Justice Watch Support JW "Faulty Reasoning?" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Faulty Reasoning?, darby, 09:08:09, 5/21/2001 logic, fly, 09:52:20, 5/21/2001, (#1) Also..., darby, 09:54:53, 5/21/2001, (#2) fly, darby, 10:05:16, 5/21/2001, (#4) Hey, darby., Grace, 10:00:09, 5/21/2001, (#3) Good point, fly, Grace, 10:11:14, 5/21/2001, (#5) Grace, fly, darby, 10:14:42, 5/21/2001, (#6) Grace, darby, 10:18:05, 5/21/2001, (#7) OTOH, darby, 11:46:41, 5/21/2001, (#8) Well,, Gemini, 15:48:43, 5/21/2001, (#9) darby, watchin', 16:17:31, 5/21/2001, (#10) Maye the BPD, Watching you, 16:29:38, 5/21/2001, (#11) I've been thinking about this, darby, 18:33:13, 5/21/2001, (#18) IMO, v_p, 17:58:40, 5/21/2001, (#12) Heck are we talking about DNA again?, Nedthan Johns, 18:10:27, 5/21/2001, (#15) Because, v_p :-], Watching you, 18:09:57, 5/21/2001, (#14) DNA, Jellyjaws, 18:06:39, 5/21/2001, (#13) Hey Watching YOu, Nedthan Johns, 18:16:55, 5/21/2001, (#16) Cross Contamination, Jessa Ash, 18:27:42, 5/21/2001, (#17) Jessa Ash, darby, 18:45:00, 5/21/2001, (#20) Nope, Ned, Watching you, 18:41:07, 5/21/2001, (#19) W_Y, JR, 22:17:12, 5/21/2001, (#21) JR, Gemini, 22:27:46, 5/21/2001, (#22) GEM, JR, 22:53:42, 5/21/2001, (#23) That's my point, JR, Gemini, 00:11:14, 5/22/2001, (#24) Question for DNA downplayers, darby, 07:08:58, 5/22/2001, (#25) v_p, darby, 07:22:41, 5/22/2001, (#26) v_p, fly, 08:15:22, 5/22/2001, (#28) Henry Lee, DuBois, 07:45:18, 5/22/2001, (#27) IMO, the police, Reinmarie, 08:32:20, 5/22/2001, (#30) Darby, Watching you, 08:29:59, 5/22/2001, (#29) WY, fly, 08:49:12, 5/22/2001, (#31) I find that strange, too, Watching you, 08:53:33, 5/22/2001, (#32) Well, I completely, Watching you, 08:57:17, 5/22/2001, (#33) It makes no sense to me, Florida, 09:18:47, 5/22/2001, (#34) Florida, Watching you, 09:47:40, 5/22/2001, (#35) fly's post 28, darby, 10:23:21, 5/22/2001, (#42) Jessa Ash, Nedthan Johns, 10:12:41, 5/22/2001, (#37) Wake up! Another RST Ploy on the Loose (with the K..., Ginja, 10:10:29, 5/22/2001, (#36) Boy, Ginja, ayjey, 10:51:17, 5/22/2001, (#48) Gemini, Nedthan Johns, 10:15:25, 5/22/2001, (#39) The Ploy Continues!, Ginja, 10:14:15, 5/22/2001, (#38) Watching You, Nedthan Johns, 10:43:05, 5/22/2001, (#44) Final Thought, Ginja, 10:17:16, 5/22/2001, (#41) I agree, Ginja, Watching you, 10:16:08, 5/22/2001, (#40) Bravo Ginja, ayelean, 10:58:41, 5/22/2001, (#51) Thanks, Ginja!, LurkerXIV, 10:39:07, 5/22/2001, (#43) Gemini, LurkerXIV, 10:46:50, 5/22/2001, (#46) Oh Fly, Nedthan Johns, 10:46:28, 5/22/2001, (#45) Watching You, Nedthan Johns, 10:53:56, 5/22/2001, (#50) fly,, LurkerXIV, 10:51:34, 5/22/2001, (#49) Nedthan, Watching you, 10:51:11, 5/22/2001, (#47) Florida, Nedthan Johns, 11:00:08, 5/22/2001, (#52) Watching You, Nedthan Johns, 11:44:49, 5/22/2001, (#56) Ned, Watching you, 11:03:52, 5/22/2001, (#53) Simple Answer, Darby, Ginja, 11:17:26, 5/22/2001, (#54) Oh, did Ned leave?, Watching you, 11:32:46, 5/22/2001, (#55) Ginja you make me laugh, Nedthan Johns, 12:05:11, 5/22/2001, (#61) Ginja, darby, 11:52:56, 5/22/2001, (#59) Ned, Florida, 11:46:48, 5/22/2001, (#58) If you come back, Ned..., Ginja, 11:45:23, 5/22/2001, (#57) Ginja, darby, 12:24:05, 5/22/2001, (#67) Hahaha, Watching you, 12:01:55, 5/22/2001, (#60) Ginja, Nedthan Johns, 12:07:41, 5/22/2001, (#62) LurkerXIV, fly, 12:16:58, 5/22/2001, (#65) Ginja, Nedthan Johns, 12:13:04, 5/22/2001, (#63) Ayelean, Nedthan Johns, 12:16:10, 5/22/2001, (#64) Lurker, Nedthan Johns, 12:19:46, 5/22/2001, (#66) Well, darby, 12:37:25, 5/22/2001, (#76) Thomas didn't say that, Ned, Watching you, 12:32:29, 5/22/2001, (#72) Watching You, Nedthan Johns, 12:27:14, 5/22/2001, (#69) So, because some, Watching you, 12:30:17, 5/22/2001, (#70) As to panties, Ned, Ginja, 12:25:48, 5/22/2001, (#68) Watching You, Nedthan Johns, 12:31:50, 5/22/2001, (#71) Your sources,please, Watching you, 12:33:46, 5/22/2001, (#73) Ginja, Nedthan Johns, 12:37:05, 5/22/2001, (#75) Can't answer, eh Ned?, Ginja, 12:45:44, 5/22/2001, (#80) Oh, and BTW, Ned, Watching you, 12:36:32, 5/22/2001, (#74) Florida, Nedthan Johns, 12:39:40, 5/22/2001, (#77) Agile DNA!, Ayeka, 13:02:54, 5/22/2001, (#85) darby, fly, 12:45:46, 5/22/2001, (#81) Sources for, Watching you, 12:43:05, 5/22/2001, (#79) Apples and oranges, Ned?, Ginja, 12:42:54, 5/22/2001, (#78) fly, darby, 12:52:11, 5/22/2001, (#82) Wrong forum?, watchin', 13:07:32, 5/22/2001, (#86) END OF THREAD, darby, 12:59:24, 5/22/2001, (#84) WY--on blood DNA, darby, 12:57:14, 5/22/2001, (#83) Thanks, fly, for the links., LurkerXIV, 13:48:31, 5/22/2001, (#87) Question, Gemini, 14:51:43, 5/22/2001, (#88) Astounded, JR, 17:16:47, 5/22/2001, (#89) JR, Watching you, 17:25:19, 5/22/2001, (#90) W-Y, JR, 17:27:55, 5/22/2001, (#91) ................................................................... "Faulty Reasoning?" Posted by darby on 09:12:11 5/21/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:12:11, 5/21/2001 Or perhaps deliberate subterfuge. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_519577,00.html 'As for DNA, Gray asks why police would eliminate him on that basis but won't eliminate John and Patsy for the same reason. Their DNA doesn't match either, according to police. "If (police) cleared him on DNA, that's fine," said Gray. "Why not the Ramseys?"' Why not the Ramseys? Well, maybe because their DNA was presumably all over the crime scene and corpse! If one of them did it, then perhaps the unidentified DNA came from someone JonBenet had innocently had contact with. If an intruder did it, then the unidentified DNA still could have come from such a chance encounter, but then we'd have to believe that the intruder left absolutely nothing of himself. Possible, but unlikely. Of course, if the unidentified DNA turns out to match someone, we've found the killer. But until that happens (or a non-Ramsey is proven to be the killer by some other means), the Ramseys simply can't be eliminated. Their DNA IS (presumably) all over that crime scene. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "logic" Posted by fly on 09:52:20 5/21/2001 darby - I generally agree that the logic isn't totally violated by keeping the Ramseys on the table, but the logic would be much tighter if BPD didn't take the hard line "eliminated" position on the potential intruder suspects. If BPD "eliminates" (completely removes from consideration) an intruder possibility on the basis of the DNA alone, that strongly suggests that they strongly believe that the DNA in the panties is the killer's. With that stance, logically they should also eliminate the Ramseys. If BPD has reservations about whether the DNA is the killer's, then they should be taking a much softer line than "elimination." They should be putting those folks in the "unlikely" category, instead. Then, the logic of not clearing the Ramseys works, based on the idea that there are other bits of evidence that suggests they were involved. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Also..." Posted by darby on 09:54:53 5/21/2001 Why does a man who has been eliminated remain on Lou's list of possible perps? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "fly" Posted by darby on 10:05:16 5/21/2001 I see what you mean, but I don't think the Ramseys can be eliminated on DNA--again, because theirs was there. Yes, they found "other" DNA, but that doesn't negate the fact that the Ramseys' DNA (presumably) was there as well. The Ramseys do have the advantage of an entirely innocent explanation for that DNA, but there's no getting around the fact that it's there. The possibility still remains that the Ramseys had not-so-innocent contact with JBR. Besides, I don't think the BPD's elimination of suspects relied entirely on the DNA. Example: Bootman's boot was the wrong type or size of Hi-Tek. Smit must know this, too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Hey, darby." Posted by Grace on 10:00:09 5/21/2001 Wasn't that ridiculous? I had the same reaction. As if a total stranger's DNA in her underpants would have the same significance as her parents'. Sheesh. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Good point, fly" Posted by Grace on 10:11:14 5/21/2001 "If BPD has reservations about whether the DNA is the killer's, then they should be taking a much softer line than "elimination." They should be putting those folks in the "unlikely" category, instead." If the BDP considers the DNA old, degraded, and not related to the murder, how can they use it to rule anybody out? So since they are using it to rule out suspects, do they believe it was left during the murder? Or are they not thinking any more clearly than Gray? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Grace, fly" Posted by darby on 10:14:42 5/21/2001 Grace--yep. fly--upon re-reading your second paragraph, I see what you mean. The BPD can't have it both ways. If they say the unidentified DNA is just irrelevant "noise," then they can't use it to eliminate non-Ramsey perps. If the unidentified DNA is relevant (ie, the killer's) then why are the Ramseys under the umbrella at all? The only way this might make sense is if it's believed the Ramseys AND some unknown person (or persons) are ALL under that umbrella. Hmmmm. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Grace" Posted by darby on 10:18:05 5/21/2001 We posted the same thought at the same time! Also, you said: "Or are they not thinking any more clearly than Gray?" Maybe they're experiencing a "Gray" area in their thinking. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "OTOH" Posted by darby on 11:46:41 5/21/2001 Maybe the BPD CAN have it both ways. The odds are extremely great that whoever committed this crime MUST have left a bit of his/her DNA. After all, that person obviously had very direct contact with JBR. Sometimes crime scenes contain irrelevant DNA and sometimes they don't. With that in mind: If the Ramseys did it (alone), then the unidentified DNA must have come from some innocent and irrelevant source. However, if an intruder did it, we're looking at the crime from a different angle. Assuming that it's very likely that the killer left his/her DNA--If an intruder did it, then that unidentified DNA most likely came from that intruder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Well," Posted by Gemini on 15:48:43 5/21/2001 I was talking (typing) about this leap in logic and trying to get some feedback over a year ago. Got shouted down by a guy who no longer posts here, and, then, almost no one was willing to even look at it. So glad some of you see that it makes no sense for the BPD to claim the DNA is inconsequential on one hand and use it to "eliminate" suspects on the other. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "darby" Posted by watchin' on 16:19:37 5/21/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:19:37, 5/21/2001 Could it be because dead men can't talk? I'm surpirsed there hasn't been more 'grave diggin'" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Maye the BPD" Posted by Watching you on 16:29:38 5/21/2001 is using the DNA to rule out people as opposed to suspects? Maybe they are just ruling out possible sources of the DNA. What that means, of course, is the BPD may not think the DNA belongs to any intruder but rather someone JB came into contact with before the night of the murder - maybe even days before. I don't know that, but it is another possibility. The source of the mystery DNA, if it is indeed identifiable, is not necessarily the killer of JBR. There may be a perfectly innocent reason for that DNA to be there. They need to rule out sources, not suspects. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "I've been thinking about this" Posted by darby on 18:33:13 5/21/2001 The evidence is supposed to lead us to the killer, but I find that in the absence of a solved case, the evidence presents two different possible "realities"--one for a parent perpetrator and another for an intruder. For instance, if an intruder did it, a stun gun might have inflicted those suspicious double marks on JonBenet's face and back. If a parent did it, then the possibility that the wounds came from a stun gun are greatly reduced. Similarly--the mystery DNA poses two possibilities, one for a parent/killer and another for an intruder/killer. Again, many--if not most--murder scenes include irrelevant items that have nothing to do with the murder. Certainly, unidentified DNA found at any given murder scene could have been deposited by an irrelevant, innocent source. The basic truth in the Ramsey case is that either the parents did it or they didn't. If the parents did it and acted alone, then the unidentified DNA is almost positively irrelevent in terms of the murder. However, if an unknown intruder committed the murder, that's a different story. If that's the case, then there's a great potential that the unidentified DNA belongs to the killer. Why? Well, because I don't think it's likely that someone can stun, strangle, molest and kill another person without leaving a little DNA in the process. In the absence of any other unidentified DNA besides what was found in the fingernails and panties, then I think the unidentified DNA probably came from the intruder/killer--if in fact an intruder killed JonBenet. The irony for John and Patsy is that since their DNA is presumably all over that crime scene, they absolutely can't be eliminated until the crime is solved. Matching the unidentified DNA to someone would be a huge step in that direction. If the DNA is ever matched to a potential perpetrator, that would certainly lean in favor of Ramsey innocence. Alternatively, if the DNA turns out to match an innocent contact of JonBenet's (a friend of hers, for instance), that would lean in the direction of Ramsey guilt. But as the case stands, as long as the DNA remains unidentified, it can neither rule the Ramseys in nor out. So, if the parent(s) murdered JonBenet, the unidentified DNA is probably not relevant to the murder. If they didn't, then it probably is! This may sound contradictory, but if you think about it, it's not. Using this logic, the BPD actuallly can use the unidentified DNA to help eliminate non-parent potential suspects. Am I making any sense? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "IMO" Posted by v_p on 17:58:40 5/21/2001 Gray is an idiot and is full of chit. There are no direct quotes in his statements and a lot of what he says sounds manufactured. >>." Photos of the suicide scene show a stun gun near the body.<<< I doubt it, but it sounds good, eh? And the girlfriend found bootman under the sheets with her daughter? Sounds like crap to me. Is there a quote from someone other than Gray that says Bootman was excluded as a suspect because his DNA didn't match? I don't understand how DNA that is too degraded to "match" someone can NOT match someone. Hi fly :o) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Heck are we talking about DNA again?" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 18:10:27 5/21/2001 Well then here I am . The DNA was NEVER TOO degraded or old to use to clear other suspects VP. It's there and it belongs to a male. They have been using it to clear suspects for years now. That tells me it ain't that old or degraded, otherwise they wouldn't be testing suspects against it. The DNA is the strongest piece of evidence besides the stun gun marks, which I beleive Lou Smit proved for the most part that points towards an intruder. The strongest evidence that points towards the Ramsey's IMO is the pineapple. The ransom note is weak, because you have most experts almost ruling PR out as the author. I wish more was being discussed on the pineapple. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Because, v_p :-]" Posted by Watching you on 18:09:57 5/21/2001 we do not have the full story on that DNA. We have a lot of opinions but no official results of that DNA testing. We do not know what kind of condition that DNA was in. We do not know how degraded it was, if it was contaminated or contamination. We have had half-truths and no-truths and half-baked opinions based upon those half-truths and no-truths. Is it any wonder there is so much confusion over why the BPD seems to be able to rule people out based on the DNA but not in? We don't even know if that is true. No one inside the investigation has said that. Oh, that's right - that defective detective, ol' Lou. He is an arrogant, conceited man. I have no respect for him whatsoever. Trust me - we do not have the facts on that DNA. No matter what Ned says. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "DNA" Posted by Jellyjaws on 18:06:39 5/21/2001 Just saw a JBR "special" on Fox with Carol McKinley which lasted all of 5 minutes. DNA has gone to another lab for more specific testing. It's suspected it came from nail clippers at morgue. Henry Lee said case of many clues, no luck. Must determined if death was an accident (and coverup) or homicide. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Hey Watching YOu" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 18:16:55 5/21/2001 How'd ya know I was posting, before I posted? do do do do do do. What we DO know about the DNA WY is that it is MALE, it's found in 3 sepearte places on the body. Panties, under boths set of nails, and it doesn't belong to anyone in the Ramsey family. We also know it is degraded, and possibly contaiminated, although, I don't think anyone has heard to what extent, or WHY the BPD still consider a good source to test against. To me this suggests, at least to the BPD, that it is an important piece of evidence that at least deserves to be answered. Problem is after almost 5 years, they don't have the answer for it. My conclusion: Until someone can explain to me how a males DNA got all over a murder victim, and that DNA matches no known suspects, the Ramsey's deserve the benefit of the doubt and are innocent until proven guilty. It's my opinion NO jury will convict them with evidence like this. Heck they might even be guilty with the DNA evidence. But somebody put it there, so either they are master's at planting evidence or their is one hell of a strong possibility that someone other then them were there that night. Were the Ramsey's still involved? Perhpas, but I think it's doubtful with this kind of evidence. JMHO JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Cross Contamination" Posted by Jessa Ash on 18:27:42 5/21/2001 Since there has been some talk that the DNA under the nails was from the clippers at the Morgue, have they compared the sample to DNA to previous "guests" of the county? (Or, for that matter, employees of the morgue?) Please don't jump all over this and start yelling about the panties and the nails matching...I just want to know if they made any efforts to prove/disprove that the DNA under the nails was from cross-contamination at the morgue. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Jessa Ash" Posted by darby on 18:45:00 5/21/2001 If it's true that the same DNA that was found in the finger nails also was found in her panties, then it seems unlikely that the source was from a morgue employee (or client). I agree with Ned/Ellique (forget who said it) that the very fact that DNA swabbing has been performed repeatedly to eliminate people over the years of this case must mean that the DNA has some relevance. I also agree with WY that none of us knows the whole story. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Nope, Ned" Posted by Watching you on 18:41:07 5/21/2001 WE do not know any such thing. You say you know. Whatever. I do not know. I will not take your word for it. I will not take jameson's word for it. When the testers of that DNA or the people who have the official results of that DNA tell me that there was a readable result (they cleared those other people on more than just the DNA results, BTW), that it wasn't contamination, and that it was male, then I will believe it. Not until, so you can continue to say it was Male, jump up and down and beat your chest if you want, but it will do no good. This is one fact that has to be pure fact to me. Supposition and allegations just aren't going to get it. Now, I am leaving for the night. Goodnight. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "W_Y" Posted by JR on 22:17:12 5/21/2001 Well said especially in view of JJ's post re Henry Lee. JJ wrote: Henry Lee said case of many clues, no luck. Must determined if death was an accident (and coverup) or homicide. JJ - did he say anything about it starting as an accident but that JonBenet was still alive or does he believe she was in fact dead when the cover-up was done? JFJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "JR" Posted by Gemini on 22:27:46 5/21/2001 ... did he say anything about it starting as an accident but that JonBenet was still alive or does he believe she was in fact dead when the cover-up was done? I didn't understand him to say he believed it was a cover-up, just that it could be either/or (accident w/cover-up or homicide). Otherwise ... I think Lee is downplaying the importance of the DNA because he's working for the BPD. Doesn't mean he isn't good at his job, just that he is under no obligation to tell the public everything, plus he has a history of loyalty to his employers, eh? jmo of course [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "GEM" Posted by JR on 22:53:42 5/21/2001 IMHO Henry Lee isn't going to jeopardize his reputation by misstating the facts regardless of who he works for. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "That's my point, JR" Posted by Gemini on 00:12:46 5/22/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:12:46, 5/22/2001 He isn't publically stating facts. He's tossing out possibilities. Big difference. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Question for DNA downplayers" Posted by darby on 07:08:58 5/22/2001 If the DNA is not important, can anyone think of another reason why the BPD swabbed everyone and their brother? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "v_p" Posted by darby on 07:22:41 5/22/2001 I believe you are a skeptic's skeptic. Do you really think Gray would just make up and publicly announce that photos of the suicide scene show a stun gun near the body? Sure he could have, but why would even a dishonest lawyer risk saying such a thing if it could be discounted in a New York Lawyer...uh, minute? Same goes for the claim that the girlfriend found bootman under the sheets with her daughter on top of the sheets. It would be pure insanity for Gray to say this publicly if the girlfriend had never made that claim. Talk about opening oneself up for a libel suit! Note that even if Gray was telling the truth about these things concerning Bootman, it doesn't mean that Bootman committed the JBR murder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "v_p" Posted by fly on 08:15:22 5/22/2001 v_p - It is possible to have DNA that is not adequate to "match" somebody, but that IS adequate to "not match" somebody. (#1) ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP (mystery DNA, complete) (#2) ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP (known source, complete) (#3) A_CD_FG_IJKL_N_P (mystery DNA, incomplete) (#4) ABCJEFSHIJKLMROP (known source, complete) A "match" could be concluded if comparing #1 and #2. All the markers are the same, so with very high probability the two DNA samples could be said to have come from the same person. If comparing #2 and #3, no firm conclusion could be reached because although all of the available markers match, the possibility of a mismatch at the missing locations remains. At best, you might get a conclusion something like "consistent with, but incomplete." If comparing #3 and #4, you would conclude no match, even though one DNA reading is incomplete. The reason you can declare with reasonably high probability the DNA samples came from different sources is that some of the readable markers do not match. So, an incomplete reading kills your ability to "match" two DNA samples, but it doesn't kill your ability to declare that two samples came from different sources. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Henry Lee" Posted by DuBois on 07:45:18 5/22/2001 I don't think that Henry Lee would even talk about contamination due to the nail clippers if this wasn't a big possibility. I was glad to hear that there are still tests going on. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "IMO, the police" Posted by Reinmarie on 08:32:20 5/22/2001 need to answer the DNA question because people think it is the most important evidence in a case. How could a jury convict anyone if the DNA cannot be identified and the questions of how it got there answered? I don't think the police believe the DNA is the answer in this case. We have heard many times that "this is not a DNA case" but it keeps coming up and by who? RST and lots of people buy into it. So would a jury. It is my opinion that this is the only reason this case has not went to trial. Dr. Lee said "a lot of clues and no luck". Well, the Ramseys are very lucky. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Reinmarie ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Darby" Posted by Watching you on 08:29:59 5/22/2001 I don't think the DNA should be discounted altogether, but I don't place the importance on it that some others do for a couple of reasons. There is so little of it, to begin with, a very very tiny bit. That just doesn't add up to me - why such a scant amount of DNA if it is from that night? There is so little of any actual physical evidence that would point to an intruder. I really believe that DNA is contamination, but how can we know anything when WE DON'T KNOW THE RESULTS OF THE DNA TESTS? This is what I keep harping on and still the questions keep coming. Everything we "know" about that alleged foreign DNA is hearsay, perpetrated by posters like Nedthan and mame, who claim to know the DNA was male and defensive, as in under her fingernails and flesh. That is just not so, but others pick that misinformation up and build a DNA case on it. We cannot complete discount but conversely we can't build a solid case for foreign DNA when we have only hearsay to go on. No one from inside the investigation, (except the Rambot Smit, of course)has given an official explanation for the DNA. It's not that I wouldn't like to have some solid answers about that DNA. It's that the solid answers we have to date do not support fresh DNA from an intruder as some have claimed. It is important, though, because it is mucking this case up royally. Maybe with new testing some answers will be forthcoming for the investigation, but I doubt we, the public, will be so informed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "WY" Posted by fly on 08:49:12 5/22/2001 WY - It does seem that there should be significant DNA from the killer. However, consider this: Ramsey DNA apparently was not found under her nails, in her panties, etc., either. That fact tends not to get any attention, and it has important implications concerning the ease of depositing viable DNA. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "I find that strange, too" Posted by Watching you on 08:58:53 5/22/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:58:53, 5/22/2001 ... do do do do [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Well, I completely" Posted by Watching you on 08:57:17 5/22/2001 messed that reasoning up. If it was foreign DNA, it obviously would not be showing Ramsey DNA. That was a really dumb post. I think I will delete it. Back to your original point - I guess it would depend on the circumstances. I wouldn't expect to find Ramsey DNA in her underwear, but there are circumstances where I can understand other DNA being there and under her fingernails. I heard there was Ramsey DNA under her fingernails, too, but you know how much of that you can believe. Don't know what to think. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "It makes no sense to me" Posted by Florida on 09:18:47 5/22/2001 to have DNA from skin cells on two hands and DNA from blood in her panties and still not have enough to make up one readable strand if the DNA deposited in those 3 places isn't from a single source like nailclippers or another instrument used at autopsy. The DNA had to have been spread around by accidental cross contamination. Logic tells me that there would be a different number of skin cells under each nail if she scratched and gouged at the killer. Logic tells me if the DNA in her panties is from blood it would have a different number of cells than the DNA found under her nails. I don't know if I've explained this very well but it makes sense to me! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Florida" Posted by Watching you on 09:47:40 5/22/2001 that is another Nedthan fallacy distributed on this forum. See how little misinformation tidbits get woven into our beliefs? Well, not my beliefs, because I am (one of)the original show me poster. There has been nothing about that DNA in her panties being blood DNA until Nedthan came along and stated it as fact. The DNA in her panties is allegedly MIXED with her own blood, but no one has stated it is, itself, blood. If that were the case, I think there would have been a much better DNA sample. OTOH, look at the blood that was found in Simpson's Bronco - there was Nicole's blood found, and a partial strand that was probably Goldman's, but it wasn't all there so they couldn't say for sure. It was a mixture of all three bloods - Simpson's, Nicole's, and Goldman's. I do not believe it was blood from any perp in JB's underwear because why would it be such a tiny amount and why would it be found only there and no where else? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "fly's post 28" Posted by darby on 10:26:39 5/22/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:26:39, 5/22/2001 Read it and re-read it. He nailed it in a way I've never been able to express. This is exactly why the DNA can be used to eliminate people even if it's so incomplete that there's no way to say with certainty that it matches anyone. Even if my DNA contains within it all the "letters" of that incomplete DNA it only might be mine. But there's no way to be positive that it's mine, since it's possible that the degraded DNA's missing "letters" are not within my DNA's makeup. However, if my DNA does not contain even one of the degraded DNA's "letters," then there's no way, no how that the DNA could be mine, no matter how degraded that DNA is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Jessa Ash" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 10:12:41 5/22/2001 Please don't jump all over this and start yelling about the panties and the nails matching...I just want to know if they made any efforts to prove/disprove that the DNA under the nails was from cross-contamination at the morgue. Nedd: Good question. I would like to know that too. But common sense should tell them that would be the first place to look. Just how many bodies DID the coroner clip off of, using those clippers. I think after almost 5 years, they would have already done that. But who knows knowing these yahoos. It still hasn't been matched to anyone. That tells me it is significant [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Wake up! Another RST Ploy on the Loose (with the Killer!)" Posted by Ginja on 10:10:29 5/22/2001 Cross-contamination is quite possible and, more likely than not, probable. That cross-contamination took place in the morgue as I've posted to before. The nail clippers were not cleaned after each nail was clipped. I don't think the problem here is that the clippers were 'dirty' to begin with (I would certainly hope not!). I think it's more likely than not that each nail did not contain this matter but rather, it was found under a nail or two. Look at it this way. Clean clippers are taken out and the coroner begins clipping the nails - right hand first. He clips one nail, then the next, and so on. Those clippings are put in a bag or petri dish and marked "JBR right hand." The clippers are not cleaned. The coroner then begins to clip the nails on the left hand. By not cleaning those clippers, he cross-contaminated the left hand with matter from the right hand. Upon finishing the left hand clippings, he puts those in a separate bag/dish marked "JBR - left hand." Now we have minute traces of this matter that "appears" to have come from both hands, but in reality, came from only one hand and most likely perhaps only a finger or two. Keep in mind, too, that this "theory" bears out because of the minuteness of the sample. It's not the end of the cross-contamination. The clothes are then removed from the body. Where are those clippers? on a separate table? Where are the panties placed? On that same table? Were the clothes removed first and placed to the side? And then when the nails were clipped, as so often happens when I clip my own nails, the nails (and the matter attached to it) flies off instead of dropping down into the hand or on the table or wherever. What of the person doing the clipping? Could a trace of the matter attach to his glove or hand or sleeve? And could it fall or rub off onto the panties when they're removed? Look at how easily trace evidence, including fibers, are left. We have the minutest of dna matter probably cross-contaminating on the morgue table. Look at all the brown cotton fibers that fell onto the cord, duct tape and JBR's body. And look how fibers easily fell off the cloth that was used to wipe her private area. So do you really think someone who sexually molested and then brutally murdered this child wouldn't have left his own fibers or his own dna or his own hair or numerous other 'items' of himself as he was all over this body for a couple of hours. He molested her! He redressed her! He carried her around the house! Not to mention all the poking around and touching things and walking throughout the house in order to gather his materials to fabricate the garotte, cut the duct tape, wrap the cord around wrists and stick, search for pen and pad, write a three page ransom note with a couple of practice pages before he actually got down to business. And all that was left behind was unidentifiable, minute traces of dna matter from the fingernails? Why swab so many people? Why test and retest if this sample is so minute and, more probable than not, random (irrelevant) evidence? Just look around you on the internet and elsewhere. All the Ramsey detectives. All the posters on this forum and others. The RST has made sure this information has been released because it needs to create reasonable doubt...and it has succeeded! People actually believe that this dna is crucial to this crime! They actually believe this dna belongs to the killer! They actually believe there's reason to doubt parent involvement! During trial, it will be up to the defense team to build a case of reasonable doubt. They will point to all the same things Gray and Smit are pointing to - totally irrelevant to the crime - but built up by the defense as if it was all significant! And if reading posters remarks on this issue are any indication, then the RST has succeeded!!! This is the simple answer as to why people are continuously being tested and why the dna matter (as well as other bogus evidence) is being continuously tested. Not only does the prosecution have to prove the suspects committed these crimes; they also have the burden of proving random evidence is irrelevant! This, to me, is a travesty of justice! It's a ploy bought and paid for by rich people to abuse the system and make a mockery of justice. Unfortunately, there are suckers out there who are falling for the Ramseyspeak hook, line and sinker! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Boy, Ginja" Posted by ayjey on 10:51:17 5/22/2001 this is really interesting! I think you brought up a lot of things that this "fence sitter" needs to digest. What do you think the motive was? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Gemini" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 10:15:25 5/22/2001 I think Lee is downplaying the importance of the DNA because he's working for the BPD. Doesn't mean he isn't good at his job, just that he is under no obligation to tell the public everything, plus he has a history of loyalty to his employers, eh? Nedd: I agree Gemini. Besides Lee has never said the DNA wasn't important. He commented it wasn't a DNA case. I agree. The DNA won't catch the killer, only eliminate suspects. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "The Ploy Continues!" Posted by Ginja on 10:14:15 5/22/2001 In an April press release, the police department said it would not respond to Smit's intruder theory, adding, "the case and development of evidence has changed significantly" since Smit left his role with the District Attorney's Office in the fall of 1998. Gray, Smit and others are simply continuing their ruse that there's a killer on the loose. In a way, they're right...the killerS are loose...in Atlanta! This homicide was domestic abuse that spun way out of control. Hell, even the prime suspects have said it themselves: "We didn't mean for this to happen." There IS evidence in this case...REAL evidence. How many cops does it take to point out that there was no forced entry? How much proof is needed to prove no one crawled through any window, or crept through a completely darkened basement without knocking over a damn thing, made his way upstairs to find some light, and then continued to forage through the house for his "tools"? And of all the RST's proof or 'evidence', as they call it, that known pedophiles, without a shred of evidence, committed this crime - where's the logic? where's the proof? Not a shred of evidence in the Ramsey house of any of these people, but hey! One of them is dead and owns hi-tek boots that don't match the prints in the Ramsey basement, or one has a collection of pictures of JBR. The idiocy continues as the RST would have you believe that these people are JBR's killer - without one scintilla of evidence! Have they not heard of copycat killings? Have they not heard of people who would give it all up simply to be associated with the crime of the century? But most importantly, all these "hot tips" of the RST have been investigated. As the opening cite states, "'the case and development of evidence has changed significantly' since Smit left his role with the District Attorney's Office in the fall of 1998." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Watching You" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 10:43:05 5/22/2001 I don't think the DNA should be discounted altogether, but I don't place the importance on it that some others do for a couple of reasons. There is so little of it, to begin with, a very very tiny bit. Nedd: Actually WY, how do we know the exact amount? Are you taking Thomas' word for it, yet you won't take anyone's word for it that it is male? That doesn't make sense. We don't know the amount. That just doesn't add up to me - why such a scant amount of DNA if it is from that night? There is so little of any actual physical evidence that would point to an intruder. Nedd: Well no matter how you want to discount it the boot print IS physical evidence. It hasn't been matched. Who knows how many other foot prints were trampled over by the family, friends and the key stone cops? There is a hair, and foreign fibers. There is a mark on the window sill. There is debris scattered throughout the basement and even in the windowless room. I really believe that DNA is contamination, but how can we know anything when WE DON'T KNOW THE RESULTS OF THE DNA TESTS? This is what I keep harping on and still the questions keep coming. Everything we "know" about that alleged foreign DNA is hearsay, perpetrated by posters like Nedthan and mame, who claim to know the DNA was male and defensive, as in under her fingernails and flesh. Nedd: WY, by all means you really make me angry when you mis quote both Mame and myself. Neither one of us EVER stated it was flesh. We both DID state it was male and it matched the panty DNA, we were both right. That is just not so, but others pick that misinformation up and build a DNA case on it. We cannot complete discount but conversely we can't build a solid case for foreign DNA when we have only hearsay to go on. No one from inside the investigation, (except the Rambot Smit, of course)has given an official explanation for the DNA. Nedd; They never given an official statement that either of the Ramsey's are still suspects, but they are, what's your point? It's not that I wouldn't like to have some solid answers about that DNA. It's that the solid answers we have to date do not support fresh DNA from an intruder as some have claimed. Nedd: I don't beleive that for one minute. No way no how would the BPD have spent the thousands of dollars testing suspects if they didn't think that DNA was important. And remember WY, it's important to BOTH sides. If you want to convict the Ramsey's, you need to find the source of the DNA. It belongs to somebody. If it got their accidently, then prove how. It is important, though, because it is mucking this case up royally. Maybe with new testing some answers will be forthcoming for the investigation, but I doubt we, the public, will be so informed. Nedd: It will surly leak out sooner or later, just as everything else has in this case. Bottom line, is the DNA is probably the MOST signigicant clue left behind, no matter how it got there. It's important to BOTH sides of this case. It needs to be identified to it's owner [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Final Thought" Posted by Ginja on 10:17:16 5/22/2001 Pedophiles and murderers do not strike once! Almost 5 years and JBR's hasn't struck again! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "I agree, Ginja" Posted by Watching you on 10:16:08 5/22/2001 I usually do. But not always, heh. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Bravo Ginja" Posted by ayelean on 10:58:41 5/22/2001 You say it so well, but I think there are idjuts here who close their ears to logic and grasp at little whisps of things floating in the air and place more importance on that than the boulder of evidence crushing the case. The people of Boulder are guilty as hell for turning their heads and acting like ostriches at this case. Every child or person JB had contact with the last month of her life should be swabbed. Every one of those parents should be begging the BPD to do this. Hell if JB shook hands with Al Roker in NYC, he should be swabbed even! Trying to find someone who matches the portion of DNA that can be identified should be done to ELIMINATE the possibility of an intruder. People should care enough for this crime to come forward and say, 'test me, I was near JB within a month of her death'. If it could be proven that little 'Billy Doe's' dna matched and she grappled or played with him, then BINGO, there's the reason the dna was there. Then because the same broken sequence of dna was in the underpants, it could be concluded that beyond one fingernail the rest was contamination. The lucky damn Rams are sitting in freedom because our technology is so good it makes a casual contact days or weeks prior to the murder create enough doubt to prosecute their butts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Thanks, Ginja!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:39:07 5/22/2001 You catch the fuzzy thinkers, the illogical pundits, and the lying spin team at every turn! You are one of JW's finest assets. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Gemini" Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:46:50 5/22/2001 I think Lee is downplaying the importance of the DNA because he's working for the BPD. Doesn't mean he isn't good at his job, just that he is under no obligation to tell the public everything, plus he has a history of loyalty to his employers, eh? What an insult to the known integrity of the eminent Henry Lee! This post of yours insinuates that Lee is a sellout to the BPD. What nonsense! As if Lee is a poor pensioner like Lou Smit, who really needs the bucks. Ridiculous. Lee has a reputation for objectivity and honesty that is unsurpassed. Gem, please don't tell me that you have joined Nedd on the RST. I would be very disillusioned. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Oh Fly" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 10:46:28 5/22/2001 WY - It does seem that there should be significant DNA from the killer. However, consider this: Ramsey DNA apparently was not found under her nails, in her panties, etc., either. That fact tends not to get any attention, and it has important implications concerning the ease of depositing viable DNA. Nedd: Boy you hit the nail on the head. Yes then if the Ramsey's DID this, where is their DNA at the crime scene? Ha I love simplicity. Well done Fly [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Watching You" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 10:53:56 5/22/2001 Back to your original point - I guess it would depend on the circumstances. I wouldn't expect to find Ramsey DNA in her underwear, but there are circumstances where I can understand other DNA being there and under her fingernails. I heard there was Ramsey DNA under her fingernails, too, but you know how much of that you can believe. Don't know what to think. Nedd: Now I know you won't beleive me, but there were only 2 sources of DNA found under her nails, her own, and that of the unidentifable male. None from mom and pop, none from brother. But what is interesting is that her own is found there. With the photos I saw of the garrote and the scratch marks, I can understand now why her own was under her nails. What makes me mad is that Thomas never mentions that this child struggled. She most certainly did otherwise there wouldn't have been scratch marks around the garrote. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "fly," Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:51:34 5/22/2001 However, consider this: Ramsey DNA apparently was not found under her nails, in her panties, etc., either fly, may we please have a source for your belief that there was APPARENTLY no Ramsey DNA found in these places? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Nedthan" Posted by Watching you on 10:51:11 5/22/2001 excuse me, but mame most certainly did say it was Flesh. Sorry if you thought I meant you. You made other mistatements. Prove it was male, okay? You made the statements - prove it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Florida" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 11:00:08 5/22/2001 to have DNA from skin cells on two hands and DNA from blood in her panties and still not have enough to make up one readable strand if the DNA deposited in those 3 places isn't from a single source like nailclippers or another instrument used at autopsy. The DNA had to have been spread around by accidental cross contamination. Nedd: DNA is extremely agile. It depends on the source from which it was shed. As for cross contaimination, ponder this, IF this was cross contaimination why only ONE other source, and why and how did it find it's way to the crotch of her panites? If it was cross contaimination from another body, I would think they would have been able to idenify that previous morgue victim. How likely is it if the coroner used those clippers on several bodies that only ONE source transfered to JB? Logic tells me that there would be a different number of skin cells under each nail if she scratched and gouged at the killer. Logic tells me if the DNA in her panties is from blood it would have a different number of cells than the DNA found under her nails. Nedd: Different number? I am not following you here? I don't know if I've explained this very well but it makes sense to me! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Watching You" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 11:44:49 5/22/2001 OTOH, look at the blood that was found in Simpson's Bronco - there was Nicole's blood found, and a partial strand that was probably Goldman's, but it wasn't all there so they couldn't say for sure. It was a mixture of all three bloods - Simpson's, Nicole's, and Goldman's. I do not believe it was blood from any perp in JB's underwear because why would it be such a tiny amount and why would it be found only there and no where else Nedd: Well gee WY you answered your own question. Just HOW DID Goldmans blood get into OJ's Bronco? Only a tiny amount was found, why not more and why couldn't they possitively identify it? Easy WY, only a small amount mixed with Nicoles, it became contaimined and degraded. Perhaps JB's murderer opened up a scab wound, or was only scratched, therefore a small amount of blood smeared on her panties. Any number of ways he could have deposited it. Just because we bleed does not always make for perfect DNA samples. Depends on many many factors. But for the most part you answered your own question. Tiny amounts of blood CAN be deposited without leaving a complete genetic marker, as was the case with Goldman [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Ned" Posted by Watching you on 11:03:52 5/22/2001 kindly give sources for your continual reference to the blood DNA in her underpants that did not belong to her. You are the only one who keeps saying it was blood. Prove it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Simple Answer, Darby" Posted by Ginja on 11:17:26 5/22/2001 Darby, I think the answer to your question is very simple. And keep in mind as well, that cops work to the evidence in what's typically K.I.S.S. The BPD has released several press releases now explaining how outdated Smit's case evidence is, as well as Gray's suspects. Are possible suspects being eliminated simply based on the dna matter in the panties and fingernails? No. What I think this dna elimination phase boils down to is that it's the 'last' phase of elimination. This was an inside job...that's obvious and supported by the FBI, CBI and Sheriff's Department, not to mention the outside consultants such as Lee, Sheck, McCrary, Kane and the governor himself. There is no evidence of intrusion or that another person was even in the home that night. The police have taken the very little evidence they have, which in all likelihood is random to begin with, and tried to match it to other suspects (i.e., prints). I think it's absolutely absurd for Gray to be questioning how the cops "know" the dead man's shoes aren't the "right" hi-tek boot! There's more to a bootprint than size (as if size wasn't enough!). There's really no evidence to test against these outside suspects except for the dna. And I believe the only reason they're even tested against that is because the RST would bury the prosecution in court if tests weren't conducted. Cops also work to CYA. This case will continue forever until the RST runs out of suspects for the cops to test. All the RST is doing is buying time. As JR stated numerous times in DOI: if you say something loud enough and long enough, people will listen (and believe). So the longer and louder the Ramseys speak of their innocence and then throw out these continuous red herrings, the longer they'll keep themselves out of jail and off the court docket. Question: How many suspects, other than the Ramseys, have NOT been eliminated as suspects based on the dna testing? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Oh, did Ned leave?" Posted by Watching you on 11:32:46 5/22/2001 I wondered, because he didn't answer my last post. You know, the one about the DNA in JB's underpants being blood. Like he is the only one in the whole world I have ever seen refer to that DNA as blood. There is no evidence it was blood. Ned, when you return I would like an answer. You have been asked this question many many times and you never answer. Except to say your relatives are cops and blah blah. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Ginja you make me laugh" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:05:11 5/22/2001 Cross-contamination is quite possible and, more likely than not, probable. That cross-contamination took place in the morgue as I've posted to before. The nail clippers were not cleaned after each nail was clipped. I don't think the problem here is that the clippers were 'dirty' to begin with (I would certainly hope not!). I think it's more likely than not that each nail did not contain this matter but rather, it was found under a nail or two. Look at it this way. Clean clippers are taken out and the coroner begins clipping the nails - right hand first. He clips one nail, then the next, and so on. Those clippings are put in a bag or petri dish and marked "JBR right hand." The clippers are not cleaned. The coroner then begins to clip the nails on the left hand. By not cleaning those clippers, he cross-contaminated the left hand with matter from the right hand. Upon finishing the left hand clippings, he puts those in a separate bag/dish marked "JBR - left hand." Nedd: So now you are saying they came from one hand but not two, so he cross contaiminated the first hand. So where did the original DNA come from Ginja???? Now we have minute traces of this matter that "appears" to have come from both hands, but in reality, came from only one hand and most likely perhaps only a finger or two. Keep in mind, too, that this "theory" bears out because of the minuteness of the sample. It's not the end of the cross-contamination. The clothes are then removed from the body. Where are those clippers? on a separate table? Where are the panties placed? On that same table? Nedd: Oh I seeee, he just conviently layed his clippers right smack dab on her crotch of her panties. If this were the case Ginja, then more then JUST this male DNA would have cross contaiminated. So would EVERYTHING else on those clippers, imagine, fibers, JB's DNA, dirt, muck, etc.... Were the clothes removed first and placed to the side? And then when the nails were clipped, as so often happens when I clip my own nails, the nails (and the matter attached to it) flies off instead of dropping down into the hand or on the table or wherever. What of the person doing the clipping? Could a trace of the matter attach to his glove or hand or sleeve? And could it fall or rub off onto the panties when they're removed? Look at how easily trace evidence, including fibers, are left. We have the minutest of dna matter probably cross-contaminating on the morgue table. Look at all the brown cotton fibers that fell onto the cord, duct tape and JBR's body. And look how fibers easily fell off the cloth that was used to wipe her private area. Nedd: Ginja, please they certainly would have been able to match that DNA to a previous body if the coroner had not cleaned the clippers. If he had and it came from JB in the first place, then it still DOES NOT BELONG. Unidentifiable male DNA does not belong on a 6 year old murdered child Ginja. Even IF it was only found under 1 nail, does not make it any more less significant. BUT it wasn't, anyhow, it was found under both sets of nails, and in her panties. It doesn't match any known person that JB had come in contact with Ginja. JB also had her own DNA under her nails Ginja. The photos Lou showed CLEARLY show the child scratched at the garrote. Now really how difficult is it to imagine that the child may have scratched her killer? If it were one of the Ramsey's, most likely thier DNA would be under her nails, it isn't. So do you really think someone who sexually molested and then brutally murdered this child wouldn't have left his own fibers or his own dna or his own hair or numerous other 'items' of himself as he was all over this body for a couple of hours. He molested her! He redressed her! He carried her around the house! Not to mention all the poking around and touching things and walking throughout the house in order to gather his materials to fabricate the garotte, cut the duct tape, wrap the cord around wrists and stick, search for pen and pad, write a three page ransom note with a couple of practice pages before he actually got down to business. Nedd: Yes Ginja it is possible, especailly if one is wearing gloves or a mask, or cap. Look at the OJ case, was hair of his found at the crime scene. Why only a couple of boot prints? Why wasn't his DNA all over the victims????? And all that was left behind was unidentifiable, minute traces of dna matter from the fingernails? Nedd: RIGHT Ginja, that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Look at it this way Ginja, IF they found unidentifable DNA under Nicole Brown Simpson's nails, then OJ would not have been considered the only suspect. Nothing suspecious was found on NBS. Everything pointed to OJ. IN the Ramsey case there is clear evidence that points to someone other then them. Why swab so many people? Why test and retest if this sample is so minute and, more probable than not, random (irrelevant) evidence? Nedd; Good question Ginja. WHY? If it wasn't important they wouldn't be doing it. Just look around you on the internet and elsewhere. All the Ramsey detectives. All the posters on this forum and others. The RST has made sure this information has been released because it needs to create reasonable doubt...and it has succeeded! Nedd: Oh please Ginja, the DNA created reasonable doubt back when the Grand jury convened. It DOESN'T BELONG. BY GOD GINJA AND OTHERS YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY CONVICT TWO PEOPLE WITH FOREIGN MALE DNA AT A CRIME SCENE. CAN'T! NO WAY NO HOW. IF YOU PEOPLE REALLY CARED ABOUT JUSTICE YOU WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHO THAT DNA BELONGS TO, BECAUSE UNTIL IT IS FIGURED OUT, I AM AFFRAID YOU WILL BE WITCH HUNTING THE RAMSEY'S FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES. Justice CANNOT be served in this case until either one of two things happen, someone confesses or that DNA is matched. People actually believe that this dna is crucial to this crime! They actually believe this dna belongs to the killer! They actually believe there's reason to doubt parent involvement! Nedd: ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVALY. WITHOUT A DOUBT During trial, it will be up to the defense team to build a case of reasonable doubt. They will point to all the same things Gray and Smit are pointing to - totally irrelevant to the crime - but built up by the defense as if it was all significant! And if reading posters remarks on this issue are any indication, then the RST has succeeded!!! This is the simple answer as to why people are continuously being tested and why the dna matter (as well as other bogus evidence) is being continuously tested. Not only does the prosecution have to prove the suspects committed these crimes; they also have the burden of proving random evidence is irrelevant! Nedd: Right GInja This, to me, is a travesty of justice! It's a ploy bought and paid for by rich people to abuse the system and make a mockery of justice. Nedd: AND if it really DOES belong to an intruder Ginja, what do you call it then? Unfortunately, there are suckers out there who are falling for the Ramseyspeak hook, line and sinker! Nedd: And there are suckers out there ready to persecute possibly innocent people, when they don't have all their facts straight. That's true injustice Ginja. Listen Folks I want whoever did this to JB to pay for it, just like the rest of you. But male DNA means, just that. A male was in contact with JB shortly before or during her murder. The possiblity that cross contaimination landed under both her sets of hands, and her panties is just to darn unbelieveable, especailly considering she was strangled and molested. I would expect DNA to be in just those places. Find the match to the DNA. It doesn't mean you caught the killer, but if it got their innocently or accidently, then you certainly can start to focus the investigation back on the parents [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Ginja" Posted by darby on 11:52:56 5/22/2001 "...the RST would bury the prosecution in court if tests weren't conducted." This sounds about right. Let's see, a hundred down, just 5,999,999,899 to go. Once everyone--and I mean everyone--is tested, then the defense team won't be able to say that not enough tests were conducted. I almost wish the BPD would release more information to show the other side of things. With the potential jury pool getting bombarded with Smit's view of things, the seeds of doubt--however unreasonable--are being planted everywhere. I think the sad truth is that no such jury will ever be seated. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Ned" Posted by Florida on 11:46:48 5/22/2001 The DNA in her panties could have been contaminated by the clippers, another instrument or just plain sloppiness in the handling of the panties. The could have lain the panties on top of the clippers before packaging them up to be sent out to the lab. Things like that happen accidently all the time. Both Lee and Scheck have always said to look at contamination as the source of the DNA in this case. The DNA evidence seems to consist of an incomplete strand of DNA - found on 3 different places on her body. The only way for the DNA evidence to be the same incomplete strand in three completely different places would be by contamination. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "If you come back, Ned..." Posted by Ginja on 11:45:23 5/22/2001 Nedd: DNA is extremely agile. It depends on the source from which it was shed. As for cross contaimination, ponder this, IF this was cross contaimination why only ONE other source, and why and how did it find it's way to the crotch of her panites? If it was cross contaimination from another body, I would think they would have been able to idenify that previous morgue victim. How likely is it if the coroner used those clippers on several bodies that only ONE source transfered to JB? Just curious, Ned...how many autopsies have you attended? I've had to attend quite a few and when you've got a roomful of people standing over the autopsy table, cross-contamination is more likely than not! Especially when you consider the number of people attending and assisting in JBR's autopsy. Three morgue people: one conducting the autopsy, one taking autopsy photos, and one prepping the body and otherwise assisting the coroner. Then you've got at least two BPD: Arndt and Trujillo. At one point, Meyer stopped the examination to allow Trujillo time to contact the CBI as to the best way to lift a print that was found on the body. Then there were three more people attending from the DA's office. I don't think this dna matter came from another body! But it looks as though this could be another red herring bone of contention on the part of the RST, so my recommendation would be the hell with it! see if it matches someone else brought into the morgue. But heed, Ned! it isn't as easy as it sounds...then again, maybe it's easier than any of us would imagine. Why? Well....wasn't JonBenet the first and only homicide victim in Boulder in 1996? True, autopsies are conducted on bodies for other reasons, but those reasons aren't really going to fill up the coroner's examination list. Further, how many 'routine' autopsies (and JBR, being a homicide, was the only NON-routine autopsy) conducted include the search of defensive wounding around the hands and arms or the possible evidence of the victim defending him/herself from the perpetrator? My guess would be close to nil seeing as how JBR was the only homicide. As to how cross-contamination could take place at the morgue, reread my post no.36. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Ginja" Posted by darby on 12:24:05 5/22/2001 We don't even know for sure that JBR's clothing was in the vicinity of the nail clippers, do we? That would be nice to know. Anyway, no matter how many people get DNA-typed, there will always be countless others who haven't been. I was only half joking about swabbing everyone in the whole world. Maybe if the BPD does that, they'll find the source. I say maybe because if the DNA came from contaminated autopsy clippers, there may be no chance of ever finding the source--who might very well be six feet under--even if the whole world is swabbed. If the RST is able to successfully sell the unidentified DNA as the primary basis of reasonable doubt, then I'm afraid there may be no chance of solving the crime. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Hahaha" Posted by Watching you on 12:01:55 5/22/2001 another Nedism for our book: "DNA is extremely agile. Agile: characterized by quickness, lightness, and ease of movement; nimble. Mentally alert. So: "DNA is extremely nimble." "DNA is quick and light." "DNA is extremely mentally alert." Bwahahahahahahaha Ned strikes again!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Ginja" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:07:41 5/22/2001 There IS evidence in this case...REAL evidence. How many cops does it take to point out that there was no forced entry? How much proof is needed to prove no one crawled through any window, or crept through a completely darkened basement without knocking over a damn thing, made his way upstairs to find some light, and then continued to forage through the house for his "tools"? Nedd: I think a flashlight comes to mind Ginja And of all the RST's proof or 'evidence', as they call it, that known pedophiles, without a shred of evidence, committed this crime - where's the logic? where's the proof? Not a shred of evidence in the Ramsey house of any of these people, but hey! One of them is dead and owns hi-tek boots that don't match the prints in the Ramsey basement, or one has a collection of pictures of JBR. The idiocy continues as the RST would have you believe that these people are JBR's killer - without one scintilla of evidence! Have they not heard of copycat killings? Have they not heard of people who would give it all up simply to be associated with the crime of the century? But most importantly, all these "hot tips" of the RST have been investigated. As the opening cite states, "'the case and development of evidence has changed significantly' since Smit left his role with the District Attorney's Office in the fall of 1998." Nedd: All he asked for Ginja was for the DNA to be tested. Find the match Ginja. Do you want the Ramsey's convicted????? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "LurkerXIV" Posted by fly on 12:16:58 5/22/2001 LurkerXIV - Yes, I used the word "apparently" intentionally in recognition that I (like the rest of the public) do not have full access to the facts - something some folks often seem to forget. Essentially every report I've read or heard by DA/BPD folks, Schiller, TV commentators/reporters and TeamRamsey has described the DNA as being from being from 2 sources - JBR and an unidentified source. Tne one exception is a story with a suggestion of a possible 3rd source (something like, if the non-JBR DNA was from 2 sources, Barnhill [I think] might be one donor). Here are two accounts, neither of which mentions more than 2 sources: http://www.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1999/3599rams.html http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1010rams1.shtml I don't have time right now to go dig up URLs for every news report, transcript, etc. If you are not willing to believe that no report has mentioned finding Ramsey DNA in the samples from her nails or panties, how about providing even ONE account that DOES mention Ramsey DNA was found. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Ginja" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:13:04 5/22/2001 Pedophiles and murderers do not strike once! Almost 5 years and JBR's hasn't struck again! Nedd: Ginja, do you know that in O Tey Mesa, CA, not sure of the spelling a young child was found strangled to death and covered in a white blanket last month? They still haven't found the killer. They wouldn't say if she was sexually molested. But gee guess what NO evidence was found on her. It still unsolved. How many others are there Ginja, that we haven't heard about? What kind of rope was this child stangled with? Why was she covered with a white blanket? I imagine Ginja there are hundreds of similar cases. What makes the Ramsey case different is the ransom note. And as far as I am concerned a 4.5 out of a scale of 1-5 is NOT enough to send someone to prison for the rest of their lives [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Ayelean" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:16:10 5/22/2001 Trying to find someone who matches the portion of DNA that can be identified should be done to ELIMINATE the possibility of an intruder. Nedd: Right Ayelean I agree with you! People should care enough for this crime to come forward and say, 'test me, I was near JB within a month of her death'. Nedd: Absolutely. If it could be proven that little 'Billy Doe's' dna matched and she grappled or played with him, then BINGO, there's the reason the dna was there. Then because the same broken sequence of dna was in the underpants, it could be concluded that beyond one fingernail the rest was contamination. Nedd: I cannot imagine that the BPD haven't already done this. They have already tested hundreds of suspects The lucky damn Rams are sitting in freedom because our technology is so good it makes a casual contact days or weeks prior to the murder create enough doubt to prosecute their butts. Nedd: I really DOUBT that you can get male DNA in your under pants with casual contact. Perhaps if that was all you were wearing Ayelean [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Lurker" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:19:46 5/22/2001 fly, may we please have a source for your belief that there was APPARENTLY no Ramsey DNA found in these places? Nedd: The Today, Dateline and LKL show, and I believe your hero Thomas. ONLY 2 sources of DNA was found under her nails. That of her own and that of an unidentifable male. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Well" Posted by darby on 12:37:25 5/22/2001 Even if boatloads of Patsy's and John's DNA were found everywhere on JBR's clothing and body, this probably can't be used against them, as they both had innocent contact with her before and after her death. Now if none of Patsy's or John's DNA was found on JBR's body or clothing, I'd be a little less certain about parental guilt. However, my guess is that the parents' DNA is all over that crime scene. This probably hasn't been made a public issue because it neither incriminates nor exculpates the parents. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Thomas didn't say that, Ned" Posted by Watching you on 12:32:29 5/22/2001 in fact, he said IF there were more than two sources, the Ramseys could not be ruled out. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Watching You" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:27:14 5/22/2001 excuse me, but mame most certainly did say it was Flesh. Sorry if you thought I meant you. You made other mistatements. Prove it was male, okay? You made the statements - prove it. Nedd: ON Geraldo, cannot remember the guys name. He stated for a fact in front of the rest of the guests from both sides that it was in fact MALE. I stated his name in a previous thread. If you want me to go back and dig it up I will, but even if I did, what difference does it make? You probably still won't buy it. I really don't care. I know it's male and that's good enough for me. I am interested in justice of JonBenet Ramsey. Not persecuting what may be innocent parents. I want answers, not to argue the truth. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "So, because some" Posted by Watching you on 12:30:17 5/22/2001 guy said it on Geraldo, it's fact? You have proved my point, Ned. It is hearsay, and a case cannot be built on hearsay. What about the blood? You didn't answer that one. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "As to panties, Ned" Posted by Ginja on 12:25:48 5/22/2001 Well Ned...you've got two things to work out here. (1) In order for this child to have been sexually molested, winding up with birefringent material and a wood sliver embedded in her vaginal mucosa, together with the blue fibers in and around her labia from being wiped down, it's obvious her pants were down if not off. So how did the dna get into her panties? (2) I'm assuming you're male; I'm assuming you're heterosexual. Would you mind getting into a woman's panties, my friend, (preferably an SO! ;-) ). Of course, you'd have to do this twice - once while your friend has her panties on, and then again when she takes them off. You'll need to bribe her, I'm sure, because you've got to poke her and poke her hard, not only to cause bruising, but you want to make sure you cause some inflammation and oh yeah! don't forget to make her bleed. After you've performed this test with the panties on, would you check and see how much 'junk' is in the panties. Also, seeing as how you work in a lab and you've got a number of PhD's really interested in this case, would it be too much to ask that the panties crotch be analyzed? You know, to sort out her blood and whatnot from yours. Likewise, when you conduct the test with her panties off, after you finish, you'll need to put her panties back on for her. Don't forget to wipe her down pretty good. Then put her panties on and ask her to pee in them. Take those panties back to the lab as well. I look forward to the results! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "Watching You" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:31:50 5/22/2001 kindly give sources for your continual reference to the blood DNA in her underpants that did not belong to her. You are the only one who keeps saying it was blood. Prove it. Nedd: I cannot give you my source for the blood DNA in her panties. I can only tell you it is so, and you will hear about it soon. I don't care if you don't trust me. I told you folks months ago the sources of the DNA from under her nails and in her panties matched and you all flamed me, but I was right. The DNA found in her panties mixed with her own blood, is BLOOD DNA from a male that matches the DNA found under her nails. This information is being kept quite, because extensive testing is still being conducted. Same with that of the hair. I have not heard if the hair matches the DNA found in her panties and under her nails. That is why they were doing Mitochondrial testing on that hair. That is all I know about it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Your sources,please" Posted by Watching you on 12:33:46 5/22/2001 Ned. You have made some far out statements in the past. Who are your sources for the blood DNA. Who are you that you would have this confidential inside information? I do not believe you. You are right. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Ginja" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:37:05 5/22/2001 Question: How many suspects, other than the Ramseys, have NOT been eliminated as suspects based on the dna testing? Nedd: I think a better question would be, why haven't they come up with the match to that DNA IF it got their accidently? After all how many men came in contact with JB shortly before she was murdered??? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Can't answer, eh Ned?" Posted by Ginja on 12:45:44 5/22/2001 >Question: How many suspects, other than the >Ramseys, have NOT been eliminated as >suspects based on the dna testing? > >Nedd: I think a better question >would be, why haven't they come >up with the match to that >DNA IF it got their accidently? > After all how many men >came in contact with JB shortly >before she was murdered??? This is called skirting the issue...or plain ol' avoiding the question! What do they call it when you answer a question with a question? Annoying as hell. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Oh, and BTW, Ned" Posted by Watching you on 12:36:32 5/22/2001 if they are "keeping it quiet," how do you know about it? I think I will contact the BPD and tell them there is a leak because Nedthan knows about confidential inside information they are trying to keep quiet. Good gawdamighty. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Florida" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:39:40 5/22/2001 The only way for the DNA evidence to be the same incomplete strand in three completely different places would be by contamination. Nedd: Simply not true Florida. Besides that the DNA in her panties is Blood, therefore it rules out cross contaimination. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Agile DNA!" Posted by Ayeka on 13:02:54 5/22/2001 Boy, Ned, if you classify DNA as agile, then why are you still discounting the DNA as being cross-contamination? You constantly call the BPD the most inept police force on the face of the earth, yet you say "I cannot imagine that the BPD haven't already done this [tested everyone who came within casual contact]. They have already tested hundreds of suspects". They either are dumbf*cks, or they're not. Make up your mind. And finally, you said, "After all how many men came in contact with JB shortly before she was murdered???" It was Christmastime, fer cryin' out loud. Time for shopping malls and presents that have been handled a zillion times before ending up under a tree. Do you expect them to test everyone who may or may not have been in Boulder for up to a week before her murder? You can yell MALE, BLOOD, COMPLETE all you want, Ned, but I distrust people who say "Just take my word for it." Ayeka [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "darby" Posted by fly on 12:45:46 5/22/2001 darby - In cases of individual DNA traces, rather than mixtures, I agree that it is likely nothing would be said about finding Ramsey DNA in the crime scene or on "innocent" locations (at least) on her body. I think they WOULD mention it if it were part of a mixture that contained non-Ramsey DNA. I think that is a different situation entirely, IMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Sources for" Posted by Watching you on 12:43:05 5/22/2001 the blood, Ned. It's not going to wash until you can provide legitimate sources. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Apples and oranges, Ned?" Posted by Ginja on 12:42:54 5/22/2001 As regards you repeat offenders example, you've missed the point, Ned. You're mixing apples and oranges. Did the killer above leave a ransom note? A very lengthy, nonsensical one? Did he kidnap this child or did he just leave the note and kill her in her own home? Did he kill her at home under her parents noses? JBR's killer is a mixture of three criminal types: kidnapper, murderer, pedophile. Off course, all three types committed the crime within the home. If this child was murdered elsewhere, and then dumped somewhere, of course there's going to be no evidence. That's the problem with the case at hand. She was murdered in one room, cleaned up, wiped off, redressed and then moved. As regards the analysis, you're way off the mark if you're falling for Patsy's ability to disguise her handwriting. That can be done. What can't be matched is her writing style...and on a scale of 1-5, Patsy Dearest scores around a 9.6. You discriminate, Ned, and that's going to get you nowhere fast. You can't mix apples and oranges and you can't put so much emphasis on handwriting and then completely ignore familial notations and writing style. And how can you actually believe that some nut off the street would have all this familial knowledge of the Ramsey family, who could write in the exact same style as Patsy, and then refuse to put two and two together!!! Likewise, Ned, this child suffered chronic sexual abuse. You haven't explained how the intruder managed to stop by every now and then to molest JonBenet, without her telling anyone, only to come back and murder her. You don't follow the evidence, Ned! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "fly" Posted by darby on 12:52:50 5/22/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:52:50, 5/22/2001 Not sure why you think Ramsey DNA would have more significance if mixed together with non-Ramsey DNA. Care to explain? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Wrong forum?" Posted by watchin' on 13:07:32 5/22/2001 I need more coffee! After reading the last ten or so posts, I thought I was at thespinspamswamp. "Trust me." "This is a confidential sourse." "It will all come out later." "I am right, you will see." "My sourses.." Neddie boy, you need to get some new material to play with. How about the new revelation over there that there was blood on the Barbie gown and the blankie? Of course hir was challenged but said hir didn't have the lab reports. So, why don't you two get together and bring us lab reports or at least name your sourses or stuff a pair of panties in your mouth. Your information is MISINFORMATION at best. Nice try though! ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "END OF THREAD" Posted by darby on 12:59:24 5/22/2001 on to Part II [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "WY--on blood DNA" Posted by darby on 12:57:14 5/22/2001 That same Newsweek Lou Smit article that I don't feel like finding again said the source of the panty DNA was blood. I know Lou Smit won't do for many of us as a credible source, but that's probably the only place this has ever been said. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Thanks, fly, for the links." Posted by LurkerXIV on 13:48:31 5/22/2001 I know how careful you are to source things, and that's why I asked you instead of someone else. The spin has been going on for nearly five years, and it is accomplishing one thing: some are confusing facts with Ramspin (Lou Smit, to me, is an unreliable and biased source). One component was the child's blood, but the second has not been revealed and has not been matched to anyone in the case through DNA analysis. The second source HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED. So how do we know it does not belong to John or Patsy Ramsey? And why are they the only two still standing under that umbrella of suspicion? "Has not been matched"...this was written in 1999. Sophisticated tests are ongoing. We do not know if the second source has or has not been matched to John or patsy Ramsey as of today. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Question" Posted by Gemini on 14:51:43 5/22/2001 Been wondering about this. IF the amount of foreign DNA is as minuscule as some suggest, how are they coming up with samples for more and more tests? There have already been several tests performed, yet, more of the sample is always available for new testing. This doesn't sound like it's such a tiny amount. I read some material not long ago that said a hair follicle just barely provides enough DNA for a test. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Astounded" Posted by JR on 17:16:47 5/22/2001 That Y'all keep arguing with Nedd who only shows up when Smitchit is making his rounds to taint the jury pool. Nedd has a very closed mind and isn't going to budge an inch nor provide sources. This is simply more Ramspin. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "JR" Posted by Watching you on 17:25:19 5/22/2001 slap, slap, slap. Thanks, I needed that. You are right. This must make about the 900th thread full of Nedspin. I am astounded we still keep responding to him, too, but he gets right in your face with his spin, you know. I resolve to put Nedthing back on ignore. Glad you were here to straighten me out. I owe you one. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "W-Y" Posted by JR on 17:27:55 5/22/2001 Been there...done that. You are welcome. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]