Justice Watch "Tipster provides possible DNA evidence in Ramsey case (guess who)" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Tipster provides possible DNA evidence in Ramsey case (guess who), Sylvia, 03:03:14, 8/17/2001 Thanks Sylvia, JR, 03:53:41, 8/17/2001, (#1) Saw on TV also, Shamrockgirl, 04:50:28, 8/17/2001, (#2) Shamrockgirl, JR, 04:56:31, 8/17/2001, (#3) Oh, starry, 05:13:34, 8/17/2001, (#4) Starry, JR, 05:24:21, 8/17/2001, (#5) What the hell is wrong, Watching you, 05:52:37, 8/17/2001, (#8) I Heard This Riding to Work , Harley, 05:41:39, 8/17/2001, (#6) Harley, JR, 05:45:51, 8/17/2001, (#7) yuck, Bobby, 06:00:42, 8/17/2001, (#11) Maybe, JR, 05:59:36, 8/17/2001, (#10) That was they, JR, Watching you, 05:56:20, 8/17/2001, (#9) WY, Bobby, 06:02:55, 8/17/2001, (#13) WY, JR, 06:00:47, 8/17/2001, (#12) Ah chit, JR, 06:43:46, 8/17/2001, (#14) I've said all I'm, Watching you, 07:11:17, 8/17/2001, (#15) Ramsey Desperation, LurkerXIV, 07:29:33, 8/17/2001, (#16) Yep, LurkerXIV, Watching you, 07:32:46, 8/17/2001, (#17) Evidence is evidence,, Cassandra, 07:40:28, 8/17/2001, (#19) Sorry, JR, 07:35:26, 8/17/2001, (#18) Follow the money, Bobby, 08:18:26, 8/17/2001, (#25) JR..., LurkerXIV, 08:01:19, 8/17/2001, (#20) Lurker, JR, 08:04:52, 8/17/2001, (#21) How many aspirins is an overdose?, JR, 08:09:16, 8/17/2001, (#23) HAH! JR...you're bad!, LurkerXIV, 08:07:01, 8/17/2001, (#22) Lurker, JR, 08:12:19, 8/17/2001, (#24) I'm sorry..., justmomof3, 09:08:23, 8/17/2001, (#27) Well, actually, FT, 09:01:28, 8/17/2001, (#26) the world has gone insane if this is true, austingirl, 09:20:24, 8/17/2001, (#30) Fox News, pybird, 09:16:59, 8/17/2001, (#29) Makes me go hmmmmmm... , Seeker, 09:14:56, 8/17/2001, (#28) I personally don't believe Beckner..., Dunvegan, 10:05:06, 8/17/2001, (#33) Dun, Seeker, 10:13:07, 8/17/2001, (#34) what's the problem?, fly, 09:47:16, 8/17/2001, (#31) Oh Fly , Seeker, 09:54:25, 8/17/2001, (#32) Seeker, fly, 10:20:25, 8/17/2001, (#36) This isn't anything new, Watching you, 10:20:00, 8/17/2001, (#35) Hirself, JR, 10:45:53, 8/17/2001, (#38) I think maybe Lou, DuBois, 10:42:36, 8/17/2001, (#37) Thoughts, JR, 10:48:46, 8/17/2001, (#39) JR, DuBois, 10:51:21, 8/17/2001, (#40) DuBois, JR, 10:54:35, 8/17/2001, (#41) Wow, Nedthan Johns, 11:23:10, 8/17/2001, (#42) JR, Nedthan Johns, 11:27:07, 8/17/2001, (#43) FT, Nedthan Johns, 11:30:00, 8/17/2001, (#44) AG, Nedthan Johns, 11:31:34, 8/17/2001, (#45) Seeker, Nedthan Johns, 11:35:25, 8/17/2001, (#46) Seeker, Nedthan Johns, 11:36:38, 8/17/2001, (#47) Seeker, Nedthan Johns, 11:41:04, 8/17/2001, (#48) Fly, Nedthan Johns, 11:54:17, 8/17/2001, (#49) I'll tell you what's wrong with this, Watching you, 12:11:57, 8/17/2001, (#51) ahh..the dna is important, janov, 12:11:51, 8/17/2001, (#50) Watching You, Nedthan Johns, 13:16:43, 8/17/2001, (#58) DNA, Thor, 12:44:43, 8/17/2001, (#52) DNA, Ned, austingirl, 12:56:21, 8/17/2001, (#54) There is not doubt, Thor, Watching you, 12:54:46, 8/17/2001, (#53) If this is just a diversionary tactic..., Dunvegan, 13:03:22, 8/17/2001, (#56) My fondest hope, austingirl, 12:58:43, 8/17/2001, (#55) Dunvegan, WY, and austingirl...., Voyager, 13:15:48, 8/17/2001, (#57) Ned, Watching you, 13:20:49, 8/17/2001, (#61) agree, Thor, 13:20:42, 8/17/2001, (#60) Janov, Nedthan Johns, 13:18:44, 8/17/2001, (#59) Thor, Nedthan Johns, 13:23:38, 8/17/2001, (#63) Just remember one thing, Watching you, 13:22:23, 8/17/2001, (#62) AG, Nedthan Johns, 13:29:27, 8/17/2001, (#64) WY, Nedthan Johns, 13:30:08, 8/17/2001, (#65) Ned, Watching you, 13:37:06, 8/17/2001, (#68) WY, Nedthan Johns, 13:31:51, 8/17/2001, (#66) Ned, Thor, 13:35:16, 8/17/2001, (#67) Watching You, Nedthan Johns, 13:47:36, 8/17/2001, (#70) Ned, Watching you, 13:40:47, 8/17/2001, (#69) watching you, janov, 14:09:33, 8/17/2001, (#73) janov, Watching you, 14:29:53, 8/17/2001, (#75) WY, janov, 14:52:00, 8/17/2001, (#78) Has this man been tried, Watching you, 15:04:32, 8/17/2001, (#80) Watching You, Nedthan Johns, 14:01:33, 8/17/2001, (#71) sooo, does this mean, Edie Pratt, 14:12:48, 8/17/2001, (#74) Jameson's , Nedthan Johns, 14:05:37, 8/17/2001, (#72) Hir is probably getting a makeover...., Jaye, 16:38:56, 8/17/2001, (#93) Naw, Jaye, Watching you, 16:40:58, 8/17/2001, (#94) heh, driver, 14:36:51, 8/17/2001, (#77) hey ned..., mame, 14:29:55, 8/17/2001, (#76) oh well, Gemini, 15:17:29, 8/17/2001, (#81) Gemini, Watching you, 15:24:14, 8/17/2001, (#82) WY, Gemini, 15:37:43, 8/17/2001, (#84) Hey Mame, Nedthan Johns, 14:54:17, 8/17/2001, (#79) Think for a moment..., LurkerXIV, 15:35:49, 8/17/2001, (#83) I'm trying to put, Watching you, 15:51:19, 8/17/2001, (#88) Storing the samples, ibnora, 15:48:46, 8/17/2001, (#87) hell..., mame, 15:46:01, 8/17/2001, (#86) L-XIV, Gemini, 15:42:25, 8/17/2001, (#85) You are still missing the point, Gemini, Watching you, 16:03:35, 8/17/2001, (#89) janov & Nedd, Seeker, 17:00:18, 8/17/2001, (#98) the DNA, mame, 16:30:47, 8/17/2001, (#91) hmmm, how to preserve dna?, Edie Pratt, 16:24:08, 8/17/2001, (#90) wrong, WY, Gemini, 16:44:22, 8/17/2001, (#95) I suppose there is, Watching you, 16:59:01, 8/17/2001, (#97) hahaha, Edie Pratt, Watching you, 16:33:34, 8/17/2001, (#92) Edie Pratt, Tricia, 17:14:26, 8/17/2001, (#102) Suspect nation, docg, 16:49:41, 8/17/2001, (#96) Unless, DocG,, Gemini, 17:08:58, 8/17/2001, (#100) docg, mame, 17:05:09, 8/17/2001, (#99) Continued on "Tipster DNA - Thread II:, Dunvegan, 17:11:29, 8/17/2001, (#101) ................................................................... "Tipster provides possible DNA evidence in Ramsey case (guess who)" Posted by Sylvia on 03:03:14 8/17/2001 BOULDER -- Police Chief Mark Beckner has asked a state lab to test possible DNA evidence, given to him by an Internet tipster, with genetic traces found in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation also will examine DNA evidence from a former suspect in an unsolved Arapahoe County murder for possible links to the Ramsey case. Beckner, confirming the testing, said so little is known about the source of the DNA that he can't say if it will produce a meaningful lead. "I don't have enough information on where it came from to even tell you whether it's worth a look," Beckner said Wednesday. "We're doing it just to cover all our bases, and if something pans out, super, great." Rest of story at: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_803375,00.html [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Thanks Sylvia" Posted by JR on 04:01:15 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 04:01:15, 8/17/2001 I hope hirself isn't implicating yet another innocent victum just to toss someone under that bus. Edited then changed my mind. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Saw on TV also" Posted by Shamrockgirl on 04:52:18 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 04:52:18, 8/17/2001 Hi everyone, love the new format.....I haven't posted since there has been no "news". I woke up a few minutes ago to Fox Cable TV saying that the evidence was "bodily fluids" from unidentified man who was living in Boulder at the time of JBR's death. It was provided by an "internet tipster". JR....sounds a lot like "you know who" dosn't it. Guess the Boulder cops are as stupid as I have thought they are (with exception Steve Thomas). I would love to know who this Boulder man is? But do we want to "know" just how this "tipster" got those bodily fluids...."Don't go there pal" as ol Patsy used to say....LOL ewwwwwwwwwww [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Shamrockgirl" Posted by JR on 04:56:31 8/17/2001 It is hirself. I just find it interesting that it is now when we started heavily discussing DNA the past day or two. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Oh" Posted by starry on 05:16:50 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 05:16:50, 8/17/2001 Brother! (read the article) edited to say "Thanks, Sylvia" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Starry" Posted by JR on 05:24:21 8/17/2001 Got your hiney on here posting didn't it? ;-) We have missed you! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "What the hell is wrong" Posted by Watching you on 05:52:37 8/17/2001 with Beckner, anyways, to even give that Code 6 wingnut the time of day. Since when does law enforcement accept "evidence" from John Q Public that does not strictly adheere to the rules about collecting evidence, especially the chain of custody of same? Someone sent jameson a sample of someone's DNA plus a hair - or so she says. She's been known to use the truth a little loosely in the past, you know. She's even been known to lie - she'll even tell you that. And, then jameson places it somewhere in Boulder for safe-keeping until Beckner assures her he will test it. What the hell is wrong with these people? Did they just get off the boat, fercrissake? Beckner knows better than this - did he leave his brains on the back porch when he went to work the day he accepted this "evidence?" What about the civil rights of the man belonging to that DNA? Since when can jameson or anyone else be taken seriously in circumstances such as this when the sample was not taken by a legitimate evidence collector under the strict rules of evidence collection? Once again jameson sticks her formidable nose into the lives of people who have done nothing wrong but breathe the same air everyone else breathes. How sick. This really pisses me off, I'm not even going to try to tone it down. Jameson has been trying to force this so called DNA sample on the BPD for months. Beckner is a fool for accepting it. They do not have reasonable cause to even test this man's DNA - it's like breaking into his home without a warrant and without reasonable cause. Beckner needs his head examined, and jameson needs to be facing charges of interferring with an ongoing criminal investigation, obstruction of justice, violating this man's constitutional civil rights, and for just being stupid. How sick this woman is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "I Heard This Riding to Work " Posted by Harley on 06:07:04 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:07:04, 8/17/2001 with my husband and he looked at me like what is going on I wonder. I said "Oh God" it is Jameson. She is a certified nut. I can't believe that the Boulder Police would take her seriously. Didn't they call her a "Code Six Wingnut". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Harley" Posted by JR on 05:45:51 8/17/2001 Was that them or us? ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "yuck" Posted by Bobby on 06:00:42 8/17/2001 Guess JR is showing us the way in which news should be reported- Tabs and wingnuts. Since no one took the planted evidence seriously at the crime scene now a mysterious source has been handed to Jams to bring forth. Of course it will match one of the people thrown under the bus because the BPD must have missed the previous clues provided by RST. I am sur the sample had a legitimate chain of custody too(sure). Thanks for the new Ramspin from the RST ;) Hi everyone [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Maybe" Posted by JR on 05:59:36 8/17/2001 I have to start agreeing with the Ramsey's and I never thought I would ever say that. If the BPD accepted and tests this DNA then maybe they the Keystone cops after all. WY is right - what about this person's legal rights and right to privacy? If this DNA is worth testing then it is worth collecting a sample on their own through the appropriate chain of custody and with the appropriate paper work. Other wise every nut out their who wants to make the news will be sending in DNA samples from God knows who, what or where. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "That was they, JR" Posted by Watching you on 05:56:20 8/17/2001 it was in ST 's book. I am so outraged out this - why give that beeeach from the swamp any encouragement? Does Beckner even have a clue how clueless this makes him look? This isn't normal investigative procedures. This is just crazy. Someone needs to go into Bouder with a giant bulldozer and doze that place down before they can multiply anymore. They scare me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "WY" Posted by Bobby on 06:02:55 8/17/2001 Maybe a big wall around it and dump wackos inside and keep them there. No exits and no multiplying. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "WY" Posted by JR on 06:09:28 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:09:28, 8/17/2001 Can't figure out if it's all that mountain air or what they be smoking there. Help me Jeezus! Edited to say my level of respect for the BPD just dropped by megatons so if Y'All here a loud boom it ain't the thunder here in Texas. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Ah chit" Posted by JR on 06:43:46 8/17/2001 The spin has already started and I quote: "the DNA stands up again worthy of comparison." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "I've said all I'm" Posted by Watching you on 07:11:17 8/17/2001 going to say on this subject - it doesn't deserve to even be acknowledged it's so freaking stupid. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Ramsey Desperation" Posted by LurkerXIV on 07:29:33 8/17/2001 John and Patsy Ramsey are never going to have their names cleared in this crime. They can have their minions send all the phony evidence they want to Beckner--they are STILL the Numero Uno suspects. The tipster, who goes by the Internet name Jameson in maintaining a Ramsey case Web site, said the sample is a "personal belonging" of a man who lived in the Boulder area at the time of the murder. It contains hair and bodily fluid traces, she said, and was mailed to her eight months ago by "someone intimate" with the man, who suspected his involvement. Sounds to me like Chris Wolf's mendacious girlfriend is still trying to wreak revenge on him. Or did this pair of skivvies surface during mame's "Great Aspen Underwear Collection"? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Yep, LurkerXIV" Posted by Watching you on 07:32:46 8/17/2001 that much has been more than hinted at at the swamp. Sorry. I said I wasn't going to comment again. Sometimes I just can't help it. Hir ego is dangerous - it needs to be shot. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Evidence is evidence," Posted by Cassandra on 07:40:28 8/17/2001 and news is news. Gotta hand it to Jameson. She got the DNA, she's getting it tested, and she's all over the news. If she helps solve the case, more power to her. Maybe everybody's been following the same wrong path, who knows? It wouldn't be the first time cops were gungho on the wrong perp. I saw a show last night about some coerced confessions from kids concerning the murder of the sister of one of the boys. It was shocking. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Sorry" Posted by JR on 07:35:26 8/17/2001 I am so angry and frustrated right now I could spit! If Y'All don't here from me again it is because I got arrested for sending Beckner a piece of my mind via email. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Follow the money" Posted by Bobby on 08:18:26 8/17/2001 Anyone that lives there in Boulderville. Or how about the jobs/power shake ups? The killer will meet their maker someday and anyone that helped cover up for this murderer will also pay. JMHO [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "JR..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 08:01:19 8/17/2001 ...I just went to look at "Son of Sketchman" on Ma's page. BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Ma, who is the clever artist? It looks suspiciously like Greenleaf has struck again! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Lurker" Posted by JR on 08:04:52 8/17/2001 Don't know the artist but wouldn't mind meeting the son - LOL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "How many aspirins is an overdose?" Posted by JR on 08:09:16 8/17/2001 Hirself is now saying hir sent in two samples and from the description I would say one is someone already "cleared" - someone that supposedly "changed drastically after the murder" - now where have we heard that before? The other supposedly "bragged about committing the perfect crime." I think I need a nap and 10-12 aspirins. Catch Y'All later - I need to be away from here for the moment. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "HAH! JR...you're bad!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 08:07:01 8/17/2001 Ma also suggests that we all send the dirty underwear of our husbands or S.O.'s to Mark Beckner. Now that would be a good way to protest Beckner's ineptitude! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Lurker" Posted by JR on 08:12:19 8/17/2001 I have no hubby or SO but I offered to let him test my DNA. Seriously. I also told him if he tests DNA handed to him by hirself he will make Mark Fuhrman look like Mr. Clean - to go gather his own samples and do it with the appropriate paper work. I am frustrated as "L." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "I'm sorry..." Posted by justmomof3 on 09:08:23 8/17/2001 I don't post very often, actually hardly ever... too much good reading going on here! BUT- I must say this Jameson is one sick broad! It's so disgusting. Plus, I think the Boulder PD are looking more and more stupid for accepting anything from her. Now wonder they're all the butt of jokes. Way to go Beckner...(heavy sarcasm) T~ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Well, actually" Posted by FT on 09:01:28 8/17/2001 If it IS Chris Wolf's DNA, I'm surprised the BPD didn't test it a long time ago. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "the world has gone insane if this is true" Posted by austingirl on 09:20:24 8/17/2001 JR emailed me and I can't believe this. Jams has no standing to collect or present evidence in a criminal case. Is she a member of the secret police? This "evidence" would never be allowed to stand in a court of law in this land. This is plain stupid and a waste of time. As we know the DNA lacks markers - it is incomplete. It can never match anyone - you can't match what isn't there. Smoke and mirrors, obsfucation, a naive public, lots of money, and voila, you get away with murder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Fox News" Posted by pybird on 09:16:59 8/17/2001 Fox News is reporting that unidentified "male" DNA was found under JBR's nails, and in her underpants. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Makes me go hmmmmmm... " Posted by Seeker on 09:14:56 8/17/2001 "I can tell you that the person has been talked about in Boulder as a suspect," she said, although she withheld that name from the police. How about this inconsitancy? The DNA that they got was so minute and (allegedly) contaminated that they could not get a complete match no matter what. They said that there just wasn't enough of the DNA to provide a complete set of markers (therefor they can never match it to one person). I believe that is why Dr Lee said this is not a DNA case. Now Jams has DNA "sent to her" from someone who was "intimate" with a possible suspect? OK bad thoughts here. Did Jams pay this person to be "intimate" with this potential "suspect", if not why would this person send Jams the DNA and not the CBI, or DA, or BPD instead? I have strong doubts about the validity of this information. I'd also like to know if this was a "possible" suspect before if their DNA was already collected. This could be a way to get the fire lit under the BPD though. I don't like jameson personally, but if her constant interference helps move this case forward then she's being pro-active at least. OTOH, this may be a way to get charges leveled against her for obstruction, interference, possible evidence tampering, possible falsification of information/evidence, etc. We'll have to wait and see what the outcome is on this. Nedd's gonna have a field day with this... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "I personally don't believe Beckner..." Posted by Dunvegan on 10:05:06 8/17/2001 ...would even accept third-source DNA allegedly originating from a person from whom either the CBI and/or the BPD has already collected and analyzed their own DNA samples. Is this perhaps Bootman's alleged DNA? Meanwhile, here is a guide for collection of evidence from the University of Arkansas: http://www.cji.net/forensic/crime_scene_contamination_issues.htm And here is a very good document (in .pdf form, you'll need a copy of the Adobe Acrobat Reader to open this) from the National Institute of Justice, called "What Every Law Enforcement Officer Should Know About DNA Evidence": http://www.cji.net/forensic/dna.pdf Get Acrobat reader here: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Dun" Posted by Seeker on 10:13:07 8/17/2001 you said, "I don't believe Beckner would even accept third-source DNA allegedly originating from a person from whom either the CBI and/or the BPD has already collected and analyzed their own DNA samples." Since the name of the "suspect" is being withheld from them, how would they know if they already have his DNA samples already or not? I don't know why they (BPD) would accept DNA from anyone through a 3rd party... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "what's the problem?" Posted by fly on 09:47:16 8/17/2001 I'm with Cassandra on this. If this might help find the killer, go for it. I'm willing to give jameson the satisfaction of being the big cheese if the killer is found. And nobody is getting thrown under the bus. No names are being given, no accusations leveled, and if the sample is not consistent with the crime scene DNA, no harm's done. If it is consistent, that is important information. Of course there's no way this would convict somebody because of chain of evidence problems. However, unless there is probable cause to justify a warrant to force giving a sample, I don't think anybody can be forced to give DNA. It is possible that the police couldn't get DNA from somebody they at least felt was worth investigating (e.g., Wolf). If this sample is consistent with the DNA from the scene, that might be enough justification to be able to get a warrant for a DNA sample through the normal channels that then could be used in court. There's a very good chance that this (and the second) DNA sample will contribute nothing. So BPD and the citizens of CO will be out a bit more money for the testing. Obviously, I wouldn't expect BPD to test all the samples you guys are talking about sending in; I'd expect BPD has to have some thought the sample is worth testing before doing so. However, I don't think the sample should be automatically cast aside simply because jameson provided it or because it might show the BPD's ideas about the murder were incorrect. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Oh Fly " Posted by Seeker on 09:54:25 8/17/2001 you know it's just a matter of time before Jams has the name and all the "particulars" posted on her board! She may have already and it's just more spin to try and prove that there was an intruder. Speculating: I wonder how much/if the Rams paid her, so she could pay the person that was "intimate" with the "suspect" to get this "evidence" so she could forward it to the BPD instead of the "contact" doing it her/hisself. Why else would someone send Jams this "DNA" instead of the authorities? So the person who was "intimate" with the "suspect" sent body fluids? Ewwwwwwwww! And just what "body fluids" was it, and how did they go about collecting it? OK I really don't wanna know... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Seeker" Posted by fly on 10:20:25 8/17/2001 Seeker - I'd hope jameson would keep the name to herself. If she doesn't, I suspect she risks a lawsuit, and I'd hope she gets nailed for it. Of course this is to promote the intruder theory -- but jameson believes an intruder did it. If I were sent something that I thought might be proof the Ramseys killed JBR, would you blast me if I tried to get BPD to test it? As much as many of us think the killer is a Ramsey, there is no ignoring the fact that there is evidence that creates significant problems proving it. If this DNA proves to be inconsistent with the crime DNA, that's one fewer possible scapegoats for a Ramsey defense to use. It it were to prove consistent, I can't believe that anybody who really wants JFJBR would complain. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "This isn't anything new" Posted by Watching you on 10:20:00 8/17/2001 jameson has been crabbing about this DNA sample for at least a year. She has gone to Boulder herself to "investigate" and interview case-related figures who would give her the time of day. Beckner wouldn't take the sample all these months, why is he taking it now? Is Team Ramsey applying pressure? Are the little heads' taunts getting to him? I can't believe anyone is giving jameson any credence at all. She is a known liar, a twister of facts, and a control freak. But, by all means, test it. Jesu - how much more stupid can this case get? This is ludicrous. I guess I'll send Beckner a sample of spit and demand he test it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Hirself" Posted by JR on 10:45:53 8/17/2001 Now says hir sent in two different samples and has posted enough information that anyone with and I.Q. of...well...let's say above 50 could figure out who at least one of those alleged samples belongs to. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "I think maybe Lou" Posted by DuBois on 10:42:36 8/17/2001 is behind this. Hir has said that because Lou doesn't work for the BPD anymore he can't just send in DNA on his own. I think these two put their little heads together and came up with some poor guys DNA. I think of it this way, hir probably threatened to go public with this information if Beckner didn't test it, or worse yet testify in court that she had a good suspect and BPD would not look at it. Believe me hir has something up hir sleve, and it ain't good. Hir may like the attention now, but I have a feeling hir wont like the attention after there is no match. Beckner can then tell the world that hir is a certified code6 wingnut. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Thoughts" Posted by JR on 10:48:46 8/17/2001 Perhaps hir is only trying to derail conversation on the forums too and we are playing right into hir hands. Seeker - send another message. I am on-line but invisible...just cause. ;-) Hir probably plans to pay when hir collects the tab's reward...sigh. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "JR" Posted by DuBois on 10:51:21 8/17/2001 Hir said that the tabs don't offer the reward any more. Is this true? Maybe hir is after the Ramsey's reward. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "DuBois" Posted by JR on 10:54:35 8/17/2001 I have no idea who is offering what rewards any more - sorry. Perhaps? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Wow" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 11:23:10 8/17/2001 JR and WY, before you go getting bent out of shape. Let me reiterate what I have been telling you people for the last year, The DNA evidence on JonBenet is IMPORTANT. The BPD would NOT be checking this man's DNA unless they thought he could possibly have committed the crime. This is a HUGE step forward in the Ramsey case. AS I SAID BEFORE FOLKS, A 6 YEAR OLD MURDER VICTIM DOES NOT HAVE MALE DNA IN HER PANTIES AND UNDER HER NAILS ACCIDENTILY. I don't care how much you all dispise Jameson. What she has done her is possibly taken a dangerous man off the streets. Good going Jameson. Jameson has refused to beleive the parents are guilty because all questions were not answered in this case. This DNA is important folks, otherwise Beckner wouldn't have it tested. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "JR" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 11:27:07 8/17/2001 ? If this DNA is worth testing then it is worth collecting a sample on their own through the appropriate chain of custody and with the appropriate paper work. Nedd: JR the first thing the cops will do is question this man. The DNA won't be tested until they question him regarding the murder. Then and only then if the police feel he could be connected to this crime, then they have a RIGHT to test his DNA, and will probably take a fresh sample from him. With the sample Jameson sent, they probably only tested it to see if it shared the same genetic markers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "FT" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 11:30:00 8/17/2001 If it IS Chris Wolf's DNA, I'm surprised the BPD didn't test it a long time ago. Nedd: I don't beleive this is Chris Wolf's DNA. If I remember correctly it belongs to a transient who frequented the church behind the alley close to the Ramsey home. Although I could be wrong. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "AG" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 11:31:34 8/17/2001 As we know the DNA lacks markers - it is incomplete. It can never match anyone - you can't match what isn't there. Smoke and mirrors, obsfucation, a naive public, lots of money, and voila, you get away with murder. Nedd: Wrong AG, it CAN match someone. There are only so many possibilities. The fact is they also have a hair with a complete strand of DNA. They also can check this man's alibi for the evening of the 25th. They CAN be a match. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Seeker" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 11:35:25 8/17/2001 How about this inconsitancy? The DNA that they got was so minute and (allegedly) contaminated that they could not get a complete match no matter what. They said that there just wasn't enough of the DNA to provide a complete set of markers (therefor they can never match it to one person). I believe that is why Dr Lee said this is not a DNA case. Nedd: No Seeker, only the internet web sleuths construed what Dr. Lee meant. As I said before, when he said this was NOT a DNA case, he meant the DNA will NOT lead us to the killer. We need a suspect to check against the DNA. Well Jameson, just gave them a suspect! DNA is DNA, contaminated, degraded or old. IT STILL DIDN'T BELONG ON A MURDERED 6 YEAR OLD I am not going to go and get all excited over this suspect, it may not be him. But I am happy that Jameson is doing what she can to help the case. Most certainly the person who sent her this man's DNA felt strongly enough about him to do so. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Seeker" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 11:36:38 8/17/2001 Nedd's gonna have a field day with this... Ned: You ain't kidding! Yee haw. What a wonderful step forward in this case. YOU GO GIRL JAMESON!!!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Seeker" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 11:41:04 8/17/2001 I don't know why they (BPD) would accept DNA from anyone through a 3rd party... Nedd: They ONLY would Seeker if this man could possibly be a suspect. It looks as if he could be. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Fly" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 11:54:17 8/17/2001 It it were to prove consistent, I can't believe that anybody who really wants JFJBR would complain. Ned: Exactly Fly, and this is what it is all about JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "I'll tell you what's wrong with this" Posted by Watching you on 12:11:57 8/17/2001 how many times have we heard about evidence being thrown out because it violated someone's civil rights or was not collected properly, say by way of a warrant. Say this sample matched all the markers available in the alleged foreign DNA strand found on JBR's person. What do you think a judge would do with this? What about a defense attorney? Sorry, my client's civil rights were violated. There was no viable proof this sample came from my client, the sample was not legally collected by evidence collectors, there is no legal chain of custody. Who is this jameson person? Why did the person who allegedly collected this DNA sample send the sample to a housewife who runs a forum on the internet instead of taking it to law enforcement? Why should anyone trust either of these two people. Do you not think an attorney would take jameson apart on a witness stand? You don't? Ha! Truthfully, I live for that day, because she is so sure she can explain all her lies. The fact is, even if this sample of DNA were to come close to the DNA they have from the crime scene, I question if they could lawfully detain the person that sample allegedly came from without violating his civil rights. This is the problem - I mean, who cares if they test a dozen samples from a dozen different people, all sent in by Joe Public? I don't care, I'm not afraid of what they will find. What I do care about is the legal implications of this. It would most likely be disallowed in court, and everything stemming from that test result also thrown out because legal procedures were violated. FWIW, jameson herself says this sample was given to BPD months ago to be tested, and since she has not heard anything from them, she figures the results of the DNA test was negative. So, why all the hoopla? I could have told them that before they even tested it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "ahh..the dna is important" Posted by janov on 12:11:51 8/17/2001 I guess it could be a "dna case" afterall! Without matching dna it will never be,as a "dna" case needs two matching samples,one from the victim and one from the "donor". Not having a "donor" match was somehow interpreted as the foreign dna found on the victim not being important. Dna will solve this case one day,maybe not today with this sample,but one day. Until a match is found it won't be a "dna case". Today we have learned that the male dna found on Jonbenet is going to be an important clue in finding the killer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Watching You" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:16:43 8/17/2001 how many times have we heard about evidence being thrown out because it violated someone's civil rights or was not collected properly, say by way of a warrant. Say this sample matched all the markers available in the alleged foreign DNA strand found on JBR's person. What do you think a judge would do with this? Ned: WY, a judge wouldn't do anything with it, because by the time it got to a court room, this suspect would have been checked throughly by the police and his DNA collected properly and checked. WY, don't get bent out of shape here. All Jameson has done is to provide police with a "possible" suspect. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. She didn't collect this man's DNA, it was sent to her. I HIGHLY doubt Beckner would even consider testing it, if Jameson didn't provide him with more background on this person. This just goes to show HOW IMPORTANT this DNA is to this case folks. What about a defense attorney? Sorry, my client's civil rights were violated. There was no viable proof this sample came from my client, the sample was not legally collected by evidence collectors, there is no legal chain of custody. Who is this jameson person? Why did the person who allegedly collected this DNA sample send the sample to a housewife who runs a forum on the internet instead of taking it to law enforcement? Why should anyone trust either of these two people. Ned: As I stated above, this DNA is just being tested as a possible match. Beckner will then order a backgroun check and bring this person in for possible questioning. This could be a huge break, and then again it could be nothing. No one is violating this man civil rights WY. He hasn't been named and probably doesn't even know his DNA is being checked. I actually wished that this story did not break until they know for certain. This person could bolt now if he suspected. His lover must of have felt stongly to go to the trouble of collecting his bodily fluids. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "DNA" Posted by Thor on 12:44:43 8/17/2001 When I first heard about this DNA hir was hoarding I asked a couple of the asst. ags I work for about it. This ain't gonna fly. Chain of command is important here. Anyone can pick up a glass someone drank out of & say they got it from so & so, and tell the cops that they think this is the killa. Nope, it has to go through channels. What those channels are, I don't know, but I agree with WY on this. This just isn't how its done. I'm not at work today, so may have to let them know what has happened & get feedback next week. I'll let everyone know what I find out. In the meantime, they are all high-fiving hirself over there right now. I don't care who killed JB, just wish whoever it is would be brought to justice & we find out what happened but I don't think this is gonna make any difference here. Hir probably wants to hook up with Smit & become Hart to Hart type celebrities. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "DNA, Ned" Posted by austingirl on 13:00:11 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:00:11, 8/17/2001 You are wrong, Ned. You are spreading RST misinformation. Incomplete DNA missing markers can never match anyone. Even if the known markers match, they can never be named as a true match. I'll try once again. The evidence from JonBenet's panties is: a - - - b - - - a - - - b The suspect is: a a b b b b b b a a a a b Ned is: a b b b b b b b a a a a b My God, you and the suspect are matches, Ned! You are doing a serious disservice to justice for JonBenet if you keep this up. Also, Ned, hair does not contain DNA, only the hair follicle does. Hair does contain mitochondrial DNA, which cannot be used to identify anyone since it only contains maternal DNA. Once again, everyone, this is not a DNA case, because, there is no usuable DNA evidence. edited for spelling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "There is not doubt, Thor" Posted by Watching you on 12:54:46 8/17/2001 that the "evidence" jameson turned over to the BPD will never fly in court. Their fondest wish is that testing this sample will show a match to the available DNA from the crime scene. Then, jameson would turn over the name of the man this sample allegedly came from and the police could bring this man in for questioning and obtain a DNA sample. That way, it would all be on the up and up. But, I don't think that's correct. Back to those civil rights again. They cannot force this man to give up his DNA without violating his civil rights no more than they could force the Ramseys to take a polygraph. They have no evidence this man was involved in the murder. It would be harassment pure and simple. The sample was collected without this man's knowledge and consent, violating his civil rights. Therefore, any and all evidence or dealings stemming from that sample would have to be deemed inadmissable, I think. We need Ginja to sort this out for us, or maybe New York Lawyer could sift through this, but this just doesn't seem right to me. I think a defense lawyer would object vehemently to this and the court would disallow it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "If this is just a diversionary tactic..." Posted by Dunvegan on 13:03:22 8/17/2001 ...if, and only if it is proven to be so, I sincerely hope that during depositions or trial that Petrocelli and/or Hoffman come down on this like... At best, this manner of evidence collection and chain of evidence is highly unusual to the process. I agree...I'd like NYL's take on this development. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "My fondest hope" Posted by austingirl on 12:58:43 8/17/2001 My fondest hope is that the police will use jamsy's "evidunce" to nail her on charges on obstructing justice and interfering in a police investigation. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Dunvegan, WY, and austingirl...." Posted by Voyager on 13:15:48 8/17/2001 Amen, Amen, and Amen.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Ned" Posted by Watching you on 13:20:49 8/17/2001 In the first place, I am far from being bent out of shape. In the second place, you are missing the big picture. I guess you didn't read my second post. Nevermind. You are not even on the same page. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "agree" Posted by Thor on 13:20:42 8/17/2001 WY, if the Rams didn't have to take polygraphs, as murder suspects, how the hell could this fly? Civil rights IS involved here!!! Exactly! This would make no sense, otherwise. This poor sap could have been someone who pissed hir off and hir is taking revenge on him. I would like to hear a little more on this from either Ginga or NYL myself. Dun, another great laugh!!! Love it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Janov" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:18:44 8/17/2001 I guess it could be a "dna case" afterall! Without matching dna it will never be,as a "dna" case needs two matching samples,one from the victim and one from the "donor". Not having a "donor" match was somehow interpreted as the foreign dna found on the victim not being important. Dna will solve this case one day,maybe not today with this sample,but one day. Until a match is found it won't be a "dna case". Today we have learned that the male dna found on Jonbenet is going to be an important clue in finding the killer. Ned: That's the whole point Janov. There hasn't been anything in this case for years now. It just goes to show HOW important that DNA is [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Thor" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:23:38 8/17/2001 it has to go through channels. What those channels are, I don't know, but I agree with WY on this. This just isn't how its done. I'm not at work today, so may have to let them know what has happened & get feedback next week. I'll let everyone know what I find out. Ned: I posted the channels. First this sample will be tested for a possible match of genetic markers. Next a background check will be conducted on this suspect, before he is even called in. Then they will offically call him in for questioning. YES, they have the right to, NO the mans civil rights are NOT being violated. A police officer has the right to chase down ANY person he feels may match a discription in a crime. It's done every day folks. The DNA sample, obtained from his lover was proabably from her after they made love. So there was NO violation of this mans rights. I think this could be a very important suspect, because certainly this woman must think so to send in his DNA. But who knows there are alot of wackos out there too. I am not saying this is the man. I am saying like I always have been. THE DNA IS THE MOST SINGULAR IMPORTANT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE TODAY. Without it the parents would be in prison. With it, it tells us someone else had contact with that child. Could JBR be the one who caught him, by scratching him? Time will tell. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Just remember one thing" Posted by Watching you on 13:22:23 8/17/2001 the owner of that DNA is not necessarily the killer of JB Ramsey. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "AG" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:29:27 8/17/2001 My fondest hope is that the police will use jamsy's "evidunce" to nail her on charges on obstructing justice and interfering in a police investigation. Nedd: AG, I am sorry to hear you feel this way about Jameson, but she is in NO way obstructing justice. If anything Jameson is going after people with a shady past anyway and may be taking a dangerous criminal off the streets. There should be more people like her. Have an open mind AG. I would have loved the opportunity to have meet you all at the Texas Do so I could have gone over DNA with you in person. But AG, with all due respect your information on DNA is simply wrong. and with the regards to this case, it is most important. The BPD is well aware of Jameson, they have someone assisgned FULL-TIME to read the forums, if you don't believe me, call them. They would NEVER take something from Jameson with seriousness unless they checked it out closely. This seems like a very reasonable lead. Jameson should be commended, not hounded upon. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "WY" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:30:08 8/17/2001 In the first place, I am far from being bent out of shape. In the second place, you are missing the big picture. I guess you didn't read my second post. Nevermind. You are not even on the same page. Ned: Did i miss it? What # [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Ned" Posted by Watching you on 13:37:06 8/17/2001 the way something is collected has everything to do with how the courts look at it. The sample as it stands, i.e., collected by some woman and sent to jameson, will never see the inside of a courtroom as evidence. What I am saying is that any subsequent evidence collected based on that which jameson sent to the BPD MAY be disallowed in court because the correct police procedures were not followed. It's like the police bursting into your home without a signed warrant. You can be growing 200 marijuana plants in your living room, but because the police had no right to enter your home without the proper signed warrant, the court will not allow that evidence to be used against that subject in court. I most certainly believe this man's civil rights have been violated. I may be wrong. If I am, I'll gladly say so. You can praise jameson until the cows come home, that doesn't change the fact that she is a known fabricator of facts and a plain liar. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "WY" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:34:27 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:34:27, 8/17/2001 the owner of that DNA is not necessarily the killer of JB Ramsey Nedd: You are absoultely right. But the owner of the DNA in JB's panties should be found. This may or may not be the man. Most certainly whoever this woman is who collected it seems to think so almost 5 years later. With that being said, it's worth a look. I am glad the BPD are taking this seriously. Edited to add: The man whose DNA is in JB's panties may not have killed her, but he most certainly had contact with her wihtin a few days if not the same night she was murdered [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Ned" Posted by Thor on 13:35:16 8/17/2001 Did not see that, will check this out as far as the chain goes. Thanks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Watching You" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 13:47:36 8/17/2001 the way something is collected has everything to do with how the courts look at it. The sample as it stands, i.e., collected by some woman and sent to jameson, will never see the inside of a courtroom as evidence. Ned: WY, you certainly don't think for one minute if this sample may be a possible match the BPD won't conduct their own sample? Is that what you are saying???? What I am saying is that any subsequent evidence collected based on that which jameson sent to the BPD MAY be disallowed in court because the correct police procedures were not followed. It's like the police bursting into your home without a signed warrant. You can be growing 200 marijuana plants in your living room, but because the police had no right to enter your home without the proper signed warrant, the court will not allow that evidence to be used against that subject in court. I most certainly believe this man's civil rights have been violated. I may be wrong. If I am, I'll gladly say so. You can praise jameson until the cows come home, that doesn't change the fact that she is a known fabricator of facts and a plain liar. Ned: You are wrong WY. The woman who sent it to her probably collected the evidence from herself. Nothing was done to violate this man's rights. He most likely has NO idea his DNA is even being tested. If he shows a possible match, then a background investigation will be conducted. Again, he probably won't even know about it. Then and only then, IF he proves to be an even more likely suspect, he will be called in for questioning and most likely then asked for a DNA sample. He then can always deny at this time. So that's why it's really not a good thing this story is out. You don't want to scare the suspect off. Jameson's DNA sample is only helping in convincing the BPD that this man may be a match, that's ALL. The rest is now up to the BPD. I imgine if he does show genetic markers that match, and his background provides leads that he may be involved in this crime, then the BPD will take the proper steps hopefully to ensure this investigation is conducted properly. I can only imagine at this point in the game, that other experts and key players will ensure that it does go smoothly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Ned" Posted by Watching you on 13:40:47 8/17/2001 have you never heard the old adage about a woman scorned and hell's fury? No one here knows the motives of the woman who sent that sample to jameson, but if it is who I think it is, there is reason to question her motives. There is nothing much worse than a woman out to get even with a man. Not me. I don't do that stuff, but I've seen plenty of it, and it isn't pretty. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "watching you" Posted by janov on 14:09:33 8/17/2001 Civil rights are privileges and they can be revoked!!! I don't know if this dna will be a match,but it has brought to the forefront the importance of finding a match in this case. The forums ,I thought,were originally designed to seek JFJBR,not concern themselves with the civil rights of a murderer. If this dna doesn't match,the chapter on Jameson's sample is concluded. Why so many have assigned to her the negative labels is and has always been out of my realm of understanding. Perhaps if you knew her you would realize she is not the malefactor the "sorority" girls have described. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "janov" Posted by Watching you on 14:29:53 8/17/2001 I don't understand your post. You are dead wrong when you say civil rights are privileges and they can be revoked. They cannot be revoked according to the Constitution of the United States. They are NOT privileges, they are rights. What do you mean, the civil rights of a murderer? Have the Ramseys not claimed all their civil rights in this case? Should their rights have been trampled on because some think they were involved in the murder of their daughter? And, just who pronounced this man a murderer? Yes, janov, even murderers have civil rights and by law those rights cannot be violated. As far as jameson is concerned, if you believe jameson is a saint, that's your privilege. I don't intend to explain to you or anyone else what should be blatantly obvious. She is a proven liar and a control freak. That's the truth. I didn't invent it, it's fact. I have no idea to whom you refer as being the sorority girls. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "WY" Posted by janov on 14:52:00 8/17/2001 >I don't understand your post. You >are dead wrong when you say >civil rights are privileges and they >can be revoked. They cannot >be revoked according to the Constitution >of the United States. They >are NOT privileges, they are rights. > Civil rights are a privilege for law abiding citizens,not for murderers. We are talking murder here,not jaywalking. If this person has a felonious history ,yes,the law would side with the rights of the victim. "Dead wrong"? can felons vote in your state? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Has this man been tried" Posted by Watching you on 15:04:32 8/17/2001 and convicted, then, janov? I must not not have heard about that. Right now he is as law abiding as you are, make that as I am. I have no idea if you are law abiding. Victims have few rights, actually. Please do not try to twist my words. This man has all the civil rights afforded to every other citizen in this country. He has not been convicted of murder. Your felon comment has no application here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "Watching You" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:01:33 8/17/2001 I agree with that too. It certainly well could be. But let me ask this WY, why bother after almost 5 years, and what chances does this woman have that he is a match? See what I mean. This man won't even be questioned about this crime, unless he is a possible match. That's a huge risk to take, just for a little vengence, wouldn't ya say? But there are always kooks in the world, so who knows. The importance of this story is HOW IMPORTNAT THE DNA IS. I am not shouting here, just capitalizing it for the effect of it's importance. Perhaps the DNA is not connected to the case at all. But UNTIL they match it there will be NO conviction in this case, mark these words. You cannot send two parents to prison for the rest of their lives, even IF you have direct evdience they did the crime, when there is unidentifable male DNA at the crime scene. Just can't. The DNA is important. Now it is the SINGLE most important evidence related to this crime! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "sooo, does this mean" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:12:48 8/17/2001 Beckner has had all the Ramsey friends dna tested? Father Rol, JFernie, BFernie, Beuf and his niece Penny, F&PW, all their guests from the 23rd party, etc.? No doubt he's already examined Chris Wolf's and Santa Bill, right? Last I heard, he didn't bother with most of the samples, so why would he suddenly hup to when whats-hir-face sends him a special delivery? I thought she was considered a wingnut, ala ST? Since when is she the final word on biological stains? Wonder if the dna is something hir husband left behind? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Jameson's " Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:05:37 8/17/2001 forum is down, does anyone know why? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "Hir is probably getting a makeover...." Posted by Jaye on 16:38:56 8/17/2001 just in case the big news shows want to interview her! LOLOLOLOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "Naw, Jaye" Posted by Watching you on 16:40:58 8/17/2001 they'll just two-bag hir. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "heh" Posted by driver on 14:36:51 8/17/2001 The friction from her typing so furiously and her little head mind being in overdrive probably caused an internal combustion. ps Can anyone spell "set up"??? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "hey ned..." Posted by mame on 14:29:55 8/17/2001 you and i were right about the DNA being male and non ramsey! and they thought we made it up?!?! here's another prediction...the hair on the blanket that underwent mitochondrial DNA testing will be the case breaker. it's also the same DNA that halted the grand jury via henry lee from indicting...i heard recently the CBI had just installed a mitochondrial testing lab at the time...and henry lee shortly thereafter took a trip to merry old england and visited his pals at the forensic science service. goodness gracious...don't let anyone fool ya...this is a DNA case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "oh well" Posted by Gemini on 15:17:29 8/17/2001 Fly sez ... It it were to prove consistent, I can't believe that anybody who really wants JFJBR would complain. Who could disagree with that? Every now and then, some consideration comes along that really cuts across the lines of wanting JUSTICE and wanting to be right. That's sad. WY, it seems most likely this "sample" might not be acceptable for court, BUT, if it should check out, it could give the BPD something to work with in investigating the person and obtaining a court order to take another DNA sample. Chances are, it will all come to nothing, but why object to ANY means of trying to identify and arrest a killer? Austingirl, I get the impression you're relying heavily on ... let us say ... information you were given last weekend. That particular source was just positive about a lot of info in the past (given him by a "contact") and, as yet, none of it has come to pass. I love your source but think he has gotten burned by his contact 'way too many times to give that take on the DNA much credibility. IOW, I think they believe they know more than they do. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "Gemini" Posted by Watching you on 15:24:14 8/17/2001 who said I wouldn't want anything checked out? You are assuming that - I never said that. I don't really know about this, I am wondering if any investigation that came about as a result of this sample, which was taken without the knowledge of this man and by nefarious means, apparently, might be in jeopardy. If this woman really had no right to invade his privacy in the first place, it would be like so many other cases that have gone down the tubes because proper procedure was not followed - and if anyone thinks what has happened here is proper procedure... Anyways, this sample went in months ago. I suspect Beckner knows the answer by now. jameson herself says no news probably means it wasn't a match. Imagine that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "WY" Posted by Gemini on 15:37:43 8/17/2001 It may have "gone in" months ago (I don't know), but it appears it is only now being tested. Otherwise, I have no doubt Beckner would have announced nothing was found. Personally, I'm not sure making all this public prior to having the results was a good idea. WY, the first paragraph of my post was not addressed to you, or to anyone in particular. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Hey Mame" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:55:23 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:55:23, 8/17/2001 Good to hear from ya! Yes this is certainly great news for the case. And Edie, don't be fooled, good to see you too by the way, you always make me laugh! They tested hundreds of folks, those at the Whites party and relatives of the Ramsey's. This little DNA has been kept quite, until now. I told you the BPD were covering their arses for the incompetent job they conducted didn't I? Looks like they can't ignore the facts no more! I am not going to be doing back flips, only sitting patiently by, this may not be the match we are looking for, but it certainly is going to help the case. Now that the public knows about it, I doubt they will back down and will demand to know the results of the testing! Well done Jameson. And NO WY she is no saint. Just a good person looking for justice of a brutally murdered 6 year old child [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Think for a moment..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 15:35:49 8/17/2001 ...of the chain of custody of this so-called evidence. It was sent by mail ( I assume the US Postal Service) weeks or months ago to jameson. In this transit alone there was sufficient time and exposure to the heat or the cold to degrade the contents. How careful was the person packaging the samples not to contaminate them? Did she use latex gloves? Did jameson do the same when she received the package? Where and under what conditions were the samples stored in the interim....the time between their arrival at jameson's and her subsequent submission of them to Beckner? Ah, the prosecution (in a State of CO vs. Ramsey case) would have a ball with this. Any defense lawyer who tried to use this "evidence" as a "reasonable doubt" effort would be laughed out of the courtroom. And imagine the fun when the Ramsey lawyers introduce jameson as an "expert witness"! "Mrs. jameson, would you please outline your scientific qualifications in the field of DNA for the jury?" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "I'm trying to put" Posted by Watching you on 15:51:19 8/17/2001 my finger on exactly what is bothering me about this - I think you've got it, LurkerXIV, or at least part of it. If there were to be a close match from this sample (because there cannot be a complete match according to what has been stated about the foreign DNA), and then jameson tells Beckner who this sample belongs to, this is where it gets hairy. Aside from the problems Lurker just talked about, there is no proof at this point that that DNA sample came from the person jameson says it came from. It's that chain of custody thing, yes, but more than that, who is jameson, why would Beckner or anyone else just take jameson's word it belonged to this specific person. Well, there's no proof at this point who that sample belongs to, regardless of what jameson says. So, how can the BPD proceed to investigate a man based on the word of jameson that he is the owner of that DNA? This is the fuzzy part. If they had anything else against this guy to connect him with this murder, he would already have been investigated, or so it seems. And, if he hasn't been, then they don't have anything else, right? Now, based on hearsay from jameson that this sample belongs to so and so, they are going to go harass this guy, demand his DNA? This makes no sense. This is harassment. Let me ask you something, y'all. Say this murder happened in your town and you were not involved. How would you feel if your girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/significant other sent somebody you never heard of in another state a sample of your hair and your body fluids. Say then that wing nut sent them to BPD and demanded they be tested in connection with a murder case. Meanwhile, you are going about your merry way thinking life is just grand and people are scheming behind your back. Would you not feel raped? Maybe think your privacy had been invaded a little, maybe feel set up a little? This is what happens when well-meaning (or otherwise) civilians stick their noses into investigations best left to the professionals. Dick jameson Tracy - she has no training in investigations, yet she continually inserts herself into this investigation and cares not the consequences of her actions or how they might hurt innocent people. The end just not justify the means here. This won't stand up in court - and this guy could very well turn around and go after the two women who schemed behind his back to put him under that Ramsey bus. I don't care how you cut it, it's sleazy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Storing the samples" Posted by ibnora on 15:48:46 8/17/2001 Jammy told us in chat one night many months ago that she/he had personally called and spoken with Dr Henry Lee regarding the proper storage of the samples. At that time, Jammy had collected samples of four different people. I think Alan Dershowitz, for example, could make mincemeat of anyone having anything to do with those samples and anything that comes from them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "hell..." Posted by mame on 15:49:12 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:49:12, 8/17/2001 i'm not counting on a match...i quit wishing and hoping in the ramsey case a long time ago...it's just damn nice to know the BPD is still breathing (and testing DNA in the ramsey case) if nothing else it gives them practice! if on the slight chance it's a match it would never be used in court...but, the investigation into the possible suspect would..and a fresh DNA sample would be right there with him. not too difficult to figure out. i'm told this is NOT the guy from the church or any other recent suspect. the love letter was sent directly to jameson. an network producer friend of mine called today as she's been put on the story. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "L-XIV" Posted by Gemini on 15:42:25 8/17/2001 I can't imagine the investigators would rely on this as sure-fire evidence. The best they could do with it is use it for leverage to get other DNA samples. Have to repeat, I'm very surprised Beckner released this to the media. My first thought is that Lin Wood had a hand in that, but I'd have expected Beckner to just say, "no comment". Thanks for the reminder about the new testing, mame. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "You are still missing the point, Gemini" Posted by Watching you on 16:03:35 8/17/2001 they may NOT be able legally to obtain new DNA samples from a man based on jameson's word that it belongs to a specific man. Wouldn't it just be so nice if the legal system worked that way, but based solely on jameson's word that this DNA belongs to this man, without other probable cause to bring this man in and demand his DNA, it's not going to fly. The BPD wasn't even allowed to get phone records and credit card records belonging to the Ramseys, people who were known to be inside that house that night. Should this man be treated with less respect than they? Should his civil rights be trampled all over just because he isn't a Ramsey? My personal opinion is this DNA is not going to match and it is another Ramsey red herring. Only time is going to tell, but remember WY said that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "janov & Nedd" Posted by Seeker on 17:00:18 8/17/2001 If I might clarify something here. Voting is not a right, it's a priviledge. The same as having a driver's license. You have to sign up/register/apply for both. Neither is a "given" as civil rights are. S: I don't know why they (BPD) would accept DNA from anyone through a 3rd party... Nedd: They ONLY would Seeker if this man could possibly be a suspect. It looks as if he could be. I'm sure you misspoke there Nedd. They would never, could never accept a BLIND sample as possible proof. They would need the suspects name and fresh, uncontaminated DNA samples to verify. There were not enough markers to prove beyond a doubt who this mysterious DNA belongs to, just possible suspects. Dr. Lee said, "This is not a DNA case." Period. Nedd: No Seeker, only the internet web sleuths construed what Dr. Lee meant. As I said before, when he said this was NOT a DNA case, he meant the DNA will NOT lead us to the killer. We need a suspect to check against the DNA You construed what he said yourself right there in your statement. I guess it depends on your POV concerning what he said. He said "This is not a DNA case", if he elaborated about what he meant I sure didn't see it. He's in Las Vegas at a conference today if you want to call Bally's and get him to tell you what he meant. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "the DNA" Posted by mame on 16:30:47 8/17/2001 i do think the question of "rights" is a good question regarding the collection of DNA. i called a couple sources who told me as long as the evidence comes from a private individual there are no laws broken. many times in investigations when a suspect is unwilling to give their DNA the cops go to other family members to collect a sample. i'm told there a no laws broken here. certainly if there is a match...an investigation into the person in relation to this case would take place and a new sample would be taken. one source i have thinks this is grandstanding by the BPD. the person feels that because jameson is known as a ramsey supporter the BPD is willing to test to show they are in fact testing new suspects. this would be an important point in upcoming court cases. others feel that given jameson's reputation with the cops and the DA, there must be something powerful for them to even test it. another different but excellent point. i do give jameson credit for getting involved. regardless of how some feel about the messenger...if this info can rule in or out a possible suspect...so be it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "hmmm, how to preserve dna?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:24:08 8/17/2001 I guess it's safe to assume Jameson had a freezer full of jockies...right next to the horsemeat. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "wrong, WY" Posted by Gemini on 16:44:22 8/17/2001 Not missing the point at all. Anything that points the BPD in the direction of someone who should be investigated in connection with this crime should be considered. Don't even suppose the people in charge of the investigation are not aware of the possible entanglements. If this gives them something to work with, they'll know how to proceed. There are plenty of experts connected with the case who will be happy to advise them. My main concern is getting at the truth for the sake of justice for this little girl. This will, very possibly, not amount to anything. The main reasons I find it somewhat interesting are: 1) Beckner took the time and trouble to give a statement to the media. and 2) it pretty well verifies that there is more, and more complete, DNA for testing than the rumors have had us believe. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "I suppose there is" Posted by Watching you on 16:59:01 8/17/2001 something to be said about the fact that if it were anyone but jameson I might put a little faith in it, and apparently the BPD felt the same way for many months when Beckner refused to even consider taking this evidence from jameson. She has no credibility with me and for damn good reason. She is a known liar. How do you trust someone like that? I don't. I would like to know the reason Beckner caved under jameson's demands when he refused to do so previously. Maybe he's doing it to shut that code 6 wingnut up and prove once and for all she's nuts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "hahaha, Edie Pratt" Posted by Watching you on 16:33:34 8/17/2001 I just choked on my protein bar, you devil. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 102. "Edie Pratt" Posted by Tricia on 17:14:26 8/17/2001 I have missed you:) Ok I am on vacation. Sitting here with my trusty lap top. I am at a loss for words. WHATTHEHELL?????????????????? *Why did Beckner take a DNA sample provided by a concerned citizen? (yes I am being nice here) *Why did Beckner COMMENT on it? That's like admitting "Yes I am an idiot and I don't know what else to do". If Beckner is wacko enough to take a DNA sample from hir then he is mentally unstable to admit in the press he did it and is having it tested no less. *If I sent Beckner my husband's underwear will he spend the 5 grand to have it tested too? Just because I said so? Let me put this in perspective: While investigating O.J. would the L.A.P.D. accept DNA from somebody who brought them a baggie containing who knows what? OF COURSE NOT! Didn't the leading DNA experts say "This is not a DNA case? Is Beckner believing Jameson now instead of Henry Lee? I am just numb with shock at the stupidity of Beckner. Oh God I have FOX on and they just promoted a "new clue" in the JBR case. Mark Beckner should be mortified. Mark Beckner should be fired. Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "Suspect nation" Posted by docg on 16:49:41 8/17/2001 There is no end of "good" suspects in this maddening case. We have them coming out of our ears. There are all sorts of "very good" reasons to be suspicious of any number of people, it's really an endless list. The trouble is, there's really no hard and fast way of determining for sure whether *any* of these people was actually in the house the night of the murder. It's not just that the DNA is mixed and incomplete. It's also very likely to have a totally innocent source. So what can be gained by testing the DNA of any particular suspect? If that person can't be ruled out as the source, so what? There can never be a definitive match. There are probably thousands of people living in the Boulder area whose DNA would fall into the same category. On the other hand, if the person IS ruled out as the source, that does not by any means get him off the hook. Since the DNA may well not be from the attacker anyhow. So where does that leave us? At the end of the day, all we have is another suspect looked at, who may or may not have done the crime, but who can't be indicted because there can be no real DNA match. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "Unless, DocG," Posted by Gemini on 17:08:58 8/17/2001 Mame's source is correct (see post 76) and the key is mitochondrial DNA they have obtained from the hair - or unless there is more complete DNA from the other two sources than the public has been led to believe. I have long suspected there must be more to the DNA than the popular opinions on the forums suggest ... otherwise the FBI would have not directed the BPD to gather samples for testing in the first place. Sure, it could be innocent, but I think it's quite likely a mistake to bank too much on the spin this DNA evidence has been given via leaks and media pundits. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "docg" Posted by mame on 17:06:19 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:06:19, 8/17/2001 each and every piece of DNA evidence found is viable...some may have fewer strands and markers...but if the DNA was not strong there would be no reason to swab or test anyone. i haven't found one forensic source or investigator who says the panty or fingernail DNA could be there innocently. the fingernail DNA is flesh and considered "defensive". there is male DNA in the panties. the mitochondrial DNA sample and testing done on the blanket hair is the most powerful. keep an eye on that one... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "Continued on "Tipster DNA - Thread II:" Posted by Dunvegan on 17:11:29 8/17/2001 Please take further discussion on this thread to the "Tipster DNA - Thread II" thread. Thank you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE