that JonBenet had dirty fingernails for 2-3 days "or even longer" and that they had needed trimming. Seems to me the "old, cracked" description had to mean the gradoo itself, not the DNA. Is there such a thing as "cracked" DNA? (Do you get it from eating cracked crab, lol?) Oh, hey, maybe it's from the fishmongers, come to think of it! Anyway, we were told the DNA was degraded, meaning something like a fungus or some bacteria started eating it up before it could be preserved completely. OK. I'm betting that the primary testing for something like that is the $5000 test. Then we were told it might be contaminated. Didn't that come straight from Crazy Aunt Pam? I know she freaked over the "air drying" of the swabs from other tests--but as it turns out, that is the best way to save the samples when collected in the field. But wasn't it she, when acting as the RST hamspokesburgler, who very vocally pointed out the nail clippers not being sterilized? I could be wrong, but I thought those words came from her mouth, straight from the defense lawyer's standard operating manual. Didn't the whole world learn from OJ? Well, I'm thinking that maybe this "new info" refers to the mitochondrial testing we talked about a few weeks ago. mame had said there was "lots of" DNA to work with. I don't think the actual miniscule, degraded, contaminated sample itself has grown into "oodles of fleshy tissue" from "defensive" scratching. I just think there are lots of mitochondria from which to pull the mother-side band results now--isn't it something like 30,000 times as many strands of this than primary DNA? And I think because they decided to do this, since I don't know if that is a destructive test or how much of the sample is left, there are many more chances to get closer to a "general" ID. (DNA people said never to use the word "match.") As I understand it, this mitochondrial stuff might tell you that a testee's strand is one of 300,000 people's, out of how many, 3 billion or something--not "one" out of 1 million. So, I'm thinking that the little cheek and saliva swabs they've taken don't have to be put through any $5000 test each time. There is probably something they can do for $200 (like the "Who's my Daddy?" stuff they do on Montel) each or maybe much less. After all, THAT DNA is already identified. We know who IT came from. No matter how I look at it, the DNA doesn't mean a thing to me and wouldn't if I were on the jury--unless they had some really good exhibits and explanations that would expand or increase my present understanding of the situation as it is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Oh Holly are you seeing the light finally????" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:41:46 3/19/2001 HollY; A statement was made by mame, which really impresses me. On the JUDITH PHILLIPS thread mame says that the DNA under the fingernails, belongs to a male and not a Ramsey. It is supposed to be DNA from skin. She called a journalist friend who confirmed he had the same information. I have not heard this before. Nedd: Yes male DNA under her nails, Male DNA in her panties and Male DNA from a pubic/primary hair!!! Holly: If this is solid information, it spells TROUBLE in terms of solving this case and getting it prosecuted. Nedd: It most certainly does!!! Holly: It is the one thing that I think could stop any prosecution of DNA tested people, dead in its tracks, because it is reasonable doubt. Nedd: That's right Holly because DNA doesn't just accidently get on a murder victim!!! Holly: Could any of us convict if we were convinced that there was DNA from skin cells under JonBenet's - or any victim's nails, and that DNA does not match the defendant? The DNA is supposedly considered "defensive" - and if that is the case, that alone, may be the reason no one has been charged. Nedd: God I hope not, because if they do they would be most likely sending innocent people to prison. Holly: In what ways could the DNA appear under the nails? Casual contact? With whom? Her last known stop was the Stines - and their DNA was collected and must not match. Nedd: Right Holly, no one has been found that matches the DNA. So where did it come from? Holly: Could JB have grasped someone playfully and collected the skin cells? If so, when could that play have occurred? Nedd: Oh I LOVE bright girls, you go girl keep questioning.... Holly: Or is it more likely there was a struggle? If there was a struggle, doesn't that eliminate the stun gun theory? The stun gun theory says JB was asleep and then stunned and incapacitated. Nedd: I taser stun gun, like the one used in the crime would incapacitate a grown man for up to 20 minutes, for JB it could have been an hour or more, but eventually she would have woken up, struggled and was bashed over the skull. Holly: If Steve Thomas, "the lead investigator" knows of this element , how can he be convinced Patsy killed in a bed wetting rage? Nedd: Right Holly. And by the way he DOES know about this evidence, that's why he isn't taking to anyone anymore. He knows he is wrong. Holly: How does he explain the DNA under the nails? How does he explain that it might indicate to a jury, that a struggle occurred and the DNA donor is currently unknown? Nedd: He doesn't explain it Holly. He can't. Holly: And that means the case is just too risky to prosecute. How is that Alex Hunter's fault? How is that the fault of the BPD? How can anyone be faulted for thinking outside the box, or even looking hard at Nancy Krebs' information. Nedd: Who is Nancy Krebs? What information does she share? This case can't ever go to trial because there is no reasonable explanation for the DNA. The person who matches that DNA is the killer, and it isn't the Ramsey's. Holly: For this case to be prosecuted, the fingernail DNA must be confronted. Until it is identified or explained, charging and prosecuting is nearly impossible. Nedd: Thank you Holly, by God you did see the light. So after 4 1/2 years, they should have tracked JB's last few days of life when she was most likely at home with her parents during the Christmas season. Still NOTHING. And these 3 clues along with the stun gun evidence will be convincing enough to a jury to come to the conclusion of reasonable doubt. They didn't do it. Holly thank you so much for sharing. Keep thinking on these lines, and you will be where I am at today. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Charley..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:47:18 3/19/2001 Charley: Wasn't it classified as minute and degraded? Nedd: Minute- means not a complete marker degraded-means that it was exposed to the elements, doesn't change the fact that it belong to a male that has yet to be identified. Charley: You think if JB was awake and she didn't know her assailant, then she would have put up a fight! You would have found much more skin cells and DNA under her fingernails. Nedd: From a 6 year old Charley? Charley: If there were no skin cells matching her own under her nails...then we would have to assume that Jonbenet was unconscious and not clawing at her own throat, when she was having her last little breath choked out of her. With that, we would again have to assume that the head blow came first. Nedd: Head blow came second Charley, that's why her skull cavity was almost competley emptied of blood, she was already being constricted. Charley: If JB knew her assailant, she was either concered into going with them or her parents were active, participants in the events that were unfolding that night and she was comfortable in doing what was ask of her.. The DNA believes me to some suspicion that someone else was involved in either JB's death or the coverup of her death. I can't shake the feeling however that Patsy was involved in the murder and somehow John too. Good post Holly! ey: Nedd: Well at least you are partially there, and I haven't completely ruled out the possibility that the Ramsey are not involved. But the DNA suggests that another male was present. I do have my doubts however that either parent was involved. I beleive JB was stunned in her room and then taken to the basement, that is when she woke, most likely by the man molesting her and she screamed and he cracked her skull. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Nedd..." Posted by Country Girl on 14:24:56 3/19/2001 "I beleive JB was stunned in her room and then taken to the basement, that is when she woke, most likely by the man molesting her and she screamed and he cracked her skull." So then you must subscribe to the theory that the ransom note was written prior to the murder and the intruder had no fear of being caught after her scream...so he just took his/her time fashioning the garrote, wiping down her body, redressing her, wrapping her up in her blanket, possibly returning the maglight to the kitchen counter, drawing a heart on her palm, etc. This killer had NO FEAR of being caught. Think about it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Ayelean.." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:56:29 3/19/2001 Ayelean: The amount and quality of the speciman is important and I don't think we know that. We don't even know when JB was bathed last. If the dna is scant, and her last good hand washing was several days before her death then for sure she could have collected it from non violent episodes. Nedd; Ayelean how do you know that JB's last good hand washing was several days before her death? Where do you get this information??? Do you think she was allowed to go to a fancy nice Christmas dinner without washing her hands? You people try to insinuate this child was dirty? I haven't seen one picture that would atribute to this, in fact just the opposite. Granted it is possible that she "could have" collected it prior to the murder, how is it then connected to the DNA in her panties as well as the hair?? Answer me that? And let's say it wasn't, then how hard would it have been really to retrace her last footsteps within 5 days fo the murder????? This is what investigators are supposed to do. Ayelean: If she scraped skin from a perp at the time of attack, that dna would be pretty pristine, clear cut and incriminating to someone other than the known suspects. Nedd: Ayelean that is just not true. You do not know if you are going to get a clean sample of DNA by scratching someone, and there could have been many other things under her nails. Ayelean: Somehow I doubt that it represents clear evidence, like shreds of skin of an attacker because they would have known that soom after the event and would not have concentrated on the Rams. Nedd: Ayelean it is CLEAR evidence that someone "other" then the Ramsey's came into contact with that child, and since this is a murder case, you have to eliminate that person, it hasn't been done, so a jury would have to ASSUME it came from the night in question. Ayelean: I would guess that most of us right at this minute have foreign dna under our nails, and I would suspect children playing with other children would have even more. Nedd: Yes perhaps we all do, but we are talking about a murder victim with 3 pieces of DNA found at her crime scene which all possibly are connected, and no answer for it after 4 1/2 years. Ayelean: When the dna was being collected for this case the subjects chosen suggest it was as much for elimination as looking for a suspect. If actual shreds of skin were found I think the vibes we would have received, would have indicated they were looking for a perp. Nedd: RIGHT Aylean and the Ramsey's were eliminated. So whose is it???? Ayelean: I do wish they would have sampled all her classmates and I never heard that they even interviewed them. Too bad, it may have been revealing. Nedd: I do wish too. I imagined they have, but knowing the BPD, probably not. However Jb wasn't in school during this time, she was on Holiday vacation, which I believe started on the 17th. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "V_P" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:59:36 3/19/2001 V-P: The DNA under JBR's fingernails was said to be cross-contaminated due to the ME's use of contaminated or previously used clippers. From what I remember, the DNA could not be definitively determined to be male or female or even matchable to any one person. Both Henry Lee and Barry Scheck have said this is not a DNA case. I don't know who mame's friend is, but I give a lot of credence to what they have to say. Nedd: VP, Fly posted a link the other day and I reposted that link regarding the MALE DNA. It is confirmed that it is male DNA and it does not match anyone in the Ramsey's household. This is not a DNA case, because the DNA will not lead us to the killer, because we do not have a complete marker, however it is being used to eliminate suspects, and both Patsy and John were eliminated, along with all the other friends and families surrounding the date in question. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Holly: " Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:01:19 3/19/2001 Holly: Yes, but couldn't the coroner have matched the skin to other recently autopsied corpses, if that explained it? Nedd: Yes they could Holly, and in fact that was done according to my sources. The reason the Ramsey's will never be arrested is because of this DNA. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Pinker>" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:03:20 3/19/2001 Pinker: not only is contamination from the coroner possible but also from a professional manicure, just as fungal infections can be spread via that route DNA follows suit. Most implements aren't required by law to be sterilized between customers. JB was in a pageant of some sorts close to the murder, wonder if a manicure could have been part of the 'pageant scrub'. I doubt if they ever considered exhumation of the bodies autopsied proir to JB, maybe afraid of the bad publicity. Nedd: How many men get manicures? And wouldn''t it have been easy enought to find the shop if this had been done to track any men that has been in their as well? It's not likely. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Edie>>." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:05:49 3/19/2001 Edie: is the fingernail dna the same as the undies dna? I asked on the other thread, maybe someone will know here:-) Because, if it doesn't match, then what? 2 creeps messed with her? And another thing, is it ABSOLUTELY etched in stone that the foreign dna in her panties came from blood? Nedd: No the finger DNA is from skin the panty DNA is blood co-mingled with hers. They both share the same genetic markers. It is not etched in stone that the DNA in her panties is blood. The BPD won't say publically. This information however has slowly come to light by process of elimination. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Ginja.." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:15:47 3/19/2001 Ginja: I think the idea that this 'evidence' is defensive is simply a matter of semantics. As Ayelean noted, if JBR struggled with her attacker, or even scratching at her own throat, the amount of matter found would have been substantial, and mixed. Nedd: And how do you come to this conclusion Ginja? She most certainly could have almost been near death, since she was being strangled? She could have scrathed her intruder and he immediately hit her over the head. There is NO rule that states because she scratched him, she just has to have more DNA under her nails. How compeletly ridiculous. Ginja: Because in defending herself, she would have scratched away more than a few skin cells, including, literally, blood, sweat and tears (and perhaps a facial or arm hair or two). Ned: Oh boy here we go again. My goodness, this a a 6 year old child, not HULK! Ginja: Investigators look to 'defensive' wounds for forensic evidence. I think a good analogy here would be a person putting their hands up in front of them to protect them from someone wielding a knife. Will the victim have a few "scratches"? or deep slashes? In the case at hand, the victim has so little forensic evidence, can we reasonbly believe it's enough to find one guilty of murder? Nedd: There was a rope around her neck Ginja, she was being strangled, or did you forget that??? Ginja: Then there's the negative evidence issue. This could very well be a good example. If, in fact, there is so little matter under the nails defying any great struggle, then one could reasonably assume the victim didn't struggle. We could reason that she was immobilized for one reason or another (stun gun or unconcious from the blunt trauma). But I also think we're placing too much emphasis on the "when" of this struggle (or not). Wouldn't she struggle if a stranger molested her? Would she willingly eat pineapple given to her by a stranger? Nedd: She could have been molested after she had been stunned, which immoblized her. They do not know when she could have digested the pineapple. She could have eated it on her own or perhaps before she went to the Whites. Ginja: What if she knew her "attacker". And which attack are we talking? If a stranger sexually abused her, that would definitely be an "attack". But she had signs of chronic abuse, so this wasn't the first time she was molested. Nedd: No she did not Ginja. This are unsubstanciated claims. Do you really think if this was true that either Ramsey would have custody of Burke today? There was NO signs of prior sexual abuse and you have a well respected peditrician who claims he saw NO sings of it. For as many times as this child was seen, he would have been an idiot to have missed it. Ginja: So was this 'molestation' an "attack" (in the literal sense), or was it something done that she didn't like, but done by someone she knew. Nedd: Ya right Ginja, and after years of this this parent decided to just kill her out of the blue? Ginja: Bottom line, quite a few other factors have to be considered. This matter under the nails does not stand alone. And as noted, both Lee and Scheck have stated, Lee emphatically, that this is not a dna case. Nedd: No it does not stand alone, that is certain Ginja, it adds right in with the DNA blood in her panties, the hair found on the blanket, the boot print, palm print and stun gun marks on the body, along with the very weak evidence that Patsy Ramsey authored the ransom note. Ginja: Reasonable doubt is based in reasonableness. It's certainly unreasonable to dismiss an entire case built on material and strong circumstantial evidence because you can't identify every single minutiae found at the crime scene. Nedd: Reasonable doubt is based on every single minute material found at crime scenes. Oh boy! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Greenleaf: " Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:19:50 3/19/2001 Green: Imho, a good sleuth must look at the totality of the clues, while attempting to grasp somewhat of an overview. When we consider the wee bit of "foreign DNA," supposedly found, we can only marvel at the sterile, squeaky-clean, "other-world," dripless, hairless, naked, androgynous "intruder," sans all body fluid and discernible skin. Nedd: Gee GL not to mention his hair found at the scene his blood in her panties his skin under her nails, his boot print and palm print. Doesn't seem to hairless to me :0) GL: Fingerprints? Don't ask. He was also nimble enough to pen a ransom note, while gloved, on an uneven surface, writing upside down, while copying not only Patsy's handwriting, but her unique idioms as well. What a fellow! Nedd: It's called a well planned out crime that went horribly wrong when the killer got caught up in his fantasy and killed her. Nedd: When my girls were little, I clipped their fingernails when needed, maybe about once a month or so. Little kids are prone to get all kinds of foreign matter under their nails. It is conceivable that we all have some "foreign DNA" under our nails. If that's all the Rams have to hang their hat on, they are in big trouble. Nedd: Yes but conceibable to have that DNA also in two other places as well? Hair and panties? Just likely to be there on the scene of a brutal crime? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Mary..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:23:17 3/19/2001 Mary:JonBenet was murdered in the Ramsey home? Stephen Singular theorized the actual killing took place elsewhere and the HellHole 'death scene' was staged. If JonBenet was moved from the location of her death back to the home, and the death scene was staged, it follows that the site would be clear of DNA except on her body. Also, many people were in the Ramsey home on the 23rd, and considering JR never gave a complete guest list, it could be argued that any and all non-Ramsey clothing fibers, DNA, hairs, etc. were deposited 'innocently' and can't be considered evidence of an intruder.We know many of the Ramseys friends were tested but we don't know if ALL of them were tested (from the party on the 23rd). Nedd; All people were accounted for and tested that I know of that attended their Christmas party Lee's recent book said something to the effect there was evidence of more than one crime scene. Cryptic. Nedd: This was only concluded because Thomas suggested a struggle took place in the bathroom. However I don't think this was ever confirmed, and the only reason Thomas concluded this is because he accused Patsy of stating that JB wore the red turtleneck to the White's when she in fact wore the white star shirt, therefore Thomas concluded a fight broke out regarding the red turtle neck. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Lurker X!&%^()" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:28:12 3/19/2001 Lurker: ...most jurors are commonsensical enough to recognize red herrings while weighing the evidence as presented. Nedd: If that were the case Lurker, the Ramsey' would have standed trial already, when in fact they were never listed as offical suspects. Lurker: A smidgin of foreign DNA under the child's fingernails, which could have come from any number of sources, at any time in the days preceding the murder, could not cause reasonable doubt in a sensible person's mind. Nedd: It's called SCIENCE Lurker. And no it doesn't take a expert to see that 3 peieces of DNA found at the crime scene after 4 1/2 years of being investigated all point to one conclusion, that they most likely got their the night of the murder? Does it mean the Ramsey's weren't involved? NO, it means someone else had access to their daughter that night. Lurker: Looks like the Rams defense is hanging by a fingernail. Nedd: Looks more to me like they have enough to keep them out of prision, and enough to catch the killer Lurker!!! Lurker: And can anyone tell me how it can be determined that the tissue under the fingernails was caused as a DEFENSIVE action, as opposed to any of the following actions engaged in by young children: squeezing, teasing, grabbing, scraping, scratching, or clutching? Nedd: It can't be determined, however the fact alone that it shares the same genetic markers to that found in her panties will be enough to conclude it belongs to the same man who most likely murdered her. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "Ned" Posted by fly on 14:57:31 3/19/2001 Ned - What is your source for all the mystery DNA being consistent with coming from the same person? That is one issue I've heard differing accounts about. As to the amount of tissue that likely would be deposited in defensive action, even by a 6 yr old... This wouldn't absolutely have to produce obvious amounts of tissue, but I'd say it is pretty likely that it would involve more than a few cells. That can't be easily discounted. For that matter, we've heard (from C McKinley) that the unpatterned abrasions on her throat were actually scratches likely made by JBR as she fought against the ligature. Can't be sure about that info because it was not widely reported, but that would almost certainly suggest that there would have been a significant amount of material under her nails (remember, her nails were long enough to make clipping them for samples appropriate), although perhaps mostly her tissue. You also suggest that JBR might have eaten the pineapple prior to going to the Whites. That is pretty unlikely, given its position in the intestinal tract. Based on the literature I searched, the stomach empties its contents into the small intestine within about 1-1.5 hours for a standard meal (even quicker for small meals with little protein & fat). The food reaches the large intestine an average of 4 hours after ingestion. If JBR ate the pineapple prior to going to the Whites, we're dealing with a time span of about 5 hours or more, putting the pineapple in or darn near the large intestine, not at the beginning of the small intestine. Also, where is the dinner she ate at the Whites? We have no info that suggests JBR ate nothing there, as far as I know. Perhaps that is the fecal material noted in the large intestine? Would fit the average timeline reasonably well. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "Anton..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:33:54 3/19/2001 Anton: My impression is he is/was a small-county coroner with little to do with crimes (the Alex Hunter of coroners, perhaps). Nedd: That was my thought too, but apparently after some research my sources told me this man handled hundreds of murder cases and was by all means a reputable man. Even so, if the skin DNA could be matched directly with Person A, what does it prove? It shows personal contact with JonBenet but it doesn't show when or under what circumstances. Nedd: Right, but then you have handwriting comparison samples to go off of and an alibi for that evening of Dec. 25th. Either way it's needs to be answered. Where did this DNA come from? My question is, what the hell have the BPD been doing for 4 1/2 years? If there was a lot of skin and blood under her nails and Person A was found to have "nail tracks" on his body, that would indicate a very active contact and would be suspicious. Nedd: I have a scrath across my arm as I speak last night from retriving my cat from my roof. I work in the lab where my hand is highly visible and not one person has asked me about my scratch. However I don't think it would take a deep gash in someone's skin to obtain their DNA. And JB was after all only 6. If there was evidence that Person A had access to JonBenet within an hour or so of her death, that would combine with the DNA evidence to promote a conviction. But there's no Person A and no good evidence that a Person A had access to JonBenet after 10:00 p.m. The Ramseys say she was "pure" when they put her to bed at that time. Given the apparent sloppiness of the autopsy procedures, the lack of evidence of an intruder and the minute and indeterminate nature of the DNA, no one on either side of the bench need be quaking over this issue, IMO. Nedd: I disagree, match the DNA and you most likely find the killer, if not you have eliminated this evidence from the mixture and have a clear case against the Ramsey's. You cannot in my mind have a clear case with foreign DNA. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "So " Posted by Tricia on 14:37:42 3/19/2001 Uh Ned...How do you really feel. Hey don't hold back man...don't be shy ok... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Morgan..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:35:04 3/19/2001 Morgan: was foreign DNA under JBR's nails that came from someone's skin, then obviously they need to test more people. We have no information on the DNA collection process, if contamination is likely a factor or not. If contamination is unlikely, then another person is involved. This information should have been made public a long time ago. Nedd: Well worth repeating. And by this way this DNA evidence has been a hush hush thing by the BPD for years. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Britt and ESP" Posted by Mandarin on 14:52:24 3/19/2001 God Britt, you must have a 6th sense when it comes to Ned and everything else for that matter. He/she must have spatulated fingers from banging away at the keyboard frantically. You really know how to get to her/him/they? Talk about a predictable poster? You keep those intelligent posts coming. I'm elevating you to the number #1 spot on my "must read" posts. Used to be Lacey, but I haven't see her around for a while and Dunvegan runs a really close second. Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Mandarin." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:42:20 3/19/2001 M: But back to the tiny speck of "skin" under Jonbenet's fingernail. Don't forget the Ramseys tell us they did not give her a bath that day and the child was obviously playing ALL day, inside homes and outside on her bike. She may also have visited Jacques at the Barnhills or outside and perhaps Jonbenet may have been tickling his tummy either that day or the previous day. Bijons are notorious for rolling over constantly to have their tummies rubbed or scratched. Just a thought, because your repeating of mame's report of JP's, etc. only says "skin" - not identified as female or male, nor even human or animal. Nedd: Mandarin. if you are suggesting secondary transfer via the dog, no way. The Barnhills were tested and oddly enough I beleive Mr. Barnhill did share some genetic markers if I remember correctly, but was finally ruled out. Don't know the entire process surrounding that. My feeling is that this minuscle, degraded skin speck is a red herring that only became something for the Ramseys & their spin team (lawyers, etc) to latch onto, when all else was failing, very, very late in the game. Nedd: First of all the Ramsey's have been talking about this DNA from the very beginning. I pinned Thomas on it months ago and he quit talking. Fact is the BPD used this DNA to clear suspect Mandarin, check the RMN for the source. It came straight for polcie Chief Beckner's mouth. So if it isn't important why are they wasting tax payers money by testing hundreds of suspect Mandarin? I'll tell you why, because you cannot make a case against the parents until you eliminate the source of the DNA, and after 4 1/2 years they have NO answer. Therefore I have to assume the Ramsey's will receive the reasonable doubt needed. I certainly could not find them guilty. Sorry Holly, I usually enjoy pretty much all of your posts, but lately I've given up on most of mame's posts, espcially when she labors deep into the conspiracy and sex ring theories. It's almost as if she wants us to take our focus off the Ramsey family. At least that's the sense I am getting lately. Nedd: Mame has done extrodinary work in this case Mandarin and she approaches it with an open mind, careful not to exclude the Ramsey's as such. She has from what I understand interviewed some close to the case and has based her belief on what she has learned, and is willing to share that here with us. This case needs people like Mame. Look at the evidence Mandarin, and forget all you learned about the case from the media. Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Nedd" Posted by FT on 14:49:52 3/19/2001 Good show! I don't take the time to read your posts, but I do occasionally scroll by to see how much you can post in a given period of time. I think you may have outdone yourself here today with 14 posts in 60 minutes. That's one post every 4.3 minutes. If nothing else, we should recognize you for your outstanding typing, copying and pasting skills. Hats off. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Tricia.." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:46:52 3/19/2001 T: I think mame is great. I love reading her stuff. but unless somebody can disprove what Steve Thomas wrote in his book about the amount of dna, unless someone can prove this really IS "a dna case" then I have to rely on the written, printed, confirmed information. Nedd: Heck Tricia, I can diprove lots of things in Thomas book, let's start with his ridiculous theory on the crime. Fact is the child was being strangled. Would it take much to scratch her killer? NO, in fact she very well could have lightly glazed him. People it's been 4 1/2 years how many people did she possibly come in contact with???? But my mind is open. Please feel free to show me why I should change it. Nedd: Good to hear it Tricia. Keep on questioning, that's the best way to get to the truth [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Gemini..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:49:22 3/19/2001 Gm: Reports seemed to concentrate on the children who were being swabbed. To me, that sounds an awful lot like they were trying to get samples from all the people JB had been in contact with in the days prior to her death. She didn't see Linda H-P's daughter on Christmas day, so it appears they sere going back several days. This being the case, it then seems probable they did run test from samples of all known perple she had contact with. That would have to X out the possibility she picked up skin under her nails through innocent means. Wouldn't it? Nedd: They have tested people for 41/2 years and still have no answers, kids, neighbors, family and friends, and still no clue as to who the male DNA belongs to [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Gemini..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:50:48 3/19/2001 Gem: According to reports in late '97, early '98, it appears to me efforts were being made to take mouth swabs and test all those with whom JB had come in direct contact the last few days before her death. If that is the case, I believe it would go far toward ruling out an innocent reason for the skin under her nails. Nedd: Much better I agree 100% and so will a jury [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Ned ...." Posted by Mandarin on 14:59:07 3/19/2001 Please take your hands very slowly off the keyboard and placed them securely around your neck, squeeze tightly and give the rest of us a break here, Pal! Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Janphi" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:58:29 3/19/2001 Janphi: Don't forget JR had been at the airport all day, too. Didn't he mix, mingle, shake hands with other pilots out there doing the same thing? Other plane mechanics? With the FBO operators? You always go in and check in and get coffee and talk about the weather and flying conditions, or to file your flight plan. Was Mike Archuleta out there that day? I'm sure he was checked. Nedd: Before you get all excited here, secondary transfer is highly unlikely. We most certainly don't obtain everyone's DNA that we come in contact with on a daily basis. Then to assume to tranfered to a very active 6 year old and it stayed with her until she was murdered is making a HUGE leap. Not only that the 3 DNA's found at the scene are all male and share the same genetic markers, what they are not telling us is that they are all 3 from the same person. They most certainly would have to be for the defense team to keep their clients out of jail. It is this reason I beleive the BPD failed to even name the Ramsey's as offical suspects. Janphi: Several of the DNA websites have said it's not as easy to pick up "stray" DNA as everyone thinks--that it's not just floating around in the air. You definitely have to have contact, such as skin-to-skin, though not confined to that--and it can be transferred from 2nd to 3rd parties and on and on. Kitchens and bathrooms most likely places. Nedd: Right Janphi. Point being, could JBR have lightly drawn her fingernails over someone else's skin and have picked up yet another person's DNA that had been deposited there through shaking hands, kissing, hugging, whatever? Seems so miniscule. Nedd: Could have, but then how did that DNA also get into her panties and on the blanket??? And if it was innocently how hard is it to trace her footsteps, she most certainly would have not gone anywhere without her parents at her young age. I would think Linda Hoffman Pugh could be a good source concerning JB's whereabouts if the parents weren't cooperating, since she helped the Ramsey's get ready for their Christmas party. Wouldn't she have known where JB went? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "SDS.." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:01:08 3/19/2001 SDS: I thought that JBR wasn't feeling well and was in bed all day before the Ramseys went to the Whites. From what has been stated, she wasn't outside playing and did not go to the Barnhills. She also didn't eat much that day. Will anybody back me up on this? Nedd: Good point, I remember that too,, however I can't recall reading it in the Ramsey's book. That would certainly narrow down the places where she may have come in contact with a male [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Write A Book!" Posted by Mandarin on 15:00:46 3/19/2001 Title of Ned's book .... "Boring People To Death" I'm outta here! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Fly..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:02:44 3/19/2001 Fly: The DNA in her panties is the case killer in any attempt to nail the Ramseys. That will be much more difficult to attribute to casual, innocent contact. Not impossible to dismiss, but pretty tough - unless there is something we don't know (which is certainly possible). Nedd: I agree Fly! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "See you later Mandarin" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:03:22 3/19/2001 Don't like talking with people with small minds :0) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Rose..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:11:15 3/19/2001 Rose: Having raised 3 children, I as a jury member would not be influenced by such a small DNA sample under the nails or in the panties of a 6 year old. Children that age waller and touch every thing they come in contact. They scratch themselves with unclen hands. Nedd: Yes I know I have one. However if I took in my child's panties and had them tested for DNA and a male's DNA came up, unless she sat her bottom directly in a spot of blood, I'd say I had a real problem on my hands. Rose it works this way. New panties on a dead child with make DNA does not add up to accidental. No way no how. Rose: We have been lead to believe that JB did not wipe her self when she went to the bathroom. Her moist little potootie and panties would hold any DNA they came in contact with. Nedd: Yep, Rose and most likely if her little panties came in contact with a dirty pottie, she would have more then one dna deposited on her. She didn't. Rose: I still say if you took any child and checked DNA from their nails and panties you would find mystery DNA in small amounts. As Lee said this is not a DNA case. Nedd: No you wouldn't Rose, I suggest you contact an expert in the field or call a Biologist. Here try this lab: 1 800.613.5768 Rose: Now if JB had big amounts of skin and tissue under her nails, then that would be a different matter, but I am going to have to go with Thomas's description. I see no reason that he would lie about this. There would be too many people in the know to refute his statement. Nedd: He didn't lie Rose, he just didn't give you the full facts. All 3 DNA's share the same genetic markers, therefore they might very well be all one and the same. We will never know until the killer is caught, but until then the Ramsey's have enough to keep them out of prison. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "Mini..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:13:11 3/19/2001 Mini: If ST's description of the DNA's condition is not correct, it means he was terribly ignorant about the evidence or he was lying. There's been no public refutation by the Ramseys or Lou Smit which I certainly think there would be if Thomas were wrong. Nedd: Thomas is ignorant regarding the DNA. IN the fact that he wants to ignore it. You cannot ignore DNA. Mini: JB was at Pasta Jay's on the 24th--another potential source for picking up foreign DNA. As I mentioned in a previous post, if a DNA test can cost up to $5,000 per test, they really can't go around testing hundreds of possible contacts. Nedd: But they have. If it's not important, WHY? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Hey Britt..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:20:37 3/19/2001 First hi Britt glad to see ya! Britt: ...speaking of jumping on the "defensive DNA," here's the problem I have with this type of free-floating, inflammatory tidbit of "information": Someone like, oh say, Ned comes along, reads it, doesn't stop to realize that (1) it contradicts all other, reliable characterizations of the nail DNA in this case and that (2) the term "defensive DNA" is a subjective assessment of the DNA material (to which the word "flesh" is now added as well) found under JB's nails, and not a new piece of evidence Nedd: Never heard that "flesh" was ever added, however the DNA is as I read it was. Found under her nails. Shares same genetic markers found in panties. ...and he runs with it. Before you know it, (people like) Ned will embellish the "defensive flesh DNA" into great globs of intruder skin, male of course, probably add some blood to the mix (like he did with the panty DNA) and faster than you can say SPIN, we've got a whole new forensic element to this case. Nedd: Oh Britt you put me in such a bad light, when have I EVER embellished? Shame on you. DNA is DNA, I don't care how degraded or poor the sample is in a murder case it is important. And is becomes doubly important to folks like me that learned through the law enforcement grape vine the amount of money the BPD spent on testing against this DNA. That is a CLEAR sign to me the importance of such evidence. Another thing to note is this case went far out of the reach of the BPD Britt, you had all kinds of experts hands on it. The conclusion still stands there is 3 pieces of unidenitifable male DNA at the crime scene. Add sexual molestation and a dead child, and you have reasonable doubt. No Doubt about that :0) WHo loves ya Britt??? :00 Ned will be along shortly to demonstrate this for us. Watch. Nedd: Oh Britt I just love it when you know me sooo well, Heck I can't sit out a good debate, it's against my nature :0) Maybe it's deliberate spin, maybe it's not, call it what you want. The point is, it results in the dissemination of misinformation, muddies the already confusing waters, and does not help the case. Nedd: Britt mark my words it's no spin. I know this straight from Thomas' mouth and those in law enforcement. Thomas down played the DNA evidence to prove his case, he case crumbled and now he isn't speaking. Britt what is your logical conclusion for the DNA? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Britt and Mame..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:23:11 3/19/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:23:11, 3/19/2001 Britt: Mame posted the bit about the DNA coming from defensive actions and that tissue was involved, not Ned. In fact, Ned didn't even post on the "transcript #2" thread after mame posted her info, and Ned hasn't posted on this thread (yet). Nedd: transcript 2 thread? Did i miss a thread??? Heck I will have to go back and check. Don't want to be left out. Especially when it comes to DNA. Thanks Britt :0) I typed Birtt instead of Britt :0) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "Britt..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:25:38 3/19/2001 Britt: ...that the DNA in this case may be problematic for the prosecution, and it needs to be explained. But... you said ...any defense attorney or intelligent legal mind will tell you that DNA such as this is considered "reasonable doubt"... CAN be considered reasonable doubt. It depends on the totality of the expert scientific testimony/evidence. Nedd: Britt I think most all Scientist would agree that DNA is DNA. That's about the just of it ...no attorney worth his salt would walk into a courtroom in a circumstantial case and try to talk his way out of such damning DNA... We don't know if it's "damning" or not without hearing from the scientific experts. To call it "damning" is a lot like calling it "defensive" -- it's a subjective characterization. All we know for sure is that it's DNA, period. Nedd: And Britt this is ALL that is needed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "Mandarin..