Justice Watch Support JW ""FAULTY REASONING PART 5"" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... "FAULTY REASONING PART 5", JR, 14:15:44, 5/25/2001 Last posts on thread 4, JR, 14:17:09, 5/25/2001, (#1) Housewives and retired folks?, Britt, 15:42:30, 5/25/2001, (#2) Thanks for the link, Britt!, LurkerXIV, 15:50:48, 5/25/2001, (#3) Pretty slim pickins', driver, 16:42:43, 5/25/2001, (#4) andhence, v_p, 18:37:01, 5/25/2001, (#5) henceforth, luvsflowers, 18:46:17, 5/25/2001, (#6) Ned, Ginja, 23:19:58, 5/25/2001, (#7) Ginja, JR, 23:28:48, 5/25/2001, (#8) I think, darby, 09:32:58, 5/26/2001, (#9) ................................................................... ""FAULTY REASONING PART 5"" Posted by JR on 14:15:44 5/25/2001 I'll move the last few posts for Y'all. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Last posts on thread 4" Posted by JR on 14:17:09 5/25/2001 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 ] [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Housewives and retired folks?" Posted by Britt on 15:43:34 5/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:43:34, 5/25/2001 (From the 4th thread...) Nedd: 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? Oh, Ned, pay attention. The Ramseys would settle for nothing less than the best. Only the most highly trained professionals will do... professionals who are so thorough they even promise to Feed chat rooms and forums with strategic messages... Monitor chat rooms, forums, and gossip lines for early warnings of rumors about clients and issues. http://www.intermountainca.com/technology.htm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Thanks for the link, Britt!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 15:52:04 5/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:52:04, 5/25/2001 I forgot to bookmark it when Mrs. B. first called it to our attention. Is Tom Schilling the one handling the Ramsey account? Previously, Schilling was a business reporter at the Denver Rocky Mountain News, where he covered finance, banking and economic development. We know the Rocky Mountain News has always been very favorable to the Ramseys, dating back to the Sunday Mag puff piece by Lisa Ryckman. It's always good to know who you are contending with. I wouldn't be surprised if Schilling occasionally gets fed up with the "John's net hands" he has hired, and has to fill in here himself once in a while. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Pretty slim pickins'" Posted by driver on 16:42:43 5/25/2001 Hahaha - Sounds like even CAP has been pressed into service! Ya' just can't get good help nowadays. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "andhence" Posted by v_p on 18:37:01 5/25/2001 >>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.<< Oh good, whew, people are finally quoting Steve's book as fact. So you agree, do ya hence, that Patsy killed JonBenet? It's in his book... ~*~**~*~* FWIW, I don't think it's pam, too rational, I saw the accidental "--" and I think it's youknowhir... IMO Definitely not a newbie... but who cares, eh? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "henceforth" Posted by luvsflowers on 18:46:17 5/25/2001 welcome to the forum. I hope you survive the newbieness. Looks like you have a lot to say about the evidence. Im tired of all the snide comments. I can go over to my neighbors house and watch her preschoolers do that anytime I want to. \``/ a double for you to carry you thru luvs [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Ned" Posted by Ginja on 23:19:58 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. Nedd: Wow financially? Whose making the bucks here? A former poster conned posters here into thinking he/she was someone he/she wasn't. That same poster then scammed posters here into thinking he/she was in dire straights. Many posters took out their checkbooks and sent him/her money to help him/her from being evicted, losing two automobiles, not having any food on the table, among other things. Upon receipt of the "loot", the poster admitted that once the money started 'rolling in', he/she couldn't get to Blockbuster fast enough. After he/she watched a few movies, he/she went out and bought a brand new car! 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??? Indeed I do, so when are you going to 'fess up? You've stated emphatically that dna material has been lifted from three places: left hand, right hand and underwear; that from each location the material is male; and, the material from the three locations matches. No evidence to support your allegation that the three locations contain matching dna material has been offered. None. The fingernails of the left hand "could not exclude any male as the donor." If the sample was male, the statement would state such. As it is, it only states that a male can't be excluded. No where does it say a female can or cannot be excluded, so the possibility still exists that it can be either/or. The only affirmation of male dna has been identified under the fingernails of the right hand, to wit: unidentified secondary male dna is present. Nothing has been offered as regards the panty dna. 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? Everyone's entitled to his/her opinion, as well as how they interpret expert testimony to the facts. It's fine if you want to disagree with Lee. Where you go overboard is in accusing others of "twisting" facts. How we've "twisted" Lee is to interpret him correctly. When he says this is not a dna case, he means exactly that. You cannot make a case for or against molestation and/or murder using the panty dna. DNA never "finds" the killer; dna identifies the depositor. Even if they could identify the depositor, it would prove nothing. It doesn't prove the depositor murdered JonBenet nor does it prove this perp molested her. That's what's meant by this not being a dna case. With the miniscule amounts of dna in this case, it's not enough to prove or disprove anything. It's no smoking gun. As to ruling it out, I'm not sure what more can be done to rule this out. There's not enough of it to rule one way or another and even if sourced, it would still prove nothing. This issue has been discussed and numerous "innocent" explanations can be made as to its presence. Lee has stated it's more than likely these samples have been contaminated. Further evidence/proof that it's not going to make or break the case. As far as Doberson's concerned, I think a major reason as to why so many of us disagree with his "findings" is twofold: (1) He never saw the body and made his pronouncements based on photographs. He did not assist in the autopsy and could not see the "condition" of the injuries. Stun gun marks are burns, not abrasions! (2) Smit practically shoved it down his throat before he got him to "agree" that it was "possible" the marks could be from a stun gun. As regards Smit - he met with numerous people showing them these pictures and tried to convince them the marks were from a stun gun. He met with a number of forensic pathologists and every single one of them nixed his conclusion - all but Doberson. And again, as it stands, Doberson will only go so far as to say that it's "possible". He stated emphatically that the only way to prove one way or another would be to exhume the body. Nedd: I could care less if it is old contaminated, 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?????? Herein lies the problem! It DOES matter if it's old, and/or if it's contaminated, and/or if it's degraded, and/or if the sample itself is so miniscule that it could hardly have been effected while committing sexual offenses and murder! It cannot stand alone. That is, if you took away all the other evidence in this case, you'd have nothing. The major hurdle is it can't be determined how the material got under the nails or in the panties...and more importantly, when. You're also ignoring the fact that JBR was allowed to be "handled" by anyone who was in the vicinity when she needed to be wiped or cleaned or redressed. Helllooooo????? You and Hence4th need 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 You've set yourself up numerous times for those "flames". You're thickheaded and refuse to see the evidence as it is, not as you want it to appear, NED. You are basing this entire case on the material in the panties and under the nails. It has been pointed out to you numerous times that the nail material most probably was there prior to the murder and that it most definitely is not defensive. You insist she scratched her neck raw and that it was flesh under her nails. The evidence is that it is not flesh (or blood) under the nails and there is nothing in the autopsy report that says anything about scratches on her neck. The red you see are large and small petechiae. Meyer went into detail as to abrasions and locations and whatnot, describing in full exact locations and measurements and color. If she had scratched her neck in trying to get the cord off, he'd have described it so there'd be no mistaking what it was. Sans toxicology reports, this is the longest AR I've ever seen. Most are usually 2-3 pages and then another 2-3 pages of toxicology. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Ginja" Posted by JR on 23:28:48 5/25/2001 Great post. Thank you! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "I think" Posted by darby on 09:32:58 5/26/2001 the reason Henry Lee said this is not a DNA case is because the amount and condition of the foreign DNA found on JonBenet is basically a wash. As long as that DNA remeains unidentified, this particular evidence points neither to an intruder nor to the parents. My guess is that the same amount of foreign DNA that was found on JonBenet's body just might be found on another child's body who was definitely murdered by her parents. I think it's also possible that that same amount of foreign DNA could also be found on another child's body who was definitely murdered by an unknown assailant. So long as that DNA remains unidentified, investigators have to look at other evidence besides the DNA in order to decide whether or not the Ramseys killed JonBenet. Theoretically, if the prosecution has enough other evidence against the Ramseys right now, a conviction could be secured without identifying the DNA's donor. But just think what it would do for that case if it's ever determined that the DNA came from, say, a playmate of JonBenet's. I think that's why the swabbing and testing continues. Of course, if it's ever found that the DNA came from a local Boulder pedophile with no alibi, then that person would be the killer. So although the case doesn't necessarily depend on finding the source of the DNA, my guess is that if it was ever discovered that the donor of the DNA was an innocent acquaintance of JonBenet's, we'd see an arrest. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]