Justice Watch Support JW "FAULTY REASONING PART 4" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... FAULTY REASONING PART 4, ayelean, 19:38:41, 5/24/2001 Thomas didn't , v_p, 19:42:05, 5/24/2001, (#1) Are you sure, v_p?, Watching you, 19:44:28, 5/24/2001, (#2) Hence4th and WY, ayelean, 19:45:50, 5/24/2001, (#3) male DNA, Hence4th, 19:51:36, 5/24/2001, (#4) well chit , v_p, 19:52:37, 5/24/2001, (#5) DNA is not protein, Hence4th, 19:54:10, 5/24/2001, (#7) "K", v_p, 19:56:34, 5/24/2001, (#8) Yep, Watching you, 19:53:16, 5/24/2001, (#6) re plant DNA, Hence4th, 19:57:24, 5/24/2001, (#9) Proteins, Watching you, 19:58:32, 5/24/2001, (#11) Our Mr., Watching you, 20:02:08, 5/24/2001, (#14) so... , v_p, 19:58:17, 5/24/2001, (#10) K, Watching you, 20:00:03, 5/24/2001, (#12) IMRI Pg 267-268, austingirl, 20:01:42, 5/24/2001, (#13) Well, Watching you, 20:04:37, 5/24/2001, (#15) WY, austingirl, 20:07:18, 5/24/2001, (#16) ayelean: your posts 11 and 14, Hence4th, 20:10:36, 5/24/2001, (#17) v_p: your post #10, Hence4th, 20:13:57, 5/24/2001, (#18) watching you re DNA vs protein, Hence4th, 20:20:57, 5/24/2001, (#19) "unidentified secondary MALE DNA", LurkerXIV, 21:00:18, 5/24/2001, (#21) DNA 101, JR, 20:52:52, 5/24/2001, (#20) Hence4th, ayelean, 21:42:30, 5/24/2001, (#22) cell structure, Hence4th, 22:25:53, 5/24/2001, (#23) Hence4th, ayelean, 23:32:35, 5/24/2001, (#24) ayelean, JR, 01:00:16, 5/25/2001, (#25) WOW!, watchin', 01:42:11, 5/25/2001, (#26) scroll, Hence4th, 09:33:31, 5/25/2001, (#38) watchin', Watching you, 04:29:59, 5/25/2001, (#27) paranoia rampant?, mary99, 04:41:54, 5/25/2001, (#28) henceforth, v_p, 06:01:26, 5/25/2001, (#29) exclude male DNA, Hence4th, 09:46:48, 5/25/2001, (#39) hence4th, austingirl, 09:59:11, 5/25/2001, (#45) Watchin' and Mary99, ayelean, 07:48:00, 5/25/2001, (#31) THOMAS SAID MALE DNA?, darby, 07:25:46, 5/25/2001, (#30) darby, Hence4th, 09:58:20, 5/25/2001, (#44) Watching you, Hence4th, 09:28:30, 5/25/2001, (#37) Hence4rth, mary99, 09:49:43, 5/25/2001, (#40) TSK! TSK!, LurkerXIV, 09:55:24, 5/25/2001, (#41) watchin', mary99, 08:07:25, 5/25/2001, (#32) ayelean, WY, austingirl, 08:28:38, 5/25/2001, (#33) So what've we got?, Ginja, 08:39:03, 5/25/2001, (#34) suspicion, Hence4th, 10:21:21, 5/25/2001, (#46) ayelean, WY, ginja, LurkerXIV, 08:46:39, 5/25/2001, (#35) and you, Hence4th, 10:23:33, 5/25/2001, (#47) No personal attacks allowed here,, LurkerXIV, 10:25:56, 5/25/2001, (#48) isn't it amazing, Hence4th, 12:27:12, 5/25/2001, (#65) Ginja, mary99, 09:05:28, 5/25/2001, (#36) However, Hence4th, darby, 09:56:47, 5/25/2001, (#43) guess, Hence4th, 10:36:37, 5/25/2001, (#51) Obviously..., LurkerXIV, 09:56:33, 5/25/2001, (#42) V_P and Mary99, Nedthan Johns, 10:31:04, 5/25/2001, (#49) By the way Ginja, Nedthan Johns, 10:35:28, 5/25/2001, (#50) Paranoia?, Ginja, 10:55:53, 5/25/2001, (#52) name calling, Hence4th, 12:24:18, 5/25/2001, (#64) Hence 4th, Scully, 12:53:45, 5/25/2001, (#69) Mare, Ginja, 10:58:13, 5/25/2001, (#53) verification, Hence4th, 12:35:15, 5/25/2001, (#66) Evaluations, watchin', 11:22:01, 5/25/2001, (#56) I agree, Ginja, LurkerXIV, 11:05:45, 5/25/2001, (#54) sitting idly by, Hence4th, 12:46:06, 5/25/2001, (#67) Personally, momo, 11:40:20, 5/25/2001, (#58) I wasn't sure, Watching you, 11:21:30, 5/25/2001, (#55) WY...glad you're back., LurkerXIV, 11:30:22, 5/25/2001, (#57) I don't know, Watching you, 11:41:40, 5/25/2001, (#59) Hence, DuBois, 11:42:51, 5/25/2001, (#60) I dunno..., Jellyjaws, 11:52:32, 5/25/2001, (#61) Ginja, Nedthan Johns, 12:10:38, 5/25/2001, (#62) Lurker, Nedthan Johns, 12:12:28, 5/25/2001, (#63) Ned, mary99, 12:46:55, 5/25/2001, (#68) Nedd, Jerrya, 13:50:12, 5/25/2001, (#70) Ginja, JR, 13:58:59, 5/25/2001, (#72) Nedd, Mini, 13:58:38, 5/25/2001, (#71) Nedd and Hence4th, JR, 14:03:11, 5/25/2001, (#73) Please move to thread 5, JR, 14:15:00, 5/25/2001, (#74) ................................................................... "FAULTY REASONING PART 4" Posted by ayelean on 19:38:41 5/24/2001 And I even spelled reasoning right this time! [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Thomas didn't " Posted by v_p on 19:42:05 5/24/2001 say it was male DNA, he was referring to what experts said. I think chapter 28... if I remember correctly ... don't make me get the book ... one of the experts said a few nail clippings from one of her hands had male DNA. He never quoted anyone saying that both the DNA under the nails and in the panties were male ... then again, he hadn't met our expert Ned. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Are you sure, v_p?" Posted by Watching you on 19:44:28 5/24/2001 I don't remember anything about male DNA in IRMI. My book is in my bedroom - and I'm going to bed shortly, so I'm not looking it up right now. That's a new one on me. I WILL look it up, though, count on it, LOL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Hence4th and WY" Posted by ayelean on 19:45:50 5/24/2001 Who said anything about plant dna? Human DNA is protein. The Fresh pineapple juice could have cause degradation of any DNA under her fingernails. WY--We know the DNA they have is incomplete, wouldn't degraded DNA be the reason they cannot use what they have efficiently? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "male DNA" Posted by Hence4th on 19:51:36 5/24/2001 Did you see my post #76 under FR 3? Someone mentioned plant the possibility of plant DNA under the fingernails. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "well chit " Posted by v_p on 19:52:37 5/24/2001 I'll go get mine...brb... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "DNA is not protein" Posted by Hence4th on 19:54:10 5/24/2001 DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid; it contains the instructions for manufacturing protein. This manufacturing takes place at the ribosomes in the cell cytoplasm. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. ""K"" Posted by v_p on 19:56:34 5/24/2001 as Gem is fond of me saying... Here it is, page 299/paperback... "The fingernails of the left hand presented uncertain technical issues. JonBenet appeared to be the primary DNA source, but the experts could not exclude any male as the donor of a secondary source that was present. Issues included the possibility that multiple DNA had been under her nails for several days. The experts noted NO blood or skin tissue beneath the fingernails..." (heh) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Yep" Posted by Watching you on 19:53:16 5/24/2001 that is a very good possibility, ayelean. I personally don't think the material under her fingernails was from that night - I think it was gunk that had been there before that night and that is why it was degraded. But, I'm just like everyone else - guessing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "re plant DNA" Posted by Hence4th on 19:57:24 5/24/2001 Ayelean: my mistake; my eyes have deceived me. My humble apologies. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Proteins" Posted by Watching you on 19:58:32 5/24/2001 Almost everything in the body, from hair to hormones, is either made of proteins or made by them. Every protein is a translated gene. In particular, the body's chemical reactions are catalysed byproteins known as ENZYMES...Proteins are also responsible for switching genes on and off, by physically attaching themselve to PROMOTER and ENHANCER sequences near the start of a gene's text. Different genes are switched on in different parts of the body. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Our Mr." Posted by Watching you on 20:02:08 5/24/2001 Hence4th appears to be knowledgeable about DNA and is pulling our leg. You are making my hinky meter spin like a top, Hence4th. What's up with that? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "so... " Posted by v_p on 19:58:17 5/24/2001 "could not exclude" is a farrrrrrr cry from definite MALE DNA... but let's leave the dellusional to their fantasies... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "K" Posted by Watching you on 20:00:03 5/24/2001 now I remember that part. Especially the part that if there was a mixture of two or more people there, John Ramsey couldn't be excluded either. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "IMRI Pg 267-268" Posted by austingirl on 20:01:42 5/24/2001 Hence4th posted on Thread 3 quoting these pages. Re-reading I see that a secondary source of DNA may have been present in the panties. If that secondary material was a mixture from 2 or more people then the lab could exclude no one. Question - why would the lab even begin to suspect that the possibly present secondary DNA may have been a mixture from 2 or more people? Logic tells me that the results were so faint, so iffy that the possible material could have been left after laundering, or was a secondary or tertiary transfer from a toilet seat, the bathroom floor or even her own hands. Dr. Lee, bless his heart, tells us this is not a DNA case. I don't have any source for the panty DNA, pardon me, possible panty DNA, matching the fingernail DNA except our resident scientist who seems to be missing in action today after the exposure of hir ignorance yesterday. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Well" Posted by Watching you on 20:04:37 5/24/2001 don't be too hasty, now. Our DNA expert may still be alive and kicking at this very moment. Either that or perhaps a new recruit has been sent in - someone who knows a bit more about DNA? Keep the homefires burning, guys, WY is going to bed. Good night. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "WY" Posted by austingirl on 20:07:18 5/24/2001 You are so cynical, my dear. ;-) But you're right, we must be vigilant. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "ayelean: your posts 11 and 14" Posted by Hence4th on 20:15:25 5/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:15:25, 5/24/2001 DNA is deoxyribonucleic ACID: it is NOT protein; ask any molecular biologist. The fact that it can be affected by protein does not make it protein. Geez! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "v_p: your post #10" Posted by Hence4th on 20:13:57 5/24/2001 You didn't read all of my post #76 under FR 3 and you didn't read all of the blurb about the DNA in your JonBenet paperback. Thomas distinctly says: "The fingernails of the right hand were equally ambiguous, with JonBenet again appearing to be the primary donor and once again and unidentified secondary MALE DNA present." I repeat: unidentified secondary MALE DNA. It's in black and white. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "watching you re DNA vs protein" Posted by Hence4th on 20:32:53 5/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:32:53, 5/24/2001 Does your hinky meter spin every time someone mentions male DNA, even when he's quoting from Thomas' book? Jeepers! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. " "unidentified secondary MALE DNA"" Posted by LurkerXIV on 21:00:18 5/24/2001 This fingernail DNA, partial and degraded, cannot be dated and is therefore irrelevant. Thank you, Dr. Henry Lee, for pointing out repeatedly that this is NOT a DNA case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "DNA 101" Posted by JR on 21:09:52 5/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:09:52, 5/24/2001 This is a great, easy to understand web site re DNA: http://vector.cshl.org/dnaftb/15/concept/index.html Edited to say DNA not DAN. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Hence4th" Posted by ayelean on 21:42:30 5/24/2001 Ok, I stand corrected, DNA in and of itself is not protein, but the cell structure is protein. In the OJ case, when they were talking about the sox with the blood on them, in the washing machine. The DNA was compromised due to enzymatic action. This was attributed to enzymes in cleaning products. Enzymes in pineapple are used to tenderize meats. This ofcourse is a gross interpretation of the action, but on a cellular level, some destructive action happens to effect this affect. I still contend that if you would isolate a DNA sample, and treat it with fresh pineapple you are going to degrade the DNA. We know that DNA can be stable for thousands of years, yet exposed to something deleterous, minutes old DNA can be unreadable. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "cell structure" Posted by Hence4th on 22:25:53 5/24/2001 I don't deny that SOME of the cell structure is protein; it isn't all protein, however. The amount of protein depends on the particular cell type and how active it is at any given time. There's a very good book on DNA, genes and protein, etc., by James Watson, one of the co-discoverer's of the structure of DNA. It's entitled The Molecular Biology of the Gene. It's an old book but contains a lot of good information for those who are truly interested in molecular biology. All one has to do is READ to learn about these things. I don't disagree that enzymes such as those contained in pineapple juice degrade DNA. After all, it is just such enzymes (polymerases, e.g.) that are involved in normal, everyday cellular activity. Reverse transcriptase is an enzyme which enables RNA to be copied into DNA. I'm sure you've heard of retroviruses. I was very much interested in cellular and molecular biology for a period of time. In the early days of DNA research, there was a saying, "One gene, one enzyme." Now it is known that isn't entirely true. Frankly, I've forgotten much of what I once knew about DNA, etc. However, I do remember some of it. It seems there are some on this forum (not you) who feel threatened when a poster seems to know something. I wonder why that is? It's certainly not an adult way of behaving. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Hence4th" Posted by ayelean on 23:44:36 5/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:44:36, 5/24/2001 The forum is constantly being invaded by plants. The RST will go to any length to deter the sleuths on the fora. The better the forum the more intense the disinformation. Experience has conditioned us to know the baby steps a newbie takes when venturing into unfamiliar territory. There are expected mistakes and experts go thru an probationary phase, unless you have come by way of introduction. You are being tested for your true colors. So far your posts are cause for scrutiny. We are ever vigilant and have reason to be spooked. If you choose to keep posting, it will slowly be revealed if you really want Justice in this case. The posters on this site are very intelligent, and also tired of rehashing, while at the same time welcoming to anyone with expertise to share. We welcome anyone that can shed light on the case, but we are a cautious bunch because of being scortched. I went out on a limb here, because I see you have something of value to offer. At the same time I am looking for genuineness of your intentions. Posting on forum require a bit of know how that you seem to have mastered before you got here. How do you account for that? Without exposing yourself completely, we want to know more about how you came about your expertise. How and why did you find us? If you read all the books you claim you read, how is it, you don't know some of the interesting details? Are you picking our brains for what the RST needs to know? You can deny it and you may be truthful but your posts will give you away if you are not. What other fora have you posted on? What other hats would we know you by? Have you posted here via a different hat? Posters here have become expert linguist detectives. Until you pass the muster you will be suspect. I hope I haven't scared you away if you are genuine, and if you are not then, Ciao Edited to clean it up a bit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "ayelean" Posted by JR on 01:13:29 5/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 01:13:29, 5/25/2001 Sharp tongue but not unwarranted IMHO. ;-\ There is something about people who answer a question with a question - managers are taught to do that but why is it being done on a forum? Kind of a hostile approach or maybe I am just easily rubbed the wrong way tonight. Edited to say: W_Y's hinky meter must be contagious today. ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "WOW!" Posted by watchin' on 01:42:11 5/25/2001 "Until you pass the muster you will be suspect." And this? "You are being tested..."?? Just WHO does the testing? WHO determines if one is 'suitable' for this forum? WHEN will the 'newbie' be advised that they will be tollerated here? I guess the bottom line question is WHO is in charge of this forum? Welcome Hence4th. I appreciate the info on DNA. We definately need a new perspective here. It might be a good idea to evaluate those who are tossingout the inuindos to help you determine when to scroll. Will this contention ever end? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "scroll" Posted by Hence4th on 09:33:31 5/25/2001 Well said, and thanks for your support. I would scroll except that ayelean, jr, Watching you, v_p and others do often make interesting observations concerning the evidence. It's when they attempt to assassinate the messenger rather than rebut the argument, that I object. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "watchin'" Posted by Watching you on 04:29:59 5/25/2001 I went to bed last night and just now caught up on this thread. I will myself go out on a limb right now and say my "hinky meter" is doing the jitterbug right now. I know it rankles newbies to hear stuff like this, but it's not all that hard to spot potential trolls. A lot of them come in like a lamb and then steadily show more of themselves. I already have an idea who our newest poster, Hence4th is, s/he gave me that idea with his/her very first post to me. Yep, we are on high alert around here for agitators. That does not mean anyone who disagrees with us - that means posters who pepper their posts with "jeez," "you didn't read all of this..." statements designed to raise ire in a very subtle way. Not so subtle, though was: "It seems there are some on this forum (not you) who feel threatened when a poster seems to know something. I wonder why that is? It's certainly not an adult way of behaving." Boing, boing, boing, that was the sound of my hinky meter going off the scale. I welcomed Hence4th to the forum because I thought the posts were well-thought-out and unantagonistic at first. When I read the above statement, all hope fled for having meaningful discourse with this person. We've heard this rhetoric before from certain forum agitators. I personally no longer consider you a newbie, but I don't think there is anything wrong with testing the waters a little before plunging in full-tilt. A lot of people have been hurt that way. Consider this, watchin', there have been numerous newbies here who have passed muster and contributed much to the forum. They made it okay. Why is it there are only certain ones that raise the suspicion of the elders here? I'm not into giving every new person I meet on the street my phone number, address, and key to my house. Neither will I give every new person I meet on this forum carte blanc entry into my emotions without finding out what they are all about. Am I making any sense to you? Something's not right here. You can believe that or not. You don't have to, you can make up your own mind. It will show true colors soon. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "paranoia rampant?" Posted by mary99 on 04:41:54 5/25/2001 It's a vast conspiracy to pick your brain(?), WY. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "henceforth" Posted by v_p on 06:01:26 5/25/2001 No, I didn't read your post on the other thread about the DNA ... in fact, I wasn't responding to you above, I was responding to WY. Yes, I read all of the passages in the book. It was late and I didn't go further in my search for the DNA reference. Thank you so much for clearing that up for me; although, I think stating that the experts could not exclude male DNA was sufficient. What did you do with Ned? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "exclude male DNA" Posted by Hence4th on 09:51:17 5/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:51:17, 5/25/2001 Thomas didn't say male DNA couldn't be excluded. That's what you want for him to have said. He said, "...no male could be excluded." And, he said, "...unidentified secondary male DNA PRESENT (emphasis mine). Read carefully! "could not exclude" is a farrrrrrr cry from definite MALE DNA... but let's leave the dellusional to their fantasies..." Now who is the delusional one? I think anyone who challenges you rubs you the wrong way. What's this about Ned??? A veiled reference about "moles" and "plants" and "agitators"? You guys have conspiracy on the brain. You're in a feud with the pro-Rams; the truth of the matter of the murder of JonBenet is the least of your concern. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "hence4th" Posted by austingirl on 09:59:11 5/25/2001 I care passionately about justice for JonBenet. You don't know the history of personal attacks and name-calling by disruptors. These disruptors do not present factual information, as you stated, that we don't like - we like factual information. These disruptors have been unmasked as frauds. They state spin as fact and then attack when asked to back up their "information" with fact. Those who think the Ramseys are guilty are not Ramsey-haters - they hate the crime against a little girl. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Watchin' and Mary99" Posted by ayelean on 07:48:00 5/25/2001 Hence4th asked a question, I answered it truthfully. I think s/he is confident enough to handle it and needs no one to defend them if no defense is nec. Posters can be pro or anti or squarely on the fence and all contribute meaningfully here. Hinky meters are for the trolls, which we have had many lately. S/he asked why the uneasiness and I explained the reason. If I were the one asking the question, and my intentions are JfJB, I would be saying, "ah so, I see clearly now, the rain is gone."If I am a disinformation specialist, I would be thinking, 'why is someone paying me to spread disinformation?' and if I am guilty of supporting a murderer or trying to save my arse, I would be thinking, 'geeze, I only got here and they know already, maybe I ought to go somewhere else.' I will admit, I am a skeptical person, that is why I like sleuthing. If you think you are not, then hand anyone the keys to your house. Everyone does mental evaluations, you may do less if you are in a church than you do in a bank lobby, but you're unwise to let your guard down. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "THOMAS SAID MALE DNA?" Posted by darby on 07:25:46 5/25/2001 Steve Thomas said it in his book, if Hence4th's quote on the last thread is correct. If so, I guess it's true and not just a lie from Smit then, eh? Thanks for that find, Hence4th. I pulled your quote, eliminating some of it. It may mean something or it may mean nothing. But the DNA is from a male source, according to Thomas. page 268 of the paperback version of Steve Thomas' book, concerning a secondary source of fingernail DNA (JBR's is the primary source): "The fingernails of the left hand...could not exclude any MALE as the donor." and "The fingernails of the right hand...unidentified secondary MALE DNA present. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "darby" Posted by Hence4th on 09:58:20 5/25/2001 Ahhhh, a breath of fresh air. Someone who maintains objectivity, doesn't have blinders on and isn't afraid of the facts. To think this ruckus all got started because I quoted factual information from Thomas' book. I can't help laughing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Watching you" Posted by Hence4th on 09:28:30 5/25/2001 Don't confuse me with the facts? I think I know why you turned on me. You've decided that no self-respecting Ramsey hater (which is what you are) would dare mention male DNA in this forum, even in the context of a direct quotation from Steve Thomas' book. I only quoted from this book, for the sake of clarity and objectivity, because someone erroneously said that the foreign DNA was not male. If you take issue with the male DNA mentioned in Thomas' book, then your argument is with Thomas (your idol) and Cellmark, not me. As for "agitators", what is it these so-called agitators do that entitles them to this endearing distinction bestowed upon them by Your Highness? Do they introduce factual information which you find problematic and cognitively dissonant? If you're so sure that you've identified the guilty party/ies, it must be that you've based your conclusions on sound reasoning and incontrovertible facts. And, if that is the case, you shouldn't feel that your theory is in any jeopardy from what any poster might present, be it factual (Thomas' reference to male DNA in his book is a fact) or otherwise. I think all of us who suspect (not hate) the Ramseys, are troubled by this foreign DNA (a term which, incidentally, Det. Smit misdefined in the Couric interview), if for no other reason than that such DNA may have been (and usually is) left by the perpetrator and can often (if not degraded, etc.) be used to identify him. It is apparently the case that the foreign DNA on JonBenet is, for one reason or another, unmatchable to anyone. Wouldn't you just howl with glee if this DNA were all John's and the source of it were unquestionably his semen! I would, because that would be proof of his guilt and the case would be solved. But that is not the case. At any rate, if it is true that Dr. Lee has said this is not a DNA case, what are you worried about??? That you should even be worried about ANY of the evidence is baffling to me. You can't arrive at sound and comfortable conclusions if you consider some of the evidence (that which points toward the Ramseys) and ignore the rest. I doubt that any of us would be posting here if we were firmly convinced we had discovered the guilty party/ies, for it that were true, our minds would be closed (and some evidently are), and there would be no point in further discussion. And, correct me if you think me wrong, this forum is about the objective discussion of the evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, not about rooting out, ridiculing and ejecting, inquisition-like, those whose interpretation of that evidence differs from your own. As for showing true colors, you have shown yours. For me, though I suspect the Ramseys, for the reasons I've already mentioned, you've made up your mind and won't tolerate other points of view. You've also apparently appointed yourself the gatekeeper of the forum; the one who decides who is for the Ramseys and who is against them and is deserving of scorn and rejection from the forum. A discussion which entertains only one point of view is not a discussion. It's a travesty. And, whereas there may be some, including, obviously, yourself, who frequent these forums with an agenda, I'm not one of them. I'm neither pro nor anti Ramsey; in fact, I find the whole idea silly and repugnant. I'm pro truth and comfortable with open discussion, dissenting opinions (regarding the evidence in this case) and enjoy the many points of view. The outcome of this case and the determination of guilt or innocence by a jury, will not depend on what any of us in these forums say or do, unless any of us (God forbid) are among those who sit in judgement. The case will be tried, and a determination made, in a court of law, not in an Internet forum. Now, shall we discuss the evidence or persist in petty paranoia? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Hence4rth" Posted by mary99 on 09:49:43 5/25/2001 You seem to have honed in on one of the major bullies at JW. Good luck! P.S. Excellent post, btw. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "TSK! TSK!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 09:55:24 5/25/2001 Self-congratulation is so unseemly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "watchin'" Posted by mary99 on 08:07:25 5/25/2001 Good catch. Could Ned be (choke)...right? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "ayelean, WY" Posted by austingirl on 08:28:38 5/25/2001 posts 24 and 27 regarding vigilance and plants - I feel the same way after Nedd and Ellique. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "So what've we got?" Posted by Ginja on 08:39:03 5/25/2001 This thread has certainly run the gamut, eh? Where to begin? Back to the third thread, my last post. WY...there's probably some confusion (on my part) between degradation and contamination. Yes, I did know that urine does not contain any DNA. Which is why I brought it up as a possible 'contaminate'. And yes, I also realize that DNA cannot be altered. I'm not suggesting the urine would "change" the material, only that it could contaminate it. Therein lies the problem, perhaps. Maybe "contaminate" is the wrong word (as you pointed out)....degradation would perhaps be the correct term. JR...I'm a little confused as to your "misconception" post on the third thread. DNA is the blueprint of life, and so it can be found in every single cell of our bodies. As I noted, it can be found in bone marrow, although I seriously doubt any of that was left behind by the perp. It can be found in our corneas, or spleen, or tissue from anywhere. You can extract the DNA straight from these sources, or, if those sources spilled or leaked or whatever onto another surface, it could be extracted from that. And that's the situation here...something comingled with JBR's blood in her panties. Thus, the sample of whatever wasn't 'drawn' from the perp but was "pulled" from the panties crotch. Soooo....all I'm saying is you lost me. :-) As regards the sex of the dna samples....no where have I seen support that the matter under the nails matches the matter found in the panties. As a matter of fact, in Darby's last post it looks as though the matter under the right and left hand nails doesn't match. But again...this is taken from Thomas' book. The information is also being elicited by Smit. Both Thomas and Smit were using old information. The materials have been tested several times with more advanced techniques since both men left their respective positions with the investigation. The one constant in all of this "hoopla" is Dr. Henry Lee. He was brought into this case right from the beginning and has been privy not only to the information that Thomas and Smit had, but he's remained with the investigation to this day and has been a part of the multiple tests that have been run since 1998 (when Thomas and Smit left their positions). Throughout it all, he maintains unequivocally that this is NOT a DNA case. I think it would behoove us all if we paid more heed to Lee than we do Thomas, Smit and others who have nothing to do with the investigation. We can take this around the block until doomsday, but I don't think the evidence will change...there's just not enough to determine type and source (identify). Couple that with the fact that if JBR's perp actually left such DNA samples behind in his commission of the crimes against her, there'd be a helluva lot more material left than the minuscule amounts that are present. Should JBR have male dna in her panties? Hell no! But by the same token, should men have been wiping her after she pottied? Again. Hell no! What this adds up to isn't evidence that an intruder violated and then murdered this child. What it does add up to is that even though male dna should not be present in a child's underwear, as regards this child, it doesn't take any wild leaps to figure out, especially considering how minute these samples actually are, that any presence of such is NOT remarkable. You have history. That history is that JBR suffered from chronic enuresis. She also suffered from poor hygiene. She was slovenly. She was spoiled. She was lazy. And when she did manage to make it to the potty to void, she yelled out for whoever was available to wipe her. If she didn't make it to the potty, her soiled underwear was removed and someone ELSE'S underwear put on her. This is history. This is fact. Ergo, male dna on this child's body, especially considering the minuteness of the samples, is not unusual and is not remarkable. Finally, as to new posters with exceptional posting abilities (for newbies) and exceptional background/information specific to one thread....yeah...we get suspicious. We'd be idiots if we didn't. This forum is NOT private. Anyone can post; anyone can read. Anyone can be planted. So excuse us if we question certain posters who come out of the blue in specific threads with knowledge of very specific, scientific material. How coincidental! By the same token, if those posters are for real, how fortunate for us. But until we know into which category the poster falls, we have to be cautious. The last thing ANY of us wants to do is sleep with the enemy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "suspicion" Posted by Hence4th on 10:21:21 5/25/2001 Methinks your suspicion is borne of paranoia. If you suspect that someone is a Ramsey plant because he posts pro Ramsey misinformation, that is one thing. If you suspect that someone is a Ramsey plant because he mentions factual evidence that doesn't convict the Ramseys, that is quite another. The truth has nothing to fear. I find everything in your post well said, though I doubt you care. I find all but the last paragraph interesting and thoughtful. BTW, if you were referring to me when you mentioned "newbies", I told you all that I am new to this forum. I didn't say that I'm new to the case. I've thought about this case nearly every day since I first heard about the murder. If I don't think about it and try to solve it, I feel guilty. I feel that I've failed JonBenet. I remind y'all again: an anti Ramsey bias is not a prerequisite for admission to this forum, so live with it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "ayelean, WY, ginja" Posted by LurkerXIV on 08:46:39 5/25/2001 Well-said, all, with regard to our latest DNA expert. I wonder if Nedthan got any severance pay? ;> [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "and you" Posted by Hence4th on 10:23:33 5/25/2001 are the most paranoid and boring of all. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "No personal attacks allowed here," Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:32:57 5/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:32:57, 5/25/2001 Ms.Newbie! Isn't it amazing how a raw newbie can develop a deep personal animus for another poster after just one thread? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "isn't it amazing" Posted by Hence4th on 12:27:12 5/25/2001 how several of the regulars can develope a deep animus for a "newbie" after he has posted just one piece of factual information derived from Steve Thomas' book! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Ginja" Posted by mary99 on 09:05:28 5/25/2001 Uh, I though JW went private quite a while ago. You say anyone can post and anyone can read. When did this change occur? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "However, Hence4th" Posted by darby on 09:56:47 5/25/2001 Just because unidentified male DNA apparently was found in JonBenet's nails, this does not necessarily mean that the Ramseys are off the hook. JonBenet could have gotten the male DNA into her fingernails innocently by many means, for instance: 1) brushing her hand against a stranger in the mall 2) contamination from the nail clippers used in the autopsy 3) contact with an acquaintance 4) a manicure 5) many other ways Furthermore, there may be no way to determine how long the DNA had been there. I assume the DNA could have been there long before the murder. I'd like to know how much was found and the likelihood that it came from someone JonBenet fought on the murder night. I'd like to know if the amount and condition of that DNA is typical for victims of attack. We've heard various reports from Smit, Lee and Thomas. Smit and Thomas have been off the case for years, and Lee is typically vague and cryptic when he talks to the media. I don't know for sure if we can trust the full accuracy of everything any of them said. Furthermore, I don't think we'll know the full story until all the evidence is made public, and this may never happen. Until then, all any of us can do, including Hence4th, is guess. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "guess" Posted by Hence4th on 10:36:37 5/25/2001 Yes, my sentiments exactly. Re the DNA, I'm thinking the defense will have a field day. The prosecution will need strong inculpatory evidence to overcome it. As for my being a DNA expert as some have derisively proclaimed. This was in response to my pointing out that DNA isn't protein, a fact I learned of in the 7th grade, and is just another attempt to discourage the poster by demeaning him rather than refuting his facts. It reminds me of some of the childish behavior I engaged in and witnessed as a kid. If you don't like the message, try to discredit the messenger. In this case, once removed, the messenger is none other than Steve Thomas, and, again, he said it couldn't be matched to ANY male, Ramsey or otherwise. I hope a genuine DNA expert will appear on this forum to answer those fine questions you and others have posed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Obviously..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 09:56:33 5/25/2001 ...people can register with new hats. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "V_P and Mary99" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 10:31:04 5/25/2001 Glad you missed me, and yep Mary looks like I was right. So I see you are all trying to figure DNA out. Good for you. You even confirmed it was MALE. Hmmm seee what happens when I go away for awhile. Now, it's male and it exsists under several sets of nails, and in her panties. Oh yea, and by the way did I mention it was BLOOD DNA in her panties? Byt he way I missed LKL last night. Where's the transcript? I was expecting to see this board lit up like a Chirstmas tree with more hate threads about Lou, but here you all are still trying to prove the DNA was male. Glad to see you pay attention. carry on.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "By the way Ginja" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 10:35:28 5/25/2001 Why don't you stop with the paranoia stuff eh? Why can't you just accept that there are people who view this case with open eyes? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Paranoia?" Posted by Ginja on 10:55:53 5/25/2001 Hmmmm....well, now that I politely explained why some people may not be ready to open up completely until they confirm they're not being duped, I see Hence4th has total disregard for any explanations whatsoever and feels comfortable with making "noise". Any respect I had for you is completely gone and I will not give you the time of day. We've had jerks like you show up and act as know-it-alls...some claiming they had well-paid legal positions, only to find out too late that not only were we all conned, but many of us were scammed financially as well. If there's any paranoia here, it's on your part as you find it difficult to accept constructive criticism or honest querying. As for you, Nedthan, you're another. Okay...so we see there's a possibility the material is male. Unfortunately, you're head is stuck so far up your you-know-what you failed to miss some important posts directed to the question itself, e.g., my last post and in Darby's last post. You ignore Dr. Lee's emphatic statements, and you ignore the very real likelihood this material is old, and/or contaminated, and/or degraded. You ignore the myriad innocent reasons as to how this material got under the nails or in the pants, and you ignore historical facts that JBR had problems with hygiene and enuresis, not to mention her slovenly, lazy habits. You and Hence4th need to to learn how to work with others. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "name calling" Posted by Hence4th on 12:24:18 5/25/2001 Now I see you're into that; it proves my point. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Hence 4th" Posted by Scully on 12:53:45 5/25/2001 I've scanned the thread and noticed you referred to the poster, Lurker, as the "most paranoid and boring of all"...... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this qualifies as "name calling". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Mare" Posted by Ginja on 10:58:13 5/25/2001 Anyone can register to post or read here. There are no requirements except to register. There's really no way to verify if one is who they claim to be, or if one is lying and is really someone else. Also, there are no financial requirements...if we want to help Chris out, we can. But it's not required. So for the sake of argument, this forum is open. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "verification" Posted by Hence4th on 12:35:15 5/25/2001 "There is really no way to verify if one is who they claim to be, or if one is lying and is really someone else." This statement takes the cake! Who have I claimed to be? Who have you claimed to be? What does it mean to claim to be? Your statement applies to you as well as to others so it's a self-indictment. Was it necessary for you to prove your loyalty to your anti-Ramsey cohorts before they would allow you to post here without persecution? That's amazing! I don't think you realize how silly your behavior is. Calm down and think about it. Working with others: what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Not so? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Evaluations" Posted by watchin' on 11:22:01 5/25/2001 "Everyone does mental evaluations, you may do less if you are in a church than you do in a bank lobby, but you're unwise to let your guard down." As one who has lived with my back to the wall, I feel I have earned a degree in skeptism. However,I am wise enough not to start a stampeed by crying "FIRE" in a theatre. Some things are just better when handled in a quiet manner.:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "I agree, Ginja" Posted by LurkerXIV on 11:05:45 5/25/2001 That's a pretty good definition of an open forum. Why do "newbies" feel they have a right to come to a forum and immediately start flaming and insulting the established posters? Since Mrs. Brady's expose on the Ramseys' hired net hands, we have reason to believe that these new hats that come on so strong are employed by a professional team, whose objective is to infiltrate the JBR forums and spam them with Ramsey propaganda. What decent person seeking justice for JonBenet would sit idly by while they spread their disinformation? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "sitting idly by" Posted by Hence4th on 12:46:06 5/25/2001 What is the disinformation I have "spread"? What you and your cronies are engaging in is knee-jerk reaction to the posting by a "newbie" of information gleaned from Steve Thomas' book that is problematic for your case (prosecution of the Ramseys). As for flaming, who slung the first arrow? Go back and look. It's OK for the "established" (closed-minded) posters to flame a "newbie" but not OK for the "newbie" to fight back? Show me where that is in the rules. Smacks of a double standard. Y'all just don't like to be challenged, and you prefer to take the easy way out--slam the poster rather than refute his facts and arguments. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Personally" Posted by momo on 11:40:20 5/25/2001 I would never think of coming into the forum as a newbie and acting as Hence4th has. Just the name of the hat gives cause for speculation. Hence4th talks like a lawyer or someone who knows law. JMHO Ned, for the last time, the DNA is male. It doesn't exclude anyone. It's just too degraded and we know this already. After being at JW for just over a year, I have my ideas about certain posters and what their agenda is. Ellie Kay is trying so desperately to coerce us into "thinking that we might be wrong" as she always ends her posts. And yes, Ellique is a woman, no doubt about it. The time has come for the Ramseys to face their enemies in court. The desperation is so obvious. No wonder they are descending on the forum in droves. They use our posts for their defense. We've given them everything they could ever want. Maybe John and Patsy should rethink their stance on us beer can collectors. We've given them the perfect defense. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "I wasn't sure" Posted by Watching you on 11:21:30 5/25/2001 although I had an idea, but with every word that comes out of Hence's mouth, it grows clearer. And I see reinforcements are the order of the day, also. The problem is, they can't get away from that "hate the Ramseys" rhetoric, and the WY thinks she is the leader of the forum rhetoric. You give yourselves away when you say things like that, kids. You want to talk case, then talk case, and stop with the snide remarks. Your attacks against me and others are ten times worse than anything we've done or said to you. Newbies my ass. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "WY...glad you're back." Posted by LurkerXIV on 11:30:22 5/25/2001 Now I can take a lunch break. Our tag team is better than their tag team. LOL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "I don't know" Posted by Watching you on 11:41:40 5/25/2001 why this is being allowed to happen. The hatred they harbor for me overrides any caring about the welfare of this forum. Chris owns this forum, not WY. WY does not WANT this forum. WY wants peace. I'm tired of the chicken shit games and the cowardly snipes. I am as entitled to my opinion as anyone else, like it or lump it. What I see going on here is vengence, pure and simple. Why don't you grow the hell up and stop acting like two-year olds. It doesn't matter if you don't like me, I don't care. I'm not bothering you, you have come in here with one goal in mind - get WY and v_p and LurkerXIV and whoever else you perceived in your little brains has done you wrong. What pettiness. You say you are here because of JBR. You are not. You are here to stir up trouble and keep this forum pissed off all the time. Justice for JonBenet Ramsey. She is that little girl who is six feet in the ground, dead by the hands of some monster. Do I know who did it? No, I do not. I do not hate her killer. I would like to see whomever it is face the consequences of putting her where she lies. All the hatred I see on this forum is not directed at the Ramseys, it is directed at certain posters, by the ones who accuse us of hatred. If you don't want to live in peace, then why are you here? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Hence" Posted by DuBois on 11:42:51 5/25/2001 Did you get your hat from Patsy? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "I dunno..." Posted by Jellyjaws on 11:52:32 5/25/2001 Seems a good idea to keep them busy on one thread while the rest of JW work on the case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Ginja" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:10:38 5/25/2001 only to find out too late that not only were we all conned, but many of us were scammed financially as well. If there's any paranoia here, it's on your part as you find it difficult to accept constructive criticism or honest querying. Nedd: Wow financially? Whose making the bucks here? As for you, Nedthan, you're another. Okay...so we see there's a possibility the material is male. Nedd: POSSIBILITY? NO Ginja, IT IS, NOT A POSSIBILITY. BIG BIG difference. Boy don't you just hate it when people can't admit when they are wrong??? Unfortunately, you're head is stuck so far up your you-know-what you failed to miss some important posts directed to the question itself, e.g., my last post and in Darby's last post. You ignore Dr. Lee's emphatic statements, Nedd: No I don't IGNORE Dr. Lee, I just happen to disagree with him somewhat. He did say this is NOT a DNA case. You people twist that to beleive that the DNA is not important and there for should not be considered. That's not so. What I think Dr. Lee is saying is that the DNA will not find the killer, therefore his statement about this not being a DNA case is correct. As for cross contaimination. SURE. Of course we have to consider it. It HAS to be ruled out. As for the chances of coming from that? I feel pretty darn low. Why is it I can't agree with an expert but you guys can? Almost all of you disagree with Doberson, but's that's alright right? and you ignore the very real likelihood this material is old, and/or contaminated, and/or degraded. You ignore the myriad innocent reasons as to how this material got under the nails or in the pants, and you ignore historical facts that JBR had problems with hygiene and enuresis, not to mention her slovenly, lazy habits. Nedd: I could care less if it is old contaiminated, cracked, dusty, degarded, mixed, eroded (JR's favorite word) or a poor sample. IT'S THERE AND IT DOESN'T BELONG ON A 6 YEAR OLD'S BRUTALLY MURDERED BODY, HELLO?????? You and Hence4th need to to learn how to work with others. Nedd: Perhaps I would if other are willing to listen once in awhile instead of flaming those of us who have enough sense to see all the evidence as it is, not as one wants it to appear, GINJA [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Lurker" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:12:28 5/25/2001 Since Mrs. Brady's expose on the Ramseys' hired net hands, we have reason to believe that these new hats that come on so strong are employed by a professional team, whose objective is to infiltrate the JBR forums and spam them with Ramsey propaganda. What decent person seeking justice for JonBenet would sit idly by while they spread their disinformation? Nedd: Do you know how assinine this sounds? Do you really think the Ramsey's went out and hired a bunch of house wives and retired folks to sit and flood forums for their support. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Ned" Posted by mary99 on 12:46:55 5/25/2001 Yes, it's exactly what they're saying. It's also ridiculous to think that anyone who is assured enough to post with a wee bit of fortitude must be a paid plant. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Nedd" Posted by Jerrya on 13:50:12 5/25/2001 Nedd: Do you know how assinine this sounds? Do you really think the Ramsey's went out and hired a bunch of house wives and retired folks to sit and flood forums for their support. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? The Ramsey's has used a Public Relation Manager to take care of ALL of the necessary business. So I know there are (shills) doing the dirty work here, also. The Ramsey's have cover everything. And You know it It is YOU that sounds ridiculous! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Ginja" Posted by JR on 13:58:59 5/25/2001 My "misconception" post was simply transfering some DNA information from the following site: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/etc/faqs.html Sorry - didn't mean to confuse anyone - I thought it was clear I was quoting the site when I posted the hyperlink. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "Nedd" Posted by Mini on 13:58:38 5/25/2001 Is your wife a housewife while you play SCIENTIST? If so, does she know how pejoratively you use the term? Do you let her read your posts? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Nedd and Hence4th" Posted by JR on 14:03:11 5/25/2001 Eroded is not my favorite word - I borrowed it from you - our Eroded Hymen" expert. ;-\ Hence4th: suggestion, why not post analysis and logic and get off the personal attacks? So far most of what I have seen from you is questions which are logically thought out. I am quite sure you have your own theory and analysis so why not post them, instead of all the innuendos about the posters on JW? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Please move to thread 5" Posted by JR on 14:15:00 5/25/2001 This thread is getting too long for our webb tv folks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]