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:34:11 3/19/2001 M: re: Steve Thomas - I have NEVER ever felt this man was lying and like so many, I see absolutely no reason for him to lie, but I do see a lot of people's noses out of joint, because they fear he is in fact, the most believable character in this tragic homicide and unlike so many others connected to the case, he does not have a hidden agenda. He wrote a book ... big deal. Hasn't every one else on the planet published or aired their 2 cents worth on this case? Nedd: Yep Mandarin, he published a book with a bogus theory and profitted off it and then refused to answer web sleuths that proved him wrong. Perhpaps his heart was in the right case, perhaps he should use it and re-evaluate the evidence as we know it, instead of ignorning it. Re DNA .... Where's Greg McCrary when we need him? He's the only sensible person I can stomach when reading or listening to anything concerning DNA. He turned down the Rams immediately, before any of us ever knew who they were. What a quiet genius!! I've become infatuated with him, can you tell? Nedd: What does Greg McCrary have to say about the DNA, I am curious? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "Britt..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:38:35 3/19/2001 Britt: The info came from mame. I only mentioned Ned because he so predictably creates spin from such info. Nedd: Now you did it Britt, I am so deeply hurt? Creating spin??? Did I create spin at the other site too?? My point was that little bits of "orphan" information (i.e. information with no stated source nor scientific corroboration accompanying it) of an explosive nature (foreign DNA) characterized in a certain subjective light (defensive) and (I'll say it again) without corroboration or reliable scientific source, perpetuates spin, deliberately or inadvertently. Nedd: Oh Britt, have you called an expert yet? How can such a bright girl like you think that this evidence is not important? What then Britt is keeping the Ramsey's out of jail? A Hunter conspiricy? With all the experts in on it too? Do the Ramsey's have that much money that they are actually paying off everyone? Fly, I'm like you. I only ask for accurate, responsible, reliable information. And there is a huge difference between info being presented as opinion and info being presented as fact or evidence. I think the difference is obvious to most of us. Nedd: This is not my opinion. There are 3 pieces of unidenitifable DNA at the crime scene, the greatest of which lies in the panties of a dead 6 year old and is mixed with her very own blood, perhpas the last blood shed in her very short life. Would I be looking for the person whom that DNA belongs to ?/ You betcha. Well lookie down there. Looks like Ned has started already. See? I'll let him demonstrate my point :) Nedd: Howdy hi Brittie Brett! Or is that Brittie Brat? Hehheheheh [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "Janphi.." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:41:42 3/19/2001 Janphi: No matter how I look at it, the DNA doesn't mean a thing to me and wouldn't if I were on the jury--unless they had some really good exhibits and explanations that would expand or increase my present understanding of the situation as it is. Nedd: So you would rather send an innocent parent to jail then to learn where this DNA came from??? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "Country Girl..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:53:31 3/19/2001 "I beleive JB was stunned in her room and then taken to the basement, that is when she woke, most likely by the man molesting her and she screamed and he cracked her skull." CG: So then you must subscribe to the theory that the ransom note was written prior to the murder and the intruder had no fear of being caught after her scream...so he just took his/her time fashioning the garrote, wiping down her body, redressing her, wrapping her up in her blanket, possibly returning the maglight to the kitchen counter, drawing a heart on her palm, etc. Nedd: Wrong. I never said that. First of all yes he took his time and wrote the note before hand. There is no way in my mind a mother paniced struck her child and then murdered her of all things to cover and then sat down and wrote a lenghtly ransom note and practise ones to boot. He stunned her carried her to the basement tied her up and fashioned the garrote, all within 30 minutes and used the garrote as his sexual fantasy and molested the child. He may have thought to rape her, or tried and failed. There was NO wiping down of the body. That is media hype. Her body was wiped, because something had smeared against it, the police first thought it was seman but it turned out to be blood. There was NO washing of the body, but a quick brush with something with blue fibers that has yet to be identified. I have never been in a home with only one wash cloth. Why wasn't a match found? She was never wrapped in the blanket. According to Fleet and John the blanket was thrown on top of her with her feet exposed, NOT wrapped lovingly papoose like as the tabloids reported. The heart on her palm may not be a heart, as stated on the other web site. And if a parent did it why? And why would they be smart enough to dispose of the red pen but not the pen to write the note? And just why would a parent do this CG? The only way for me to beleive this would be if it had been an accident as Thomas suggested, only if the evidence suggested it as so. It does not. This killer had NO FEAR of being caught. Think about it. Nedd: Nope, not until JB screamed, and that's when he ended her life and dumped her body in the back room and left. He had ever intention of collecting money. But by 5:45 the house was swarming with cops. He didn't chance it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "Look..." Posted by janphi on 15:52:34 3/19/2001 This is called spam. I posted #60 a little while ago and came back and here was this torrent of posts that were obviously done in advance and spammed onto the board, for what reason I do not know--except to bury this thread. Can't you reply like others do? This statement you made to me is ludicrous. Can't you read what I posted? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "Fly: " Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:04:22 3/19/2001 Fly: Ned - What is your source for all the mystery DNA being consistent with coming from the same person? That is one issue I've heard differing accounts about. Nedd: From my sources from those inside law enforcement, it is general knowledge that the 3 DNA's all share the same genetic markers. To mean it makes sense otherwise they all three could have easily been discarded. They have been discussed in the media sepeartely, but not necessiarly together. All 3 male, all 3 unidentifiable. As to the amount of tissue that likely would be deposited in defensive action, even by a 6 yr old... This wouldn't absolutely have to produce obvious amounts of tissue, but I'd say it is pretty likely that it would involve more than a few cells. That can't be easily discounted. For that matter, we've heard (from C McKinley) that the unpatterned abrasions on her throat were actually scratches likely made by JBR as she fought against the ligature. Can't be sure about that info because it was not widely reported, but that would almost certainly suggest that there would have been a significant amount of material under her nails (remember, her nails were long enough to make clipping them for samples appropriate), although perhaps mostly her tissue. Nedd: Well that certainly puts to rest the theory that she didn't fight. She most certainly was awake while being strangled and had not yet been struck in the skull, just as the evidence suggests. She certainly could have scratched the killer. You also suggest that JBR might have eaten the pineapple prior to going to the Whites. That is pretty unlikely, given its position in the intestinal tract. Nedd: That is what some have suggested. I don't know if I entirely agree with that. However if the child did not eat much or anything at the Whites house, perhaps it was possible. Based on the literature I searched, the stomach empties its contents into the small intestine within about 1-1.5 hours for a standard meal (even quicker for small meals with little protein & fat). The food reaches the large intestine an average of 4 hours after ingestion. If JBR ate the pineapple prior to going to the Whites, we're dealing with a time span of about 5 hours or more, putting the pineapple in or darn near the large intestine, not at the beginning of the small intestine. Also, where is the dinner she ate at the Whites? We have no info that suggests JBR ate nothing there, as far as I know. Perhaps that is the fecal material noted in the large intestine? Would fit the average timeline reasonably well. Nedd: Yes I would like to know about that as well. But the pineapple in my opinion could have been obtained by the child herself. Why only a small amount? It suggests to me it was perhaps snuck or grabbed in a hurry. Was their more pineapple found in her large intestine or fecal matter? Wouldn't there have to be if she ate a full serving? This strengthens the Ramsey's account to me that they know nothing regarding the pineapple and they never gave her any. She may have simply gotten some herself, so some was already in her room. It in itself is a mystery [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "If you are an arrogant, insufferable" Posted by Watching you on 16:00:23 3/19/2001 ass, you probably don't know you are, hahaha. "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 102. "Ned's replies" Posted by Stonegate on 16:05:50 3/19/2001 It seems to me that Ned feels it is easier to read the question and answer the way he is doing it. I do not believe he is deliberately spamming, I think he is trying to be clear. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "Tricia..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:05:43 3/19/2001 Tricia: Uh Ned...How do you really feel. Hey don't hold back man...don't be shy ok... Nedd: Tricia DNA is my strong point, and why I strayed from the guilt of the parents. This evidence clearly suggests to me another male was present there that night [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 103. "Mandarin..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:07:33 3/19/2001 M: God Britt, you must have a 6th sense when it comes to Ned and everything else for that matter. He/she must have spatulated fingers from banging away at the keyboard frantically. Nedd: Yep and they are killin me :0) You really know how to get to her/him/they? Talk about a predictable poster? You keep those intelligent posts coming. I'm elevating you to the number #1 spot on my "must read" posts. Used to be Lacey, but I haven't see her around for a while and Dunvegan runs a really close second. Nedd: Britt knows me well Mandarin. She also knows I was very anti Ram for several years. It seems some evidence came up that I knew something about and can't possibly be dismissed so easily. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 104. "FT.." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:08:38 3/19/2001 FT: Good show! I don't take the time to read your posts, but I do occasionally scroll by to see how much you can post in a given period of time. I think you may have outdone yourself here today with 14 posts in 60 minutes. That's one post every 4.3 minutes. If nothing else, we should recognize you for your outstanding typing, copying and pasting skills. FT: Thanks> But who are you? I never seen an FT post? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 105. "Mandarin..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:09:59 3/19/2001 Mandarin: Please take your hands very slowly off the keyboard and placed them securely around your neck, squeeze tightly and give the rest of us a break here, Pal! Regards, Mandarin Nedd: Nope, because I have a REAL problem with men strangling people to death, especially innocent little children [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 106. "Janphi..." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:11:27 3/19/2001 Janphi:This is called spam. I posted #60 a little while ago and came back and here was this torrent of posts that were obviously done in advance and spammed onto the board, for what reason I do not know--except to bury this thread. Can't you reply like others do? This statement you made to me is ludicrous. Can't you read what I posted? Nedd: What are you talking about what post???? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 107. "Watchin You" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:13:42 3/19/2001 WY: ass, you probably don't know you are, hahaha. "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein Nedd: WY, the only one that can judge with Truth and Knowledge is God, but we can open our eyes and see the truth before judging those we don't know, and by helping to seek truth of an innocent child [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 111. "You, who calls" Posted by Watching you on 16:18:45 3/19/2001 himself DNA savvy and doesn't even know the difference between minute and incomplete? What you are doing here is spamming, I don't care what anyone else calls it. Anyone who racks up over 30 posts, long ones at that, in less than 1/2 hours is spamming. You think you see the truth and the rest of us are big dummies. And, I think many of your posts are plain stupid. Doesn't matter. No one else I know on these threads feels the need to control the thread as you seem to. Ya' bore me, Ned. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 108. "Stonegate.." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:15:00 3/19/2001 S: It seems to me that Ned feels it is easier to read the question and answer the way he is doing it. I do not believe he is deliberately spamming, I think he is trying to be clear Nedd: Why thank you Stonegate, because if I didn't do that some accuse me of mis quoting the, and I don't want to do that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 113. "Ned....." Posted by rose on 16:58:04 3/19/2001 where did you source that the DNA in her panties and under her nails more than likly came from the same person??? If that were the case, we would not be here typeing IMHO. It would be over and done with. The police would have dropped the Ramseys as suspects. But if it is small amounts of DNA that we are talking about from 2 or more persons, then it is not a DNA case. With all the other info we are told about is true and this DNA is mixed then the defence better not let any mothers and fathers of young children be on the jury, cause they are not going to buy that this DNA is connected to the murder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 109. "OK I will" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:15:52 3/19/2001 wait for all your responses, I'm off to read other interesting threads. Good show Holly, and good thinking [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 110. "I'm new here, Nedd" Posted by FT on 16:18:42 3/19/2001 That's probably why you've never seen a post from me. BTW, you're down to 3.4 minutes per post (41 posts in 2 hours, 34 minutes). Impressive typing skills. Do you take dictation? Don't answer that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 112. "Quick" Posted by DebDeb on 16:21:19 3/19/2001 Can somebody start a part 2 to this thread. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]