Justice Watch Support JW "Faulty Reasoning? Part II" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Faulty Reasoning? Part II, darby, 13:00:22, 5/22/2001 From part 1: Agile DNA!, Ayeka, 13:04:38, 5/22/2001, (#1) darby, fly, 13:06:00, 5/22/2001, (#2) Wrong Forum?, watchin', 13:16:00, 5/22/2001, (#3) Darby, Watching you, 13:24:37, 5/22/2001, (#4) Nedthan, Watching you, 13:40:14, 5/22/2001, (#5) WY, darby, 14:03:12, 5/22/2001, (#6) Where did, Florida, 14:26:35, 5/22/2001, (#9) LurkerXIV, fly, 14:18:26, 5/22/2001, (#8) Got it, fly..., LurkerXIV, 14:31:24, 5/22/2001, (#10) Dear Lurker, Watching you, 14:34:46, 5/22/2001, (#12) Gol, Darby, Watching you, 14:10:08, 5/22/2001, (#7) Flesh? Blood?, Ginja, 14:35:18, 5/22/2001, (#13) Rambot mindsets, Watching you, 14:34:12, 5/22/2001, (#11) WY, Ginja, 14:36:31, 5/22/2001, (#14) Darby, Ginja, 14:46:12, 5/22/2001, (#16) I don't know, Ginja, Watching you, 14:38:29, 5/22/2001, (#15) WY, Ginja, 14:48:18, 5/22/2001, (#17) LurkerXIV, fly, 14:57:14, 5/22/2001, (#20) Question, Gemini, 14:54:05, 5/22/2001, (#19) It on the, Watching you, 14:53:11, 5/22/2001, (#18) Florida, watchin', 15:04:54, 5/22/2001, (#23) That's actually a very, Watching you, 15:00:55, 5/22/2001, (#22) Gemini, fly, 14:59:30, 5/22/2001, (#21) I don't believe , DuBois, 15:32:20, 5/22/2001, (#29) question, darby, 15:24:21, 5/22/2001, (#25) Replication, Jellyjaws, 15:22:23, 5/22/2001, (#24) JJ, darby, 15:25:07, 5/22/2001, (#26) Ginja, Nedthan Johns, 15:33:46, 5/22/2001, (#30) WY and Ginja, Britt, 15:32:13, 5/22/2001, (#28) I think, Watching you, 15:29:17, 5/22/2001, (#27) darby and WY, Jellyjaws, 15:42:51, 5/22/2001, (#34) Britt, Watching you, 15:35:36, 5/22/2001, (#32) LOL, darby, 15:35:26, 5/22/2001, (#31) I agree DuBois, watchin', 15:40:43, 5/22/2001, (#33) WY has it right, fly, 16:03:48, 5/22/2001, (#35) WY, Ayeka, Ginja, Nedthan Johns, 16:09:00, 5/22/2001, (#36) Gem, Fly & WY, Hoping, 16:40:14, 5/22/2001, (#41) But Ned, Watching you, 16:28:49, 5/22/2001, (#38) Ginja and WY, Nedthan Johns, 16:26:04, 5/22/2001, (#37) LOLOLOL, Ned, Watching you, 16:31:30, 5/22/2001, (#39) No, you know what, Ned, Watching you, 16:37:34, 5/22/2001, (#40) Wy and Gemini, Nedthan Johns, 16:42:12, 5/22/2001, (#42) Nedthan, Watching you, 16:47:26, 5/22/2001, (#45) Watching You, Nedthan Johns, 16:43:54, 5/22/2001, (#43) Learn to read...Nedd, watchin', 17:04:31, 5/22/2001, (#50) WY, Nedthan Johns, 16:46:53, 5/22/2001, (#44) Lurker and WY, Nedthan Johns, 16:58:39, 5/22/2001, (#48) A housewife?, Watching you, 16:53:15, 5/22/2001, (#46) As to the BPD call, Watching you, 16:55:38, 5/22/2001, (#47) Watching You, Nedthan Johns, 17:01:53, 5/22/2001, (#49) Ginja, Nedthan Johns, 17:19:34, 5/22/2001, (#54) Ned, Watching you, 17:05:27, 5/22/2001, (#51) ElNedd, watchin', 17:08:06, 5/22/2001, (#52) Guess it's Ned's, Watching you, 17:10:11, 5/22/2001, (#53) WY, Nedthan Johns, 17:22:54, 5/22/2001, (#55) Ginja, Nedthan Johns, 17:28:53, 5/22/2001, (#56) WY did you notice tag-team Nedd, austingirl, 17:46:58, 5/22/2001, (#58) Wy and Gemini, Nedthan Johns, 17:41:44, 5/22/2001, (#57) DuBois, Nedthan Johns, 17:47:30, 5/22/2001, (#59) Darby, Nedthan Johns, 17:49:11, 5/22/2001, (#60) Oh my, help me Jesus, Watching you, 17:52:33, 5/22/2001, (#62) Fly, Nedthan Johns, 17:52:26, 5/22/2001, (#61) Watching You, Nedthan Johns, 17:54:43, 5/22/2001, (#64) That's right, Ned, Watching you, 17:53:48, 5/22/2001, (#63) Gaawdafreakingmighty, Watching you, 18:00:13, 5/22/2001, (#65) Replicating DNA, JR, 18:16:33, 5/22/2001, (#72) Why are you apologizing to Chris, Watching you, 04:15:15, 5/23/2001, (#85) Watching You, Nedthan Johns, 18:09:22, 5/22/2001, (#68) Heck WY, Nedthan Johns, 18:10:13, 5/22/2001, (#69) The many faces of Nedthan:, LurkerXIV, 18:43:21, 5/22/2001, (#73) Noticed, JR, 18:51:09, 5/22/2001, (#75) Lurker, austingirl, 18:48:01, 5/22/2001, (#74) Yes, austingirl..., LurkerXIV, 19:02:35, 5/22/2001, (#78) I guess I shouldn't, Watching you, 18:54:16, 5/22/2001, (#77) Austingirl, JR, 18:53:09, 5/22/2001, (#76) JR...you caught him, LurkerXIV, 19:06:04, 5/22/2001, (#79) Lurker XIV, Ruby, 19:24:57, 5/22/2001, (#82) Lurker, JR, 19:12:46, 5/22/2001, (#80) Lurker, JR, austingirl, 19:17:10, 5/22/2001, (#81) austingirl, JR, 19:32:33, 5/22/2001, (#83) I also wonder, Texan, 21:22:50, 5/22/2001, (#84) Ned, DuBois, 07:55:03, 5/23/2001, (#86) Let make Faulting reasoning pt 3, ayelean, 08:03:46, 5/23/2001, (#87) Thank you JR and Texan!, Ginja, 08:43:58, 5/23/2001, (#88) Ginja, JR, 13:12:11, 5/23/2001, (#89) ................................................................... "Faulty Reasoning? Part II" Posted by darby on 13:00:22 5/22/2001 Carry on. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "From part 1: Agile DNA!" Posted by Ayeka on 13:04:38 5/22/2001 Sorry! ---- 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 ] 2. "darby" Posted by fly on 13:06:00 5/22/2001 darby - I don't think Ramsey DNA in a mixture is more important case-wise. The reason I think it would be mentioned is that the description of the mixture would be incomplete if Ramsey DNA were there, but not mentioned. In other words, if you actually have JBR, PR, JR, and some mystery DNA in one sample, it is likely the descriptions would not refer to "2 sources," or "JBR's DNA and DNA from an unidentified source." (The latter is not intended to be a verbatim quote - just the gist.) The descriptions would note the Ramsey DNA, too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Wrong Forum?" Posted by watchin' on 13:16:00 5/22/2001 From other thread: 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 a spin on 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 ] 4. "Darby" Posted by Watching you on 13:24:37 5/22/2001 You are absolutely right. Lou Smit won't do it for me. I believe any DNA that did not belong to JonBenet Ramsey was mixed in with her blood. I do NOT believe that DNA came from someone else's blood. If it ever comes out that it was, in fact, blood, I will have no apologies to make. I'm not into believing everything anyone tells me just on faith alone. I do not believe it was blood DNA. I believe it was mixed with JB's blood. Smit likes to twist things. Just like mame claiming there was flesh under her fingernails - defensive. This shit gets so exaggerated out of proportion, is it any wonder we don't believe anyone? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Nedthan" Posted by Watching you on 13:40:14 5/22/2001 Just to show you that I don't make statements I can't back up: 50. "ginja" Posted by mame on 17:00:13 5/03/2001 it's flesh...it's defensive...it's male..and it's DNA. Now, let's see you do the same. I am e-mailing the BPD to tell them someone is talking to a poster on the internet about confidential information. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "WY" Posted by darby on 14:03:12 5/22/2001 Yeah, I don't know about Smit, either. He's biased and he quit the case a LONG time ago. I will say that I think Smit tries to be honest and objective--not an evil man, IMO. Some of what he has said MIGHT be true, but how do we know? Anyhow, Beckner said the investigation has changed significantly since Smit quit. What we ought to do is research what the going theory was when he left, and then try to figure out what might have changed since then. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Where did" Posted by Florida on 14:26:35 5/22/2001 jameson reveal this information? I found the questions by Sidney and and the non-answers by Jameson but not the original post where she said this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "LurkerXIV" Posted by fly on 14:18:26 5/22/2001 LurkerXIV - Concerning you last post on the previous thread... You quoted a part of one of those reports: 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. You asked how do we know it doesn't involve a Ramsey if it hasn't been revealed. The "second" refers to the general source/substrate of the DNA, not the donor's personal identity, as I read it. That is, it hasn't been revealed whether the mixture was a mixture of JBR's blood and somebody else's blood, or their saliva, or their skin cells, or their semen.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Got it, fly..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 14:31:24 5/22/2001 ...I can be dense when it comes to DNA...just like some jurors. Would it be fair to say that since Lou Smit and Steve Thomas both left the case years ago, neither would be a good source to consult on current DNA findings by the BPD? Would it be accurate to say that no one outside the current investigative team would be privy to the results of the up-to-the-minute sophisticated DNA testing? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Dear Lurker" Posted by Watching you on 14:34:46 5/22/2001 no one except Nedthan and mame. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Gol, Darby" Posted by Watching you on 14:10:08 5/22/2001 you're such a nice person. I do not believe that about Smit at all. He has completely NOT followed the evidence. He has completely discounted anything that doesn't conform to HIS theory. I cannot believe he doesn't hear or see all the critics who present excellent counter arguments to his theories. I can't believe he thinks an intruder could come through that basement window and leave that window pristine - nothing disturbed - no fibers, no skin. I would like very much not to think about Smit the way I do, but, like his friends, the Ramseys, he has shown me he is not to be believed. I question his motives in this, because he just can't be that stupid. Can he? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Flesh? Blood?" Posted by Ginja on 14:35:18 5/22/2001 There is absolutely nothing in, on or around JBR's arms or hands to indicate she tried to ward off an attack. If she had, and if it was flesh, then there would have been more than enough to identify. As regards Ned's statement that she scratched her neck and her attacker, I seriously doubt it. (Of course, that doesn't rule it out!) I've looked at those pictures, I've saved them to my hard drive and I don't see scratches. What I see is hemorrhaging just under the skin. Again, if she scratched for her life, her own flesh would be thick under the nails. If another's dna is enmeshed in that mess, it's enmeshed in one of two ways: (1) beneath her flesh and probably not relevant to the crime; or (2) mixed in with the flesh, in which case someone's dna was on her neck? Where else could it have come from? While she's tearing away at her own flesh trying to get air, she's also cognizant enough to ward off or scratch her attacker? Where are his hands? At her throat? Or tightening the garotte from behind her? Obviously, the perp is tightening the cord from behind her. So here she is, struggling for life - the cord is choking her so she what? reaches behind her and starts attacking her killer? Do you really think this 6 year old reached and grabbed for her attacker rather than attempt to pull the cord off her throat so she could breathe? Personally, my money's on her being unconscious when she was strangled. Actually, that's not such a "personal" thought. It's pretty obvious. The cord around her neck is perfectly aligned. If she was alive and kicking and scratching at her attacker, he'd have been moving about as well. And so would the cord! He would have yanked in order to control her...that would have caused more damage to her neck than was evident. Petechial hemorahging would have been so dense her face and neck would have looked almost completely red, her face would have been more swollen, and her tongue may have been swollen as well; not to mention her eyes bulging. I seriously doubt this child laid back and let her killer strangle her to death. From all indications, she was already unconcious. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Rambot mindsets" Posted by Watching you on 14:34:12 5/22/2001 jameson says the posters can either believe her or not - she says there is blood on nightgown - she knows more about this case than anyone - believe her or not. I don't know where the original post was - have to go back and wade through that crap some more, I guess. She gets some of the same reaction Nedthan gets here - believe me or not. I don't know of anyone who has reason to believe anyone just because they say so. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "WY" Posted by Ginja on 14:36:31 5/22/2001 Whose blood is allegedly on the nightgown? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Darby" Posted by Ginja on 14:46:12 5/22/2001 I agree Smit's honest in his beliefs because he believes what he says. His problem is that he lost all objectivity from the moment he sat outside the Fifth St. house and "prayed" with the Ramseys. The cops realized it as well and its why they considered him a delusional old man and simply disregarded his input. They had no choice. Smit was compromised. He's as blindsighted as he claims the cops to be. He demands the cops look down other paths while at the same time refusing to do likewise. Likewise, there were certain members on the DA's staff who were just as "compromised". These are the same people who today still insist there ws an intruder. These are the same people who refuse to listen to the FBI or Sheriff's office, or their own consultants brought in on the case like Sheck and Lee. All sources who point to an inside job and summarily dismissed. The difference between them and the BPD is the Smit gang have not and never did consider the Ramseys as real suspects. OTOH, the BPD can point to scores of people it's investigated and tested. It can point to all the trips criss-crossing the country following up leads that were given to them by the RST...leads that led nowhere. The Smit gang doesn't want to go down in history as the people who botched the case; so they're doing their damnest to convince the public that they're right and it's the cops who are wrong. This is an open homicide investigation and if nothing else, at least the cops are following protocol and not divulging their investigation to the public. They could clear this up in no time, but at the possible price of losing the case. It's not worth it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "I don't know, Ginja" Posted by Watching you on 14:38:29 5/22/2001 I just read over there that there was blood on the nightgown and posters can believe jameson or not. Isn't that amazing - they have blood on a nightgown and they haven't said anything about testing DNA from that? It just gets weirder and weirder. Guess I'd better go wade through the posts and find out the original post. I will be back, I hope. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "WY" Posted by Ginja on 14:48:18 5/22/2001 I guess that was my point. If they've got blood on the nightgown there's no major leap to find that it belonged to JBR. Afterall, she bled that night. But with that much of a sample of blood, it's more than enough to type. Evidently, it doesn't match the "unknown" dna. And if it wasn't JBR's, we'd be hearing it from the Ramseys -- not Jameson! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "LurkerXIV" Posted by fly on 14:57:14 5/22/2001 I agree that Smit and Thomas probably wouldn't have the latest info on the DNA. However, I also doubt that non-Ramsey DNA would become Ramsey DNA with additional testing, unless somebody was playing major word games when describing the DNA in the past. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Question" Posted by Gemini on 14:54:05 5/22/2001 (put this on the origin thread - sorry, will repost here in hope of a reply) 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 ] 18. "It on the" Posted by Watching you on 14:53:11 5/22/2001 Wearing the Same Clothes thread at the swamp, Ginja. Hir says the killer handled the nightgown and blanket after he caused JB to bleed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Florida" Posted by watchin' on 15:04:54 5/22/2001 The first 'hint' was in the thread: "Wearing the same cloths" #20 "OH - - and there was a bit of blood about- it wasn't ONLY on JBR's panties." Sidney asked for clarification on the thread: "Barbie Nightgown": #40 and was ignored. Sidney started another thread: "To Jameson: asking for verification and Jameson gave a snippy answer: "I don't have the lab reports. You can believe what I say or not." [Of course we will Jammie!] Sidney tried once again in post #6 and was ignored by Jameson but hir did remind evryone in post #5 to another poster: "Like it or not, I have had a bit more access to information in this case than the average poster." The Pigeon ran to hir defense and said this will come out in a 'documentary'. More Tracey Croc, I expect (haven't seen a reply) because this information did NOT come by way of Smit. So it seems Smit was at least credible enough not to present this information so far but may save this 'bombshell' for the Tracy Crock. That is my prediction anyway. The Smitchit will never end until the rammers are granted sainthood. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "That's actually a very" Posted by Watching you on 15:00:55 5/22/2001 good question, Gemini, and one I don't have the answer to. Can they test the same sample more than once? I don't know. I'm going to have to ask "my expert" tomorrow at work. I know they can get DNA out of one cell, so maybe that miniscule amount really was enough to have more than one sample from it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Gemini" Posted by fly on 14:59:30 5/22/2001 Gemini - I had the same thought after reading that the DNA was currently being tested at another lab. That suggests to me that the quantity isn't horribly small, but that the quality might be low. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "I don't believe " Posted by DuBois on 15:32:20 5/22/2001 a darn thing hir says! hir also said that hir saw the rope and said that it was yellow with black tape on the ends, but of course she had to retract that because hir was wrong. Nothing but spin. For all we kmow hir source might be Ned, and Neds source could be Jams. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "question" Posted by darby on 15:24:21 5/22/2001 Isn't there a way to replicate DNA as many times as needed? If so, then maybe that's how the DNA can go here, there and everywhere. I may be wrong or mixed up on what can be replicated. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Replication" Posted by Jellyjaws on 15:22:23 5/22/2001 Don't they have a way of replicating even the smallest samplest? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "JJ" Posted by darby on 15:25:07 5/22/2001 Great minds, doncha know? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Ginja" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:33:46 5/22/2001 Nedd: I'm falling behind here. 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. Nedd: Well Ginja, I assume that NONE of those who attended the autopsy matched the foreign MALE DNA. If you are trying to suggest that they contaiminated the body from DNA shed on them, then try else where. That is simply ridiculous 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. Nedd: Ginja, you have obvioulsy NOT attended many autopsies. As snipping the nails of bodies IS normal routine during an autopsy, NOT just for murder victims. You are suggesting that since this was the only homicide of the year that those clippers may not have been used that entire year. Trust me the coroner knows every person he used those clippers on Ginja. He knows and had recorded every autopsy he has ever done. You are suggesting this is contaimination from a body perhaps a year early, that just happened to get UNDER her nails and in her PANTIES. Do you hear what you are saying? As to how cross-contamination could take place at the morgue, reread my post no.36. Nedd: NO you need to consult a coroner. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "WY and Ginja" Posted by Britt on 15:32:13 5/22/2001 Absolutely excellent posts! Hey WY, have you called BPD yet to tell them Ned's giving away their top secret case information on the internet? :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "I think" Posted by Watching you on 15:29:17 5/22/2001 replication is part of the test itself. I don't think they can retest the test, if you know what I mean. Isn't that what PCR testing is all about- replicating because there isn't much of a sample? I've got to brush up on my DNA stuff. Fly probably knows this answer. I might go research this on the internet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "darby and WY" Posted by Jellyjaws on 15:42:51 5/22/2001 darby, you know I think we've done that before, over at the Lims! WY, DNA "here, there and everywhere." Makes you think of all those brooms in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." I'm getting rusty on DNA. It's been a long time since OJ. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Britt" Posted by Watching you on 15:35:36 5/22/2001 That's on my list of prioties. Haven't gotten to it yet, but, seems our Ned has disappeared again. How would you like him for a confidant? Tell him something in confidence, and he blabs it all over the internet. Just can't trust anyone these days, it seems. How the hell are they supposed to keep anyone quiet when he's shooting his mouth off? I think they need to know about it, don't you? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "LOL" Posted by darby on 15:35:26 5/22/2001 I bought two books on DNA last month just so I'd become more informed. I haven't read a word of either of them, so of course they are doing me no good. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "I agree DuBois" Posted by watchin' on 15:40:43 5/22/2001 If Smit did not present this information, is he spoon feeding the public a little at a time to see how much he can get away with? Perhaps hir and hir menions are doin' the feeding to see if it can fly! I think it is funny how she backs off when someone challenges hir info1 hahaha [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "WY has it right" Posted by fly on 16:03:48 5/22/2001 WY had it right when saying that the replication is part of the test itself. In other words, the PCR technique takes a small sample and replicates the DNA in it prior to the actual DNA profile development. Whatever part of the original sample was subjected to replication is no longer available for fresh tests. LIke WY, I don't think additional tests can be done using the same samples used in earlier tests. But then, I'm no expert on DNA. WY has access to the real experts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "WY, Ayeka, Ginja" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:09:00 5/22/2001 WY: in fact, he said IF there were more than two sources, the Ramseys could not be ruled out. Nedd: Well as I said WY, Thomas didn't have his facts straight, since the Ramsey's HAVE been ruled out. WY: 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. Nedd: My point WAS WY, he said it on Geraldo in front of Schek sp? And all the rest of the pro/anti Rams. It wasn't disputed. If it wasn't fact it would have Been. Ginja: 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? Nedd: Easy, the child could have been molested while standing up (therefore resulting in her dusty feet) from behind while being strangled, with her pants down to her knees. The killer cut himself when breaking the handle for the garrote, and dripped or smeared some 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. Nedd: Actually Ginja, DNA cannot be mixed. Therefore sorting it out is not a problem. It's identifying it that is. 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! Nedd: Ginja I have no idea what you are trying to get at with all that mumbo jumbo up there. The DNA is there it got there somehow. IF it was from cross contamination, then they would be able to prove so. They can't. Therefore it suggests the high possibility that someone other then a Ramsey came in contact with that child. WY: 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 Nedd: AGAIN WY, I stated months and months ago the DNA was MALE and the 2 sources matched. You all flamed me, BUT guess what who do you think was right? Mark my words WY. They know more about this DNA then any of us here. Ginja: >Question: How many suspects, other than the >Ramseys, have NOT been eliminated as >suspects based on the dna testing? Nedd: OK Ginja, I'll answer your question, Who the hell knows, do you? All we know is the DNA does NOT match them, that's all that is important to them. WY: 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 Nedd: WY, it's nothing new that the BPD has been and still is leaking information. Problem is everything they are leaking points towards an intruder, hmmmm wonder why that is WY? It's called covering their arses to me. Ayeka: 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. Nedd: Well that's just it Ayeka, it's a crap shoot. The screwed up the crime scene, but once this case went to the media, everyone who's anyone got involved. Therefore I WOULD HOPE they did this. Ayeka: 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? Nedd: Heck no Ayeka, but I wouldn't expect men in shopping malls to have their hands down the pants of a 6 year old child either. Ayeka: You can yell MALE, BLOOD, COMPLETE all you want, Ned, but I distrust people who say "Just take my word for it." Nedd: When did I say complete? Hell if it were complete, we'd have our killer or at least the source of who put the DNA there. Please DON'T take my word for it Ayeka, consult a coroner and a specialist in DNA. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Gem, Fly & WY" Posted by Hoping on 16:40:14 5/22/2001 Just skimming this thread and I seem to recall in the very early days that there was a negotiation that held back the DNA testing. If I recall correctly, the Ramsey family was given an opportunity to observe the DNA testing at Cellmark since there would be little/no/ DNA sample left for further testing. If all of this is true, then the sample must be destroyed when tested. Logic would also indicate that there is sufficient quantity, however, lacking in quality as Fly stated above. Don't know if this helps, just a flashback I thought I would share. BTW Gem - I was so happy to read about the upcoming wedding in your family. Sounds like you have a wonderful family. WY - so glad to hear that your Mom is doing better and seems to be pulling through okay. I see where you get your "vim and vigor" from. You go girl! Sorry to post the personal stuff here. Hope it's okay until I get to post on the daily. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "But Ned" Posted by Watching you on 16:28:49 5/22/2001 you MUST have a source inside the BPD to "know" all these wondrous things. So, in that case, the BPD is not only leaking - they are leaking TO YOU. Probably your source in the BPD told you things in confidence, right? Wrong? Which is it? Were you asked not to reveal these wondrous things to anyone? Then why are you on the internet blabbing to everyone? What? You have no source inside the BPD? Then how do you know all these wondrous things? Ned, how can all of us be wrong and you be right all the time? Don't you ever get tired of being right when all around you everyone disagrees with you? Questions you? Asks for sources? Sources, Ned. Tell us your sources. You have already betrayed their confidences. You may as well tell us your sources. Want us to guess? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Ginja and WY" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:26:04 5/22/2001 WY: the blood, Ned. It's not going to wash until you can provide legitimate sources. Nedd; That's alright WY, I am not here to provide sources, just to discuss evidence with people who want to discuss it. I know what I know. Take it or leave it. Ginja: 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. Nedd: I don't know if any of you know this or not, but as I recall from my info, JonBenet was NOT re-dressed. IN fact her panties were not pulled all the way up. It was not proved if she was wiped off. There were smear marks on her, much different. She could have simply come in contact with the killer's clothes. Also I don't believe she was murdered in the windowless room. She was murdered most likely outside of it close into location of that vent, which gave clear audio to the Stanton's home. She was then dragged to the window less room. Ginja: 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. Nedd: Where the heck to you get this information Ginja? Are you trying to tell me that the top hand writing experts in this world can only match handwriting to those people who are disguising it? Please Ginja: 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. Nedd: Well actually I CAN discriminate Ginja, because familial notation and writing style are not admitted into court. All they have is what the experts say, and they say Ginja on a scale of 1-5, Patsy scored a 4.5, which means it was most likely she did not write the note, but could not for certain be ruled out. Ginja: 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!!! Nedd: Actually I think a lot of people could. Especially people who didn't like them. The maid certainly had access to Patsy handwriting and style. Besides that I haven't seen enough of Patsy's handwriting to make that judgement, have you? What samples I have seen look NOTHING like the ransom note, and in fact JR's handwriting looked far more close to it then Patsy's. Ginja: 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. Nedd: Ginja, I wish I could believe that for arguments sake. You people here continually ask me to give sources, well now I am asking for yours? It has been said over and over again, that prior sexual abuse could not be substanciated. From what I know, this was a police tactic used to empliment John Ramsey. When they couldn't prove it they turned on Patsy. Until I see an offical report, this is a bunch of BS. Especially given the fact Keenan is an expert in this field. If there were any signs of it she would have seen to it that the parents be brought in on charges. You don't follow the evidence, Ned Nedd: The evidence suggests intruder. Sorry there is no other way to see it. I have spent like most of you almost 5 years following this case, it wasn't until about a little over a year ago, I dug into the case and discovered what I now know. And that is everything I have heard thus far, and most especially now that Lou Smit has made most of it public. The evidence clearly suggests the BPD knew of evidence that suggested someone other then the Ramsey's were involved in this crime, but because of political BS, they swept it under the carpet. Until it eventually leaked out. They can no longer keep it a secret. DNA exists and it does not point to a Ramsey So your wrong Ginja, I have followed the evidence and I still do. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "LOLOLOL, Ned" Posted by Watching you on 16:31:30 5/22/2001 jameson's clone, Ned. Take if or leave it. I'll leave it. Do not ask us to take YOUR WORD for anything, Ned. It doesn't work here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "No, you know what, Ned" Posted by Watching you on 16:37:34 5/22/2001 what a pompous attitude - take it or leave it. How arrogant! We've had enough of that attitude to last us a lifetime - if you don't want to back up your statements with sources or facts, don't expect people to trust you. Who the heck do you think you are, anyways? If you have true facts in this case, you should not be afraid to post where those facts come from. What a crock. This is just more bullsmit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Wy and Gemini" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:42:12 5/22/2001 WY: 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. Nedd: Jameson said that? That's exciting. When did she state that, today? Which thread is it located on WY? You may not like Jameson, but I know that her information is trust worthy. Darby: 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. Nedd: Thank you Darby. I remember reading that now too. Am I confused about something here. Weren't you once a firm believer that the Ramsey's were guilty? Lurker: "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. Nedd: Right Lurker, the probably were matched, but the BPD thought what the hell let them continue to be free, we'd rather be eating donuts then have to haul are butts to Atlanta to arrest them LOL Gemini: IF the amount of foreign DNA is as minuscule as some suggest, how are they coming up with samples for more and more tests? Nedd: I believe they are testing the same sample. 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. Nedd: Right Gemini. Cells are so small one needs to view it under a microscope, DNA strands are so small you will have many copies of that DNA. The use a technique called restrictive mapping. Each cell carries the complete stand of DNA, it just do they have enough of it to do the testing. This is what I believe is the case here. They have the complete strand, just not enough of it to produce a complete marker. They are most likely unable to run tests over an over again. Here's a question though. Forget exhuming the body for proving the stun gun marks, what about exhuming for the purpose of seeing if any more DNA is still present under her nails?????? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Nedthan" Posted by Watching you on 16:47:26 5/22/2001 once again you show little attention to detail. I did not post the tidbit about stuffing panties in your mouth and such. Go back and this time pay attention. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Watching You" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:43:54 5/22/2001 You are absolutely right. Lou Smit won't do it for me. I believe any DNA that did not belong to JonBenet Ramsey was mixed in with her blood. I do NOT believe that DNA came from someone else's blood. If it ever comes out that it was, in fact, blood, I will have no apologies to make. I'm not into believing everything anyone tells me just on faith alone. I do not believe it was blood DNA. I believe it was mixed with JB's blood. Smit likes to twist things. Nedd: You sound like an orge WY. I feel sorry for your children. Just like mame claiming there was flesh under her fingernails - defensive. This shit gets so exaggerated out of proportion, is it any wonder we don't believe anyone? Nedd: Still never heard her say that. Would be interesting to know however. By the way where the heck is Mame these days? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Learn to read...Nedd" Posted by watchin' on 17:04:31 5/22/2001 : 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. that was MY post. If you can't even read how do you expect to communicate? Actually you don't. You just spew the crap from hir list of things to manipulate. SHE HAS NO SOURSE! Tracey Crock is putting that in his documentary. Now there is another one full of smit! Sooooo,why didn't Smit present THIS evidence in his side show? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "WY" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:46:53 5/22/2001 50. "ginja" Posted by mame on 17:00:13 5/03/2001 it's flesh...it's defensive...it's male..and it's DNA. Nedd: Oh so she did, thanks for posting that. I would love to ask her if she knows this for certain, because flesh I would think would have produced most likely a better source for DNA testing and therefore would have provided a higher chance of a complete marker from the testing. Now, let's see you do the same. I am e-mailing the BPD to tell them someone is talking to a poster on the internet about confidential information. Nedd: Is this supposed to scare me Watching You? Who are you? Do you think they care, that a house wife would call in with something as silly as this? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Lurker and WY" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:58:39 5/22/2001 no one except Nedthan and mame. Nedd; I wish. No I like them do not know the results of the later testing. But I look at it this way, this is one of the most notorious murderes in history, it's been almost 3 years since Thomas and Smit have worked the case from the inside. I can tell you first hand that Thomas has been SHUT out from any and all knowledge of the case because of what he has done. he gets his info like the rest of us, from the news. Lou however is still working the case on his own, he has great admireors and is well respected in his field. He is a far better source for information then Thomas, and is still looking for the killer, while Thomas swings a hammer. I don't know what the new results are, but if they pointed in any way towards a Ramsey, the BPD would be the first to jump on them. When in fact Mary Keenan has already decided not at this time to convene a second grand jury. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "A housewife?" Posted by Watching you on 16:53:15 5/22/2001 you go too far, Ned. You want to call me an ogre because I challenge you to produce sources and stop putting misinformation on this forum? You feel sorry for my children? I'm tired of your trash, frankly. You wouldn't make a patch on one of my kids' butts, Ned. You don't have the smarts they have, you don't have the common sense they have, and you obviously don't have their mother figured out, either. Instead of asking who I am, maybe you'd better tell us who YOU are, since you are the one claiming to have all the inside information. You are a FRAUD, Ned. Can't say it must plainer than that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "As to the BPD call" Posted by Watching you on 16:55:38 5/22/2001 scare you? Hardly. Just thought your "source" would like to know you're shooting your mouth off about confidential matters. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Watching You" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:01:53 5/22/2001 you're such a nice person. I do not believe that about Smit at all. He has completely NOT followed the evidence. He has completely discounted anything that doesn't conform to HIS theory. I cannot believe he doesn't hear or see all the critics who present excellent counter arguments to his theories. I can't believe he thinks an intruder could come through that basement window and leave that window pristine - nothing disturbed - no fibers, no skin. Nedd: I gues you DIDN'T watch the Today show interviews did you WY. Smit clearly showed a mark on the outside of the window in the exact place one would need to push it open with. What are you talking about? Lou came through that window easily. And what about the leaves and debris inside the room? I would like very much not to think about Smit the way I do, but, like his friends, the Ramseys, he has shown me he is not to be believed. I question his motives in this, because he just can't be that stupid. Can he? Nedd: No only I guess only house wives who choose to beleive only what they want to. Modern day witch hunters, not people who really seek justice for this child. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Ginja" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:19:34 5/22/2001 There is absolutely nothing in, on or around JBR's arms or hands to indicate she tried to ward off an attack. If she had, and if it was flesh, then there would have been more than enough to identify. Nedd: What do you call those scratches on her neck Ginja????? Or did you miss those photos on Dateline? As regards Ned's statement that she scratched her neck and her attacker, I seriously doubt it. (Of course, that doesn't rule it out!) I've looked at those pictures, I've saved them to my hard drive and I don't see scratches. Nedd: Can you post them here or do we need Dunvegan? What I see is hemorrhaging just under the skin. Again, if she scratched for her life, her own flesh would be thick under the nails. Nedd: Actually Ginja, her DNA was found under her nails, most of them on both hands. If another's dna is enmeshed in that mess, it's enmeshed in one of two ways: (1) beneath her flesh and probably not relevant to the crime; or (2) mixed in with the flesh, in which case someone's dna was on her neck? Where else could it have come from? While she's tearing away at her own flesh trying to get air, she's also cognizant enough to ward off or scratch her attacker? Where are his hands? At her throat? Nedd: Hmmm, let's see if he is stangling her, yes probably! Whose to say she didn't try to strike out at him and scratched him? Or tightening the garotte from behind her? Obviously, the perp is tightening the cord from behind her. So here she is, struggling for life - the cord is choking her so she what? reaches behind her and starts attacking her killer? Do you really think this 6 year old reached and grabbed for her attacker rather than attempt to pull the cord off her throat so she could breathe? Nedd: Well at one point she screamed Ginja, so perhaps it was at this time she scratched him and it was then he garroted her. Your trying to think of every way NOT possible for her to do this, when in actuality Ginja, there are many many sceanarios. And YES it is possible for a 6 year old to scratch Ginja. So I don't know what your point is here. She certainly was awake at one point to scream Personally, my money's on her being unconscious when she was strangled. Actually, that's not such a "personal" thought. It's pretty obvious. The cord around her neck is perfectly aligned. If she was alive and kicking and scratching at her attacker, he'd have been moving about as well. And so would the cord! Nedd: How do you figure that? He would have yanked in order to control her...that would have caused more damage to her neck than was evident. Nedd: Well I think that is why she was most likely being slowly strangled while he molested her, she woke screamed and scratched at him and then he cracked her skull in and finished her off with the garrote. Petechial hemorahging would have been so dense her face and neck would have looked almost completely red, her face would have been more swollen, and her tongue may have been swollen as well; not to mention her eyes bulging. Nedd: Ginja. She had patechia. He already cracked her skull, why would he need to have done more damage? I seriously doubt this child laid back and let her killer strangle her to death. From all indications, she was already unconcious. Nedd: Well the evidence does not suggest this, since there was little to no blood found in her skull cavity [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Ned" Posted by Watching you on 17:05:27 5/22/2001 sorry, I'm not a housewife, but what the hell is wrong with a housewife? You one of those freaking male chauvinist pigs? You certainly sound like one. Listen, Mr. Eroded-by-Water Hymen, you are unimpressive. Your theories suck. Smit was all over that window frame trying to get his body in there. You need to wake up and stop defending killers and their defenders. You are as blind as Smit it. But then, what else can one expect from househusbands. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "ElNedd" Posted by watchin' on 17:08:06 5/22/2001 Funny when Nedd gets up to his arse in postin', Ellie is not here. LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Guess it's Ned's" Posted by Watching you on 17:10:11 5/22/2001 turn to be on top this week. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "WY" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:22:54 5/22/2001 jameson says the posters can either believe her or not - she says there is blood on nightgown - she knows more about this case than anyone - believe her or not. I don't know where the original post was - have to go back and wade through that crap some more, I guess. She gets some of the same reaction Nedthan gets here - believe me or not. I don't know of anyone who has reason to believe anyone just because they say so. Nedd: Well I'll have to take a look see. This is good information [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Ginja" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:28:53 5/22/2001 I guess that was my point. If they've got blood on the nightgown there's no major leap to find that it belonged to JBR. Afterall, she bled that night. But with that much of a sample of blood, it's more than enough to type. Evidently, it doesn't match the "unknown" dna. And if it wasn't JBR's, we'd be hearing it from the Ramseys -- not Jameson Nedd: Ginja don't be too quick to judge, perhaps this is the very DNA testing the BPD are talking about. Perhpas somewhere within the blood on the nightgown lies more evidence of the male DNA? Why is this the first we ever heard of it? If it was JB's why is it so significant, that more then 5 years later it is being brought up? Perhpas the BPD have begun to re-test ALL DNA and all stains on the clothing. This would be a good start [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. " WY did you notice tag-team Nedd" Posted by austingirl on 17:46:58 5/22/2001 Post 42 Nedd: They have the complete strand, just not enough to produce a complete marker. austingirl: What? Post 36 Nedd: When did I say complete? Hell, if it were complete we'd have the killer.... It looks like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAA [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Wy and Gemini" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:41:44 5/22/2001 good question, Gemini, and one I don't have the answer to. Can they test the same sample more than once? I don't know. I'm going to have to ask "my expert" tomorrow at work. I know they can get DNA out of one cell, so maybe that miniscule amount really was enough to have more than one sample from it. Nedd: If they got DNA from under several nails, and from her panties then they have enough to do several tests. But they would not test the same sample more then once because of possible contaimination. They would need another source. You cannot cheat a DNA test or come up with false negatives. It reads what it can and is very reliable [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "DuBois" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:47:30 5/22/2001 a darn thing hir says! hir also said that hir saw the rope and said that it was yellow with black tape on the ends, but of course she had to retract that because hir was wrong. Nothing but spin. For all we kmow hir source might be Ned, and Neds source could be Jams. Nedd: I never heard where Jams called the rope yellow. However it didn't look to be real white in the photos' shown on TV. That could be an honest mistake, because it could appear to be yellow or dull. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Darby" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:49:11 5/22/2001 Isn't there a way to replicate DNA as many times as needed? If so, then maybe that's how the DNA can go here, there and everywhere. I may be wrong or mixed up on what can be replicated. Nedd: That's called Cloning, and I don't beleive it's being done with DNA testing as of yet. If they have 3 sources of it, they may be trying to extract a complete marker from the 3 [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Oh my, help me Jesus" Posted by Watching you on 17:52:33 5/22/2001 I can't take anymore. Cloning? That's not what she meant, Ned. She meant replicating the DNA, not a person or an animal. Gawd, you're dense. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Fly" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:52:26 5/22/2001 LIke WY, I don't think additional tests can be done using the same samples used in earlier tests. But then, I'm no expert on DNA. WY has access to the real experts. Nedd: I doubt she does, this is the same person who claimed her expert couldn't give her an opinion without all the evidence. shhhhhish. Your right Fly they need other samples to do more testing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Watching You" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:54:43 5/22/2001 Sources, Ned. Tell us your sources. You have already betrayed their confidences. You may as well tell us your sources. Want us to guess? Nedd: Oh but how have I betrayed them, when you don't know who I am? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "That's right, Ned" Posted by Watching you on 17:55:43 5/22/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:55:43, 5/22/2001 real experts are like that. Do you know how stupid you sound? I'm out of here. Post edit: Oh wait, no you don't, Ned, don't twist what I said. I said my boss would not give an opinion without seeing the results of the tests himself of running the tests. I never said he had to see "all the evidence." Stop lying. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Gaawdafreakingmighty" Posted by Watching you on 18:00:13 5/22/2001 I really am leaving now. Tell me, Ned, you are one of the insiders, right? So you didn't betray anyone, right? And, you work in a blood lab, right? And you are jameson's replication, right? As in clone, hahahahaha. You are a trip, Ned, that's what you are. Unfreakingbelievable. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Ahhhhh, I'm going, JR, I'm going. I've heard everything now, I swear I have. I'm going, JR. Just everyfreakingthing...I'm going, JR. LOL Stump Can't argue with a Gone, JR. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Replicating DNA" Posted by JR on 19:16:28 5/22/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:16:28, 5/22/2001 60. "Darby" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:49:11 5/22/2001 Isn't there a way to replicate DNA as many times as needed? If so, then maybe that's how the DNA can go here, there and everywhere. I may be wrong or mixed up on what can be replicated. Nedd: That's called Cloning, and I don't beleive it's being done with DNA testing as of yet and I quote: So the power of the test to pinpoint any one individual is limited, but with only degraded DNA in the samples, it's Tahir's best choice. His first step is to increase the quantity of DNA the test will have to work with. To do this, he places a portion of each crime-scene sample into a vial. Then he adds a chemical cocktail that stimulates the process of DNA replication. The samples are then placed into a thermal cycler, which speeds the process of replication through precise warming and cooling of the samples. Within hours, any DNA present in the original samples has replicated into millions of copies. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2613sheppard.html PBS Air date: October 19, 1999 Me thinks Nedd is about as much an expert on DNA as hir is on Hymens. ;-\ Edited to say: This post may not be posted on other forums - I am tired of my research being swiped - go do your own! JFJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Why are you apologizing to Chris" Posted by Watching you on 04:16:33 5/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 04:16:33, 5/23/2001 Ned? You didn't call her an imbecile, you called me an imbecile. You owe ME the apology, not Chris. Everyfluckingthing you said about me was wrong. Heh, yea, I know, you would like me to get angry and pop off about my age, my kids, my job, blah blah. I won't play your stupid games. Your jamesonian personality is abrasive and raw, just like her, vicious and malicious, just like her. You are not one person, you are a RS(spin, not support)T conglomeration of at least two, maybe three people, and all of you are ignorant as hell. I won't make any apologies. You got away with some of the worst attacks I've ever seen here. If I am banned for calling all of you ignorant, so be it. Housewives who interfere in ongoing investigations and brag about it have a real problem. Your nasty personality needs help bad. I hope you get it for your own sake. I will no longer respond to any posts from you, Conglomeration Inc. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Watching You" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 18:09:22 5/22/2001 Post edit: Oh wait, no you don't, Ned, don't twist what I said. I said my boss would not give an opinion without seeing the results of the tests himself of running the tests. I never said he had to see "all the evidence." Stop lying. nedd: hoooo hmmmmmm, sounds like the same thing to me [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Heck WY" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 18:10:13 5/22/2001 If I had all the evidence I could give an opinion too, what about giving an opinion on what is known thus far? I doubt you work anywhere in the vicinity of a true Scientist [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "The many faces of Nedthan:" Posted by LurkerXIV on 18:43:21 5/22/2001 Nedthan is a community hat used by the Ramsey spin team. It has become very obvious on this thread. Sometimes the Ned hat is used by Lou Smit himself, mainly when he wants to see the reaction to his latest TV appearance. Notice how Lou is very polite with female interviewers, one might say even condescending. Count how many times he uses the sales method of always calling the "client" (the one to whom he is attempting to sell his Intruder Theory) by her first name...Katie this and Katie that; Ginja this and Ginja that; Carol this and Carol that. A tried but true method taught to salespeople, whether they're selling automobiles, real estate, insurance, or bogus theories in the JBR case. This polite, manipulative Ned is Lou. Later on, another Ned takes over. He uses distinct jamesonian verbiage "spewing venom" "housewife" "go back to cleaning houses". This is jams taking over the Ned hat. There are others to be sure. But what they have in common is THEY ARE ALL RAMSEY SPIN TEAM. The nasty Ned is so ignorant, and suffers from a low self-image and an inferior education which hir tries to project upon the posters here. Hir should know that JW posters are the best educated on the JBR sites, many holding bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees; a few with MD's and law degrees. Housewives? Is that supposed to be some kind of epithet? If it is, it is quite misdirected at this site. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Noticed" Posted by JR on 18:51:09 5/22/2001 Nedd ignored my post re replicating DNA and chose to personally attack W_Y instead. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Lurker" Posted by austingirl on 18:48:01 5/22/2001 Did you see my post #58? It became obvious to me tonight also that several people are posting under Nedthan Johns. There is a decided ebb and flow of spelling errors, punctuation errors, grammatical mistakes and incorrect syntax. I thought that the insults directed at Watching You were completely out of line. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Yes, austingirl..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 19:02:35 5/22/2001 Their game is so apparent. They really screwed up tonight. Thanks, WY. You made the Ramspinners so verklempt that they tipped their hand. Nedthan John = John's Net Hand (thanks, Dunvegan) Looks like Lin Wood, jameson, Tracey, Smit and CO. are getting VERY frustrated because the general public STILL believes that the Ramseys are responsible for the death of JonBenet. All those millions and millions of PR dollars down the drain! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "I guess I shouldn't" Posted by Watching you on 18:54:16 5/22/2001 have popped back in here. Not to worry, though, because the collective Nedthan has revealed hir true self, and it's pretty damn ugly. That's typical RST tactics - when you are asked for sources, you attack in a most vicious way. I am not intimidated. A restraining order? hahahahahahahahahahahahahah go for it. To bed with me. Good night. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Austingirl" Posted by JR on 18:53:09 5/22/2001 You are right and W_Y needs to chose if she wants to hit the alert button or not. Many of us have known for a long time Nedd was not who hir said she was. My post above should be an eye opener - I'll say it again, I am surprised we bother to give Nedd the time of day. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "JR...you caught him" Posted by LurkerXIV on 19:06:04 5/22/2001 with his pants down...the selfstyled scientist, who doesn't know the difference between replication of DNA and cloning. Of course, "it" ignored your very informed post. Personally, after that tirade against WY, I think the Nedthan hat should be banned. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "Lurker XIV" Posted by Ruby on 19:24:57 5/22/2001 You are one of the most humorous people here but banning Nedthing. What are you going to do ban all but the ten people whom agree. Jeesh, who's fourm is this anyway? Who owns it? pays for it? monitor's it? BTW, I just SCROLL by EVERYONE of Nedds posts. Very simple since I am not interested in anything he has to say. That is also why I do not open a thread I am not interested in BUT others may be. Free country...........what a concept. And NO I am not ANY hat but me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Lurker" Posted by JR on 19:14:58 5/22/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:14:58, 5/22/2001 More telling is that hir didn't know if replication of DNA was being done yet but the article I posted is almost 2 years old. I dislike calling folks liars but without a doubt, Nedd is NOT who hir advertises hirself to be. Notice hir got out of the kitchen when the heat became oppressive? Edited to say: It isn't THAT difficult to do a bit of research on-line. It took me all of about 2 minutes to find that article. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Lurker, JR" Posted by austingirl on 19:17:10 5/22/2001 You have to check out my thread zogby poll queation. You simply will not believe it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "austingirl" Posted by JR on 19:32:33 5/22/2001 I did check you thread and answered the poll questions much earlier. LOL! I find the person who designed the poll a bit "obvious" by the fact that there weren't many questions with the option "Decline to say." IMO, the polster plans to use answers to some of the other questions to discredit the poll taker. It appears to basicly be a "set-up." Research and Statistics classes teach how unethical it is to prepare a survey in such a manner that the taker knows what information you are trying to extract. The poll can never be considered scientific because it is so clearly obvious what the person who wrote it is doing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "I also wonder" Posted by Texan on 21:22:50 5/22/2001 How many autopsies Nedthan has seen. I have not seen any of homicide victims, but have seen several autopsies and never saw the fingernails clipped in any of those. The purpose of the autopsies I saw was to determine the cause of death and it wasn't necessary to collect the fingernails. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Ned" Posted by DuBois on 07:55:03 5/23/2001 Please don't act dumb! You read everything Jameson writes. Fact: Hir says that she makes mistakes and she corrects them when hir is wrong. Hir said that she saw the rope and it was yellow. When the picture became available on tv for everyone to see, she had to say she was mistaken, in other words wrong. Hir had a long thread going about the rope found, with everybody guessing what it was used for, and hir also claimed the rope had tape on the ends. Now hir says that blood was found on the nightgown and the blanket. But of course hir has no source, and we are to take hir word for it or not. You hang on hir every word and thats where you get your info. Very sad, you eat up hir misinformation. I think that you should learn a lesson from WY. Her experts at work will not say things just to say them they need more info before they can comment. Where as you will put things out there for the sake of acting like a know it all. HMMM , Should we just take your word for it? I think not! Henry Lee just said on Fox, that they are doing futher testing, to find out if it was a accident or a murder. He didn't say if it was a intruder or an inside job. This tells me that with futher test this can be determined. Why would you know more than Henry Lee? I never heard that you were a docter. You claim you have inside information on the case. Is it because of your family that are on the police force in CO? I dont' believe that they worked on the case, we know all the cops on the case. They could be traffic cops for all we know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Let make Faulting reasoning pt 3" Posted by ayelean on 08:03:46 5/23/2001 This one is getting to large, and when Neddy returns he will dooble it up, repeating everything. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Thank you JR and Texan!" Posted by Ginja on 08:43:58 5/23/2001 Cloning! Can you believe it? LOLOL Thanks for the excellent description of PCR, JR. You spelled it out in terms Ned might understand! LOLOL As regards the "amount" of the samples...I think you've brought out that they can multiply the samples easily. But as Fly noted, quantity may not be the issue, but rather, quality. Clearly, these samples were minute and mixed in with other matter. That matter isn't just dna material. Under the nails, there's no telling how much "dirt" and unknown 'artifact' is mixed up. Likewise, PCR can only replicate what's there, to my knowledge. IOW, it can't "fill in the blanks". So if they didn't have a full dna strand to begin with, they're not going to get a full strand when they utilize PCR. And to you, Texan...thank you for pointing out that nail clippings are not taken from every single cadaver brought into the morgue. The purpose of the autopsy is to determine cause of death. Obviously, someone who dies of natural causes or heart failure or disease -- analyzing the matter under their fingernails will lend absolutely nothing to the coroner's findings. The nail clippings are done as part of the evidence collection in unnatural deaths. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Ginja" Posted by JR on 13:12:35 5/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:12:35, 5/23/2001 Your very welcome. Too bad Nedd hasn't come back to offer further expertise on DNA replication. ;-\ Edited for typo. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]