Justice Watch "Tipster Thread III" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Tipster Thread III, v_p, 12:18:39, 8/18/2001 From the U.S. Constitution:, LurkerXIV, 12:32:55, 8/18/2001, (#1) Yeah,, v_p, 12:38:43, 8/18/2001, (#2) This is probably a really stupid question, Mini, 12:41:47, 8/18/2001, (#3) not a stupid question, austingirl, 13:17:27, 8/18/2001, (#4) Right Austingirl!, Ginja, 14:42:03, 8/18/2001, (#5) As regards the matter of "flesh", Ginja, 14:45:48, 8/18/2001, (#6) Thank you, austingirl and Ginja, Mini, 16:35:27, 8/18/2001, (#7) Moved from Tipster III... the mistake, v_p, 17:17:26, 8/18/2001, (#9) Mini, Ginja, 17:17:07, 8/18/2001, (#8) Ginja, v_p, 17:26:56, 8/18/2001, (#11) Ginja, Mini, 17:26:00, 8/18/2001, (#10) Mini, Ginja, 17:45:38, 8/18/2001, (#13) For Janov, v_p, 17:43:07, 8/18/2001, (#12) V--P, janov, 13:07:15, 8/19/2001, (#55) (c) Janov, JR, 13:20:41, 8/19/2001, (#58) Gem, Ginja, 18:13:56, 8/18/2001, (#14) If it is DNA evidence, saryan, 07:34:28, 8/20/2001, (#82) Thanks, Ginja, Mini, 19:29:34, 8/18/2001, (#15) luminol, Seeker, 19:46:46, 8/18/2001, (#16) hmmmmmm, mame, 19:59:16, 8/18/2001, (#17) hmmmmmmmm, v_p, 20:02:53, 8/18/2001, (#18) mame's source?, LurkerXIV, 20:23:09, 8/18/2001, (#19) Oh, lord, FT, 20:38:07, 8/18/2001, (#20) fingernails & larry schiller, mame, 20:52:45, 8/18/2001, (#21) Huh?, FT, 21:07:25, 8/18/2001, (#23) v_p, austingirl, 20:58:33, 8/18/2001, (#22) Seeker, Pennant, 21:20:51, 8/18/2001, (#24) The very first time I read, v_p, 22:37:24, 8/18/2001, (#26) Pennet, JR, 22:35:04, 8/18/2001, (#25) DNA schmeeNA, pinker, 04:04:40, 8/19/2001, (#27) I thought Luminol, Watching you, 06:30:28, 8/19/2001, (#28) v_p, mame, 07:44:39, 8/19/2001, (#29) "fought for her life"???, rico, 09:24:09, 8/19/2001, (#30) Pennant, WY, JR, Seeker, 09:40:45, 8/19/2001, (#31) Today's science lesson, Watching you, 09:52:10, 8/19/2001, (#32) JR, Pennant, 10:15:45, 8/19/2001, (#33) Rico, Thor, 11:13:25, 8/19/2001, (#34) so..., mame, 11:19:06, 8/19/2001, (#35) Someone in law enforcement..., LurkerXIV, 11:34:08, 8/19/2001, (#38) Lou, Watching you, 11:36:51, 8/19/2001, (#39) (c) WY, JR, 12:05:41, 8/19/2001, (#45) Yeah, JR, Thor, 12:58:23, 8/19/2001, (#54) JR, Watching you, 12:11:29, 8/19/2001, (#47) Not unless her hands were , Seeker, 11:26:42, 8/19/2001, (#36) you've been sold..., mame, 11:32:09, 8/19/2001, (#37) (c) Mame, JR, 11:56:15, 8/19/2001, (#44) What?, Watching you, 11:48:04, 8/19/2001, (#41) WY, Seeker, 12:10:30, 8/19/2001, (#46) Wrong mame, Seeker, 11:43:16, 8/19/2001, (#40) Remember Doc Lee, saryan, 07:38:03, 8/20/2001, (#83) All I wanna say is,, gaiabetsy, 11:50:19, 8/19/2001, (#43) DNA typing, Sylvia, 11:48:33, 8/19/2001, (#42) Wow, Watching you, 12:17:49, 8/19/2001, (#49) unreal, RiverRat, 12:11:40, 8/19/2001, (#48) (c) RR, JR, 12:27:23, 8/19/2001, (#50) That, RiverRat, 12:38:32, 8/19/2001, (#51) (c)RR, JR, 12:41:59, 8/19/2001, (#52) Just glad, RiverRat, 12:44:40, 8/19/2001, (#53) JR, Thor, 13:20:25, 8/19/2001, (#57) (c) WY, JR, 13:17:49, 8/19/2001, (#56) Yes, , v_p, 14:12:42, 8/19/2001, (#60) Heroes, Watching you, 14:06:59, 8/19/2001, (#59) (c) WY, JR, 14:19:37, 8/19/2001, (#61) (c)Spin Baby Spin, JR, 15:22:55, 8/19/2001, (#62) Rico, Pennant, 17:01:14, 8/19/2001, (#63) Lou Smit, Gemini, 17:17:15, 8/19/2001, (#64) Wwhere do you think, Watching you, 17:27:51, 8/19/2001, (#65) WY, Gemini, 17:30:02, 8/19/2001, (#66) I'm not sure, Watching you, 17:35:12, 8/19/2001, (#67) According to Schiller in PMPT, Watching you, 17:41:20, 8/19/2001, (#69) Smit/Crime Library, janov, 17:37:39, 8/19/2001, (#68) Thanks Janov, Gemini, 17:44:45, 8/19/2001, (#70) Contrary to popular opinion, Watching you, 17:55:50, 8/19/2001, (#71) Yes, I'm sure, Gemini, 17:58:43, 8/19/2001, (#72) I would sure like to, Watching you, 18:00:47, 8/19/2001, (#73) But of course, Gemini, 18:13:58, 8/19/2001, (#74) LOL ... about the article,, Gemini, 18:19:41, 8/19/2001, (#75) I recall a comment , FT, 20:12:21, 8/19/2001, (#76) Thanks, FT, LurkerXIV, 20:15:54, 8/19/2001, (#77) Well, you know me, Watching you, 04:55:32, 8/20/2001, (#78) Evidence JonBenet fought for her life..., Show Me, 05:26:41, 8/20/2001, (#79) She was 6..., v_p, 06:08:58, 8/20/2001, (#80) Please go to thread IV Now, JR, 06:14:35, 8/20/2001, (#81) ................................................................... "Tipster Thread III" Posted by v_p on 12:18:39 8/18/2001 When Jammy submitted the "suspects" DNA and did not identify him to authorities, she unlawfully seized evidence of that person's identity. Credit for the above and the following go to why_nut at Jammy's swamp... >>>Any practiced defense lawyer will bring up at least two cases as precedent to have the DNA evidence thrown out, and all subsequent DNA evidence declared "the fruit of the poisoned tree." <<<<<(why_nut) He/she cites the following articles: http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/232/383.html#394 ) and Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. ( http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/251/385.html#392 ). Wonder if Jammy can be arrested for said "unlawful" seizure... or at the very least, charged? [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "From the U.S. Constitution:" Posted by LurkerXIV on 12:32:55 8/18/2001 Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Yeah," Posted by v_p on 12:38:43 8/18/2001 I'm gonna take a leap of faith with Beckner on this one... hope all her self-indulgent horn-tooting catches up with her... soon. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "This is probably a really stupid question" Posted by Mini on 12:41:47 8/18/2001 but since we're talking about DNA, there's something I've never understood. If you're looking for DNA on a large surface like a dress, carpet, or rope and there are no obvious stains (blood, semen, etc.), how do you get a sample? Obviously, you can't test the entire area. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "not a stupid question" Posted by austingirl on 13:17:27 8/18/2001 I think they put an object under various lights that fluoresce when organic material is present. A scraping can be taken and the genetic material sorted out. This is not for sure, but it is my understanding. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Right Austingirl!" Posted by Ginja on 14:42:03 8/18/2001 They'll use the flourescent light or luminol to bring up any dna material left on the surface. But I don't think the techs 'scrape' it off. What they do is take something like a Q-tip, dip it in a solution and pull the matter from the surface. If the swatch is large enough, they'll just cut it out and place the whole thing in a tube with solution in it and pull the matter from it in that way. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "As regards the matter of "flesh"" Posted by Ginja on 14:45:48 8/18/2001 I agree with what everyone's been posting about there being flesh under the fingernails. I've thought about this and I think perhaps the confusion (not on our parts, lol) is that the matter may be skin cells. Somewhere along the line, skin cells got translated into flesh. I mean, the sample is the same, skin is flesh....except skin cells are singly minute where flesh is made up of billions of skin cells (depending on how large the sample of flesh is). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Thank you, austingirl and Ginja" Posted by Mini on 16:35:27 8/18/2001 That makes sense but if just a few skin cells sloughed off onto a large surface, wouldn't they be too minute to show up? Do they magnify the surface? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Moved from Tipster III... the mistake" Posted by v_p on 17:17:26 8/18/2001 84. "Gem" Posted by Ginja on 15:19:31 8/18/2001 The sources for the old, degraded, cracked material goes beyond Thomas, and beyond Carol McKinley's statements to the same affect. I remember it being the talk of pundits way back when. But I also remember that way back when, there was a special "conference" of reknown pathologists, expert investigators, FBI and others, which was held outside official investigation boundaries, to go through the known evidence at the time. I'm not sure if it this conference was specifically pulled together to cover just this investigation, or if it's an annual thing whose topic that year happened to be this investigation. Forensic evidence at that time included the fact that the material under the nails was old, cracked and degraded. I also remember snippets from the conference being used in various documentaries and discussed by pundits on the various cable pundit shows. FWIW [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85. "Ginja" Posted by Gemini on 15:41:18 8/18/2001 The pundits probably got the info from the same source as McKinley. However, the conference would, indeed, be a good source if it included FBI in the position to have inside info about the case. The trouble is ... "way back when" would be before the newer testing techniques were apparently used ... no? Do you have a general idea about when the conference was held? The prob I've had with this information for a year or more, now, is that it's very hard for me to believe the BPD would be spending city monies for tests that could not eliminate suspects and were ... thereby ... worthless. It makes much more sense that they have something to provide beneficial results. Not only that, but info has also been reported/leaked that a number of possible suspects (Barnhill? S. Miles?) were eliminated via their DNA samples. Plus, the BPD continue to seem to bank on DNA for elimination purposes. All these things pursuade me the DNA they took from the body/garments/hair is adequate for some important purposes ... especially ruling people out from under the umbrella. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 86. "I think we all agree" Posted by v_p on 16:00:35 8/18/2001 that the DNA they collected from JBR is enough to "eliminate" people, but not enough to form a solid prosecution on. IOW, even if mystery perp's DNA has some of the same characteristics as the DNA which was found beneath JBR's nails, it can only be, at best, "consistent" with the DNA, not a solid match, as there are not complete strands. Thus, the reasonable doubt factor. No one will be convicted solely on DNA evidence. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. "Actually v_p" Posted by Gemini on 16:18:41 8/18/2001 I just read a Wecht comment that suggests he does not believe the Rs could have been eliminated because the samples must have been "contaminated" ... whether he means prior to being discovered or later, I don't know. I don't think he really knows either, but is covering his butt to give credibility to his own opinion as a tab news "expert". This particular POV has been knocked around quite a bit, over time. I don't see it. I think it seems much more likely the investigators believe they have something useable. Possibly, Wecht is, in fact, the main source for all the talk of "contamination". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. "He sure has " Posted by v_p on 16:32:52 8/18/2001 one helluva tan, doesn't he? I'm not sure how much of an expert he is on DNA either Gem, but I tend to believe he consults with DNA experts and individuals with first hand knowledge of this case... so I give him a close listen when he speaks about this case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. "v_p" Posted by Watching you on 16:37:03 8/18/2001 are you cracking up? Why are there two tipster III threads, both started by you? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. "Well..." Posted by v_p on 16:44:32 8/18/2001 I disremember. I meant to name the other something else and now it's too late. Good gawd, do you really think anyone would have noticed if you hadn't brought it up??? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. "You're right, veepee" Posted by Watching you on 16:50:28 8/18/2001 I probably shouldn't have said anything and no one would have noticed. My bad. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. "yabut" Posted by v_p on 17:01:29 8/18/2001 Your perception is one of your bestest assets :o) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. "you can let this one drop" Posted by Gemini on 17:11:59 8/18/2001 if you want, v_p ... or just copy the posts to the other one. There's good info there that shouldn't get away from us so quickly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Mini" Posted by Ginja on 17:17:07 8/18/2001 The skin cells we're talking about were scraped out from under JBR's fingernails as a routine matter during an autopsy of a homicide victim. This material wasn't all that was under the nails, of course, as it was mixed in with other debris and whatnot. I just read something recently from one of the CBI techs who stated that if you touch something, you leave something of yourself behind, not to mention the fact that you also pick up bits of whatever it was you touched. He used the example of touching a slide or table top or something like that, then noted that he not only left his skin cells on the surface, but his fingertips now had 'stuff' picked up from the surface as well. JonBenet could have easily, and innocently, picked up someone's skin cells during play or hugging...maybe even touching or scratching someone playfully. When I was married my youngest sister was about four years old and would sit and run her fingers up and down my ex's arms. They were hairy, but she called it soft fur and loved the feel of it. Just think of all the skin cells she picked up simply by doing that! And what an innocent action, to boot! The matter under JBR's nails, as noted, was scraped out during the autopsy. But Meyer used the same clippers, not cleaning them between each scraping of each nail. So the problem there is that she could have very easily hugged someone or held someone's hand and got some skin cells under a few fingers; but by using the same clippers without cleaning between each scraping, the coroner himself could have easily transferred the matter from one nail to the next. Now to the matter found commingled in her own blood in the panties. What was it and how did it get there? The evidence points to transference, rather than deposit during the commission of a crime. If deposited during the commission of the crime, there would have been quantifiably more matter deposited. Since the sample is so minute, coupled with the fact that it's commingled with JBR's own DNA tends to point again to simple, highly likely transference. The real question would be...how did it get transferred. Consider JonBenet herself. She played or hugged or held someone's hand, thus picking up that person's skin cells under her own nails. She was as oblivious to this transfer as we all are every single day when we touch people, animals and things. Lord knows when she picked it up as well. But it was there. She goes to the bathroom, pulls down her draws to potty, and while she sits there on their toilet, she fiddles with her hands. I don't mean anything absurd as playing with herself or anything, good god! No, I'm simply suggesting that she could have easily transferred some minute bit of junk under her nails onto her legs, for example, and it stuck. Maybe as she pulled her panties down, her fingers lightly scraped against her thighs or legs. Who knows? Maybe no one was around, or answered her calls, and she decided to wipe herself. Then again, she had to pull the panties back up. I mean there are plenty of ways she could have innocently transferred some material simply by going to the potty. Later, while being molested, or cleaned or redressed or whatever, the material earlier deposited was moved, for example, near or on her privates, where it stuck until the residual urine was released at death and caught the material, running it into the big bloomers crotch. Likewise, some of the residual blood that was loosed also could have been the vehicle for getting it from spot A to spot B. Another way for transference could have taken place during the autopsy exam. As Meyer clipped the nails, something could have attached to Meyer's gloved hand and later transferred onto the panties crotch. Heck...who knows where the panties were at that point. They could have already been off and a piece flown off onto the panties during the clipping. Then again, Meyer could have simply laid the clippers down on the body while he bagged the loosed material from the nails. The commingling could have taken place when a swatch of the crotch was placed into the solution to separate the components for analysis. Too many people are making much ado about nothing as regards this so-called "DNA evidence." The experts have stated repeatedly this is NOT a DNA case. This is simply a ploy from defense to divert attention away from the parents and onto a nonexistent intruder. It's their claim this DNA material is important; not the BPD or DA or forensic experts. Pro-Rammers will yap about all the reasonable doubt that exists when trying to point to parent culpability. The truth of the matter is that the reasonable doubt is higher than a mountain when one tries to explain this "DNA evidence" as some kind of smoking gun for intruder culpability. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Ginja" Posted by v_p on 17:26:56 8/18/2001 Great post... now may I have one of your Pina Coladas? Thank goodnes the spin will be cut down to a minimum once this goes to deposition. Just the facts, hopefully... one of which will not be, "defensive flesh" under the fingernails. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Ginja" Posted by Mini on 17:26:00 8/18/2001 Actually, I was just wondering about DNA collection in general. If a few skin cells from the perp sloughed off onto the cord, they could be so minute that even a special light wouldn't show them. I was wondering if they somehow magnified the object so that the cells would show up. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Mini" Posted by Ginja on 17:45:38 8/18/2001 Have you ever watched the series, CSI? There was an episode that fully answered your question. God how I love that show! The victim was strangled, but the cord mark left was a strange one (design-wise) that baffled investigators. Two of the investigators went back to the crime scene and noted that the window dressings included cord-like tiebacks and that the design, or weave, of the cord matched the marks left on the victim's throat. They pulled the cord from the window and brought it to the lab. The took a scraping knife and scraped the cord and voila! The perp's skin cells fell from the cord! In instances where it's not so cut and dry, investigators bring out the flourescent lights at the crime scene and shine it all over the place. Miniscule fibers, hairs, and other debris not visible to the naked eye flouresce and are easily seen...and picked up and bagged. As regards the miniscule skin cell, what investigators usually do is look for the most likely spot where the perp was where he acted in one way or another. In JonBenet's case, they went for spots in her bedroom next to the bed where the 'intruder' most likely would have stood in order to pull her from her bed. Once they determine a likely spot, they cut a hole in the carpet and took it to the lab. There, they have all kinds of equipment and whatnot where they can easily pull anything out of the carpet to run analyses. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "For Janov" Posted by v_p on 17:43:07 8/18/2001 http://prisonissues.tripod.com/Articles/dnatesting.htm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "V--P" Posted by janov on 13:07:15 8/19/2001 Thank you,I never intended an argument for the testing of anyone,I just know that the rights, many of us consider ours under the constitution ,aren't really there. There are many "fuzzy" lines. I,this week,am giving up my fingerprints to teach at the local school. Have I committed a crime? No! Am I going to be sent through a matching system to find out if I am a felon,you betcha? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "(c) Janov" Posted by JR on 13:20:41 8/19/2001 You are in good company. IMHO, anyone who has been thumbprinted for their driver's license or worked for the government or a government contractor will be right beside you. I know my prints are there. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Gem" Posted by Ginja on 18:13:56 8/18/2001 I think the 'contamination' of the DNA evidence came out when Pam Paugh went public on the fingernail clippers not being sterilized and cleaned between scraping each nail. At least, that's when I think the whole issue of "contamination" first became an "issue". As regards the conference, I would place it back at least one year ago, probably two. As regards FBI involvement, one or both of the better-known profilers were there, i.e., Ressler and/or McCrary. I also want to say Henry Lee was there as well, but really can't remember for sure. Wecht was most definitely a participant. The more important issue you raise is why the BPD is "wasting" time, energy and money in DNA analyses and testing if they know for a fact this is not a DNA case. Gem, they know for a fact this isn't a DNA case...all of the experts they've consulted have told them this, from Henry Lee to the FBI. That notwithstanding, the problem they face is defense attorneys. Regardless of how minute and insignificant this DNA (as culpable evidence) is, it's still evidence that MUST be investigated and followed up. They have no idea what evidence is random until they investigate it. Look how much time and money they've spent on trying to identify/source the hair on the sofa throw. That's as random as a cigarette butt in the street. So is the hi-tek bootprint in the basement. Yet they still searched hi and lo in trying to identify and source the print. What they're doing is nothing more than conducting a full investigation, leaving no stone unturned. Cops can't work on intuition or gut feeling alone; they have to support their findings. Hell, they have to make sure they have findings! It's a simple process of elimination. They don't know what's random until they investigate fully. Once done, once they find that there's no possible way this 'evidence' links to the crime, then they can safely exhale and log it into the evidence book that it's indeed random and irrelevant. If they don't follow up on the leads, defense counsel would cut their legs off in any trial, pointing out how they ignored evidence and leads because they were hell-bent on certain suspects and if such evidence didn't fit their theories, they didn't bother investigating. Those attorneys would focus solely on this 'negligence' and plant the seed of reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds. And that's all it takes is one little seed. If Beckner ignored Jameson, the BPD would be tarred and feathered in trial. They could lose their case simply because defense diverted jurors attention from the real evidence by focusing in on the holes in the police investigation. This case has had it problems since Day One. This investigation has been conducted in a fishbowl where everyone could look in and watch. No matter how crazy or how random certain 'evidence' appears, the BPD has to ensure that it investigated all of it fully and completely, if only to show that indeed it was random. It's better to have test results in hand stating without a doubt that lab analysis determined the evidence to be irrelevant, rather than trying to present to the jury a cop's intuition or a consultant's advice. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "If it is DNA evidence" Posted by saryan on 07:34:28 8/20/2001 I'm sure they will have Doc Lee take a look at it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Thanks, Ginja" Posted by Mini on 19:29:34 8/18/2001 I've been meaning to watch CSI but never get around to it. You answered a question that has been bugging me for a long time because I've never heard it discussed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "luminol" Posted by Seeker on 19:46:46 8/18/2001 Luminol only defines blood, not any other "material". I wish it was as easy in real life to solve cases like they do on CSI, however it is not, and many of the cool "gizmo's" they use just do not exist in the real arsenal of forensic investigations. We sure wish they did though! It would make our jobs easier... vp, we've been here before, no? hehehehe Didn't I say the same thing in my first post? That they could not match the DNA to anyone without doubt due to missing markers? Didn't I imply that Jams could be charged with various crimes? Like WY I'm often ignored...oh well, back to case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "hmmmmmm" Posted by mame on 19:59:16 8/18/2001 my posts yesterday are telling? i stopped in to discuss the case...not personalities...not with hatred...just the case. one correction...my network source did not say the name was known. my network source said she is watching this story. that's it. the name is not known by the media. my comments about the DNA and flesh under the fingernails is my information. i don't ask you believe it...it's how we discuss and find truth. no one wanted to believe my info that the DNA was male and non ramsey. yes, i'm told the flesh under the fingernails is defensive and there are similar DNA markers in the panty and fingernail samples. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "hmmmmmmmm" Posted by v_p on 20:02:53 8/18/2001 Pinnochio did it... go ahead, test his nose hairs.... it was he, the woody perp. Do NOT DARE ask me where I get my information you ungrateful hoodlums... I say it is so, and that should damn well be enough. Now, genuflect, please. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "mame's source?" Posted by LurkerXIV on 20:23:09 8/18/2001 (Sorry, I had this posted on the wrong thread)--- 30. "mame's source?" Posted by LurkerXIV on 20:19:33 8/18/2001 http://www.jameson245.com/doc2transcript.htm Lou Smit's remarks in Tracey's Crockumentary II: LOU SMIT - This crime can be solved. Our killer in this case left a lot of evidence behind. JonBenét under fingernails had her blood, no doubt about it. JonBenét, under her fingernails, also had foreign DNA. In her panties there is foreign DNA. It does not belong to anybody in this family. I think JonBenét got a piece of her killer. There is also a hair left at this scene. It was right on the blanket that was covering JonBenét. Is it this phrase by Smit--"PIECE OF THE KILLER"--that has been misinterpreted as "flesh"? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Oh, lord" Posted by FT on 20:38:07 8/18/2001 mame says, "No one wanted to believe my info that the DNA was male and non ramsey." Is mame really Larry Schiller? Larry's been saying the DNA was non-Ramsey for years. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "fingernails & larry schiller" Posted by mame on 20:52:45 8/18/2001 ft, i never believed larry schiller about much...i assume no one else here did or they would not have disputed (in lengthy threads) the male/non-ramsey DNA info. i have never heard there was JBR blood under her fingernails...could be...let's say that's true...it indicates even more so that it was defensive...and if there were no other DNA there the fingernail DNA would be moot. it isn't. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Huh?" Posted by FT on 21:07:25 8/18/2001 mame, you said "i never believed larry schiller about much...i assume no one else here did or they would not have disputed (in lengthy threads) the male/non-ramsey DNA info." Are you saying that Schiller's male / non-Ramsey DNA info and your male / non-Ramsey DNA info are somehow different? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "v_p" Posted by austingirl on 20:58:33 8/18/2001 I wouldn't dare to presume to ask you your source about the Pinnochio perp, but can I guess - is it Walt Disney? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Seeker" Posted by Pennant on 21:20:51 8/18/2001 You are absolutely right on both counts. See, I'm not ignoring you. Luminol only indicates the presence of blood, not DNA. (There are a couple of non-organic substances which will cause it to fluoresce, i.e. detergent.) In order to match DNA there must be a complete strand, although a partial strand might be able to eliminate someone. It is my understanding that a complete strand does not exist in the foreign DNA taken from JB's body, ergo no identifiable suspect. End of story. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "The very first time I read" Posted by v_p on 22:37:24 8/18/2001 "male dna" was when Ned posted it... then, not long after Nedster came on the scene, Loosemitts announced male DNA on one of the talk shows. On the first interview, he said "foreign." On another, he said male. ST says something about male DNA.. I'll have to look it up. No mame, you weren't the first to announce there was male DNA present under JBR's nails or in her underwear, but you are the first... anywhere... to call the DNA under her nails "defensive flesh." Close AG. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Pennet" Posted by JR on 22:35:04 8/18/2001 Forgive my ignorance but on the DNA, what if (I am not accusing anyone here) say one of the Ramsey's was the murderer. Let's say this person was at the White's and shook hands with all the partiers as they left then never washed their hands before they killed JonBenet. Is it possible that were we to have a good strand of DNA that the murderer and a party goer's (say the last hand shook) DNA could both be mixed in the sample? Just curious here since I don't know as much about DNA as I would like to. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "DNA schmeeNA" Posted by pinker on 06:41:20 8/19/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:41:20, 8/19/2001 First, it is an urban/internet legend that those panties were new from Bloomingdale's. There is absolutely no verification or reputable publication of such a fact. As a matter of fact the opposite is implied in ITRMI, what I believe to be the most credible source. "It might have been as simple as JonBenet having put on a playmate's underwear in which foreign DNA already existed." That statement would not have been said if there was any indication that these were brand new panties out of a pristine package. It's even been further legendized that the panties were new and washed yet still came out of this special package that had been bought and tucked away for a niece. Were they then refolded and stuffed back in the original package? Yea right, just who is leading and why has this trail been followed? It's also been alluded to that a credit card receipt matched up with a purchase from Bloomingdales. What??? Just when did the DA get, give, release, allow, or whatever access to those receipts? Excuse me, isn't that one reason ST could take it no more? I've read where LHP has confirmed the history of those panties. Did she actually see them at her GJ testimony? Did she see any of the others for comparison? By any of the others take a look at the inventory of what was siezed and you'll see JonBenet had enough panties to wear a pair a day and not do laundry for almost a month, unless she was so incontinent she used more than a pair a day..... It's also been reputed that Patsy herself claims they were new from Bloomingdale's. I can't resource that statement but from experience I believe she's lying whenever her lips are moving. IOW it's in her interest if you're suckered into believeing they were new from Bloomingdale's. I don't believe the 'legend' that the DNA is male. The last known testing/swabbing was done on the daughter of LHP. Seems like as odd a test as giving a male a pregnancy test...something's wrong with this picture. And the DNA is termed 'degraded' while that of Jonbenet is fresh. Sounds like that stain had been through the washer. All of JonBenet's panties, including what she was buried in should be analyzed. Isn't it owed to JonBenet? Let's not forget Pam was allowed to remove clothing to bury JonBenet, presumably including underwear. Pam's more important to this case than any realize. Did you know pam is the Thai word for underwear. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "I thought Luminol" Posted by Watching you on 06:30:28 8/19/2001 detected proteins, not just blood. I've been trying to find a website, but I don't have a lot of time and what I came up with was gibberish to me plus one site about rock music or some such thing. I guess one could say here, "define flesh." There is just no way a defensive action by JB got enough skin to be defined flesh without leaving a viable DNA sample. What, she scratched and only got part of the strand? That doesn't even make sense. That's not the way of it. It might better be defined at "skin cells," which could be believable. But, why would that be called defensive? I've been trying to wrap my mind around this defensive flesh thing, but it just doesn't make sense. In defense, then, did JB gently run her fingernail on the skin of her attacker? Or, did she gouge him? That would be defensive - strike out as hard as she could, dig into his arms, face, really get some flesh (and probably blood) under those little fingernails. But, alas, all there is is a very miniscule trace of DNA, one that doesn't even have all its markers. How can this be if she struck out in defense and terror and dug or gouged her attacker? There was no flesh under her nails. I know this came from Lou Smit. Good heavens, how anyone could even believe one thing he says after he made such a fool of himself.. well... The RST loves to strrreeccchh things - those "skin cells" (if that's what they were) have morphed into "flesh." This flesh is deformed, because its cells don't have all their DNA intact. Was this person, then, a leper? Perhaps it wasn't human? Ahhhhh, you say, gotcha. No, you don't. Because even lepers and gorillas have all their DNA. One specific part of that DNA may be out of whack - causing the leprosy or the non-human status (apes are much closer to us in DNA than you know, folks). I keep saying it, and it keeps going in one ear and out the other - if there was enough material under her nails to be called "defensive flesh" (whatever that is), there would have been a wealth of DNA material there to identify - not broken DNA with parts of its sequence missing. But, still, the beat goes on and they just don't get it - or don't want to get it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "v_p" Posted by mame on 07:44:39 8/19/2001 for several years many of us have fought for truth and justice in the murder of a dead 6 year old...when this murder took place i had four children at home living in boulder, colorado. my passion for this case is rooted in those children and the need for accountability of boulder's public officials. it has never been about being first or getting into pissing matches on the internet. i have no idea who said it first. i could care less. all i know is that it was NOT believed here. i was challenged to find references to the DNA, etc. i found them. jonbenet ramsey fought for her life. hopefully through the work here and through others who still care about this case...we'll find out who she fought...and who ended this lovely child's life. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. ""fought for her life"???" Posted by rico on 09:24:09 8/19/2001 Where is the overwhelming evidence for this??? FACT: JonBenet received a skull-crushing blow to her head. FACT: JonBenet was found with her hands tied-up with cord. FACT: Lou Smit is certain a stun-gun was used on JonBenet. FACT: NO evidence that the DNA found on JonBenet indicates a struggle; quite the contrary. Just where is the evidence that JonBenet "fought for her life"? Where are all the signs of a struggle before or during her abduction and assault? And why do some people keep promoting misinformation about the DNA in this case when the best experts in the country repeatedly have said, "THIS IS NOT A DNA CASE"??? JMO, JonBenet knew her assailant, and she didn't have much of an opportunity to 'fight' for her life. The real horror is she probably never suspected she would ever have to. JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Pennant, WY, JR" Posted by Seeker on 09:40:45 8/19/2001 Pennant, yes, exactly my point. I've been doing this in RL for a looooong time. At least it seems like a long time now. :-) Thanks for not ignoring me. Now, where do I send the check? LOL!!! WY, here is a site on foresnics that you might enjoy parusing. http://forensic.to/forensic.html or how about one of our sites http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/178280.htm I had heard that the DNA found on JBR was male, but that it was so degraded and contamintated that they could not get a complete strand. I heard nothing at all about blood or flesh being found, but rather microscopic skin cells. The autopsy photo's do not show any defensive wounds, or claw marks from JBR to indicate she tried to get the rope off of her neck. JR, there may be some residue (skin cells, oils), but not nearly enough to get a complete set of DNA markers from. (from your handshaking idea) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Today's science lesson" Posted by Watching you on 09:52:10 8/19/2001 DNA and housework. It was probably six months ago I learned about this, and I must say, I was truly astounded at what my microbiologist/DNA expert boss told me. We had decided to get the cleaning rags out and do some dusting in our offices. I made the remark to him - I don't understand where all this dust comes from when just you and I live here and neither one of us brings in a lot of dirt or dust. That dust comes from you and me, he told me. A very good portion of that dust is cast-off skin cells from our bodies. No, I said, say it isn't so. Yes, it's true - much of the dust in our homes and offices comes from the billions of dead skin cells we shed every day. Are you sure, I asked him? Yes, I'm sure, he replied. I left my cells in San Francisco, la la la, and in the veggie aisle, at grocery store, my lovely car wears my skin cells, la la la, the TV screen, I cannot hide, lala lala lala, Probably can't get DNA from that dust, but who knows. Maybe 20 years from now, or less, since DNA science is really still an adolescent, they will be able to scan the dust on your computer screen or your bedside table and hang your butt for that crime you committed and thought you got away with. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "JR" Posted by Pennant on 10:15:45 8/19/2001 Seeker is right again. (Seeker, you need to send that check FedEx and I must have it by Tuesday!LOL) I think it is possible that a casual contact by JB could account for the partial strand found on her body. Of course, a complete strand and/or strands would need more direct contact. Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that she "fought for her life." All of the injuries described in the autopsy could have and most likely did occur incidental to her murder. Had she "fought" there would have been indisputable evidence of it, which simply is not there. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Rico" Posted by Thor on 11:13:25 8/19/2001 Hey, hiya Rico!!! Well said, well said. Clap, clap, clap!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "so..." Posted by mame on 11:19:06 8/19/2001 we disagree on the fight. i see little evidence that she didn't fight. the flesh under the nails with male DNA that has many of the same markers as the underwear DNA...the photos alone show a vicious death and very possible defensive fingernail marks on her neck. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Someone in law enforcement..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 11:34:08 8/19/2001 ...said, early on, "This child fought for her life". Sorry I don't remember who said it, or where I read it. Maybe someone else can come up with a source. Or might it have been Cyril Wecht? Wish I could recall. If she were conscious, and not stunned, when the molestation/torture began, she would have fought for her life, as any human being would. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Lou" Posted by Watching you on 11:36:51 8/19/2001 Smit [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "(c) WY" Posted by JR on 12:05:41 8/19/2001 Here you go: "I will not take a quote from some lil human!" Don't know if you caught it but hirself doesn't appear to know "asst. ags" stands for. Hir can't believe we go to work and talk about this and then post our colleague's "opinions with the air of some authority." IMHO, it might do hir some good to stand down wind occasionally. ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Yeah, JR" Posted by Thor on 12:58:23 8/19/2001 I took offense to hir's statement on that, these are Assistant Attorney Generals (got that Jammy?) and I, as I said in my post, had brought this up to a few of them way before this chit hit the fan this weekend and this is what they told me, it won't fly. They LAUGHED!! And yes, Jammy, just as your precious Rams are allowed to walk the streets of Iowa, Michigan and now Chicago, Illinois, believe it or not, we people who are not under any umbrella (unless its raining) ARE allowed to talk about this case at work. And, I checked with experts here. Idiot. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "JR" Posted by Watching you on 12:11:29 8/19/2001 what thread is that on? I missed it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Not unless her hands were " Posted by Seeker on 11:26:42 8/19/2001 completely upside down! She could not have made those nail imprints otherwise! Where are the claw marks when she was trying to get the rope off? There are none. There was no "flesh" under her nails, just microscopic skin cells which are not considered "flesh evidence", but trace evidence. Actual flesh would provide a complete sample and therefor a complete set of markers so that a complete and accurate match could be made. The DNA in this case is irrelevant. There is not enough of it to match to anyone conclusively. Besides, the DNA (even if there was enough of it to match to someone) does not prove that the person to whom it belongs is the killer. There is no "fight" here mame, you are simply wrong. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "you've been sold..." Posted by mame on 11:32:09 8/19/2001 a bill of goods. if the DNA cannot be matched then why all the swabbing and testing? the BPD would have quit long ago..and henry lee would have no reason to halt the indictment at the end of the grand jury. the panty and fingernail DNA can be matched...especially if a suspect comes forward carrying similar strands and markers... AND if that suspect matches the hair (found on the blanket) which has a very full clear set of markers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "(c) Mame" Posted by JR on 11:56:15 8/19/2001 Why all the swabbing and testing? Because there is enough of a strand in that DNA to exclude people but unfortunately not enough to include them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "What?" Posted by Watching you on 11:48:04 8/19/2001 "the flesh under the nails with male DNA that has many of the same markers as the underwear DNA" Many of the same markers? Does that mean there were some that didn't match? Either they had the same markers or they didn't. "...the photos alone show a vicious death and very possible defensive fingernail marks on her neck" I find it amazing that so many armchair scientists think they know more than the coroner who did the autopsy. He was there. He saw her neck up close. Nowhere does he say there were fingernail marks on her neck. That is Lou Smit's propaganda. Check the autopsy report. There were no defensive fingernail marks on her neck. There were petechiae on her neck. "and henry lee would have no reason to halt the indictment at the end of the grand jury" Is there a source for this statement? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "WY" Posted by Seeker on 12:10:30 8/19/2001 go to the TT forum at LPN, we have a photo there that shows what appear to be fingernail marks in her neck. However, for her to have made these marks her hands would have to have been completely upside down. I don't believe that to be the case, also the size of said marks would indicate an adult's nails, not JB's. I don't do DNA, but I do take crime scene photo's and collect evidence, specimens, and on rare occassions, conduct interviews (like last Friday night, info on LPN daily yesterday). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Wrong mame" Posted by Seeker on 11:43:16 8/19/2001 if the DNA was male only, then why did they swab girls and women too? Henry Lee halted the indictment? I don't believe that for a moment. I think it's you who has been sold a bill of goods, again. Also, only the hair folical can provide DNA, not the strand it's self. I think you need to get more info before you make these claims. In an above post I gave 2 links to sites that will help educate anyone who is truely interested in learning more about DNA and forensic evidence. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Remember Doc Lee" Posted by saryan on 07:38:03 8/20/2001 This is not a DNA case!!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "All I wanna say is," Posted by gaiabetsy on 11:50:19 8/19/2001 don't you wish the cops had made the Rams undress and reveal their skin for pictures and analysis? OK, it couldn't have been done, but I betcha if I'd been a suspect, I'd have been shamed or railroaded, or argued into doing that. I've often wondered about what might have been revealed from a "good going over" of the Rams by the police within hours of JB's disappearance. Reminder for me: Get rich tomorrow. Then I won't have to be answerable for anything or anyone. I won't be separated from my spouse and grilled for hours immediately following my child's death, nor will I have to submit to a possible police body-search and short stay in jail. No, only poor people have to do that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "DNA typing" Posted by Sylvia on 11:48:33 8/19/2001 There are some nice books on DNA typing. There are profesional books and books for beginners. Simply go to a bookstore and all information is there. If you know nothing about DNA typing I suggest begin with the books for beginners. It open a whole new world! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Wow" Posted by Watching you on 12:17:49 8/19/2001 Oh. Hokay. Did y'all know that the Ramseys knew nothing about this DNA sample j. gave to the BPD? Yepper, she says they learned about it the same way the rest of us did - in the newspaper. My my. Now, I have a question. Why is it that jameson, who has nothing good to say about the BPD for the past almost five years, who in fact has trashed them every chance she got and told how unreliable and untrained they were, now thinks it is okay to trust them with a DNA sample? Huh? When it suits her purposes, they are okay? Is that the way of it? I think if the BPD can be trusted with her precious DNA sample, they ought to be trusted otherwise. No picking and choosing here - Ahem, So, Ms. Bennett, you say the BPD is real life Keystone Cops? Is that right? You say they haven't conducted this investigation to suit you? Then why did you give them DNA to test? And, oh, BTW, j says she never said this guy was a known suspect of the BPD. He was just talked about in Boulder as a possible suspect. Gawdamight, spare us from the jamesons of this world. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "unreal" Posted by RiverRat on 12:11:40 8/19/2001 I would go on and on but I think my subject title sums it up. I got your bill of goods, MS. Merchant. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "(c) RR" Posted by JR on 12:27:50 8/19/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:27:50, 8/19/2001 Received but not bought one would hope. ;-\ Edited for fast or fat fingers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "That" Posted by RiverRat on 12:38:32 8/19/2001 goes without saying, so I won't, J.R.! For some reason, I am reminded of a Firestone dealer trying to push his tires off on the innocent. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "(c)RR" Posted by JR on 12:41:59 8/19/2001 Firestone - that reputable tire maker - you dissing them? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Just glad" Posted by RiverRat on 12:44:40 8/19/2001 that they are gone from my world. Can't have everything you want though. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "JR" Posted by Thor on 13:20:25 8/19/2001 I responded to your post on my post #54. BYW, Masked Man has confirmed on Websleuths that hir called the Rocky Mountain News with this hot tip and they in turn called Beckner for a quote. So, we were right. Sounds like he thinks hir has an agenda, too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "(c) WY" Posted by JR on 13:17:49 8/19/2001 You'll love this..."it is not the Ramsey guilt that keeps them in operating on their boards it is Jameson." Guess some of hirself doesn't remember many of us debated with herself until hir admitted being less than honest. Sorry Jamesonites, I don't like nor will I associate with known liars. Now, I want you to know Aurora, this is not stalking: Did you know that when you go bring your garbage to the road it is "fair game?" DOn't be spitting your gum nor chewing tobbaco, blowing your nose, tossing your "butts" nor leaving them in stra ashtrays...uh hat elese...yeah, no haircuts neither. Here's a clue for Y'All on how to obtain DNA...it just takes patience; a private citizen doesn't need a warrant but oh by the way, Y'All can't steal the sample, it has to be "abandoned." Now...how did I know this would be in the list...a waiter or waitress might be willing to hand over some silverware or glass. Better check back with Baby Acapulco's Y'All. Let me repeat: this is not stalking this is not stalking this is not stalking [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Yes, " Posted by v_p on 14:12:42 8/19/2001 I believe it was Lou Smit who said JonBenet fought for her life. Then he contradicted himself by saying she was stunned and likely passed out... first in her bedroom, then he changed it to the basement... which is why no one heard anything upstairs. The same Lou Smit who said the stun gun makes a blue mark on the skin... thinking, I suppose, that there's dye on the electric current. Of course I could go on, but my point is, who's being sold a bill of goods here? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Heroes" Posted by Watching you on 14:06:59 8/19/2001 are people who rise to the occasion and slip quietly away....Tom Brokaw Jameson is no hero. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "(c) WY" Posted by JR on 14:19:37 8/19/2001 You are 100% correct! Unsung heros got that name for a reason. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "(c)Spin Baby Spin" Posted by JR on 15:22:55 8/19/2001 Hirself - "If the DNA markers match, (and remember they only have a partial profile from her body)..." Did I miss something here? We have a DNA profile which can exclude people but can't include them so how can the DNA markers match? Kind of reminds me of that song: Tossing and Turning only Spinning and Spewing Off to visit Babs. Catch Y'all later. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Rico" Posted by Pennant on 17:01:14 8/19/2001 There is no evidence for this--overwhelming or otherwise. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. If there were "flesh" under her nails, there would be complete chains of DNA which could be affirmatively matched with a suspect. Incomplete chains are only useful for purposes of elimination. No matter how many pronouncements, no matter how many furtive samples are collected, nothing can change the facts. And the facts are, no complete chains of DNA. This has been said so many times, but I will say it again since it appears some people don't yet understand it. In every crime scene, there are little bits and pieces which don't fit and actually have nothing to do with the crime -- background evidence. One single hair (which apparently is missing it's root and is therefore useless for DNA purposes) and a couple of incomplete chains of DNA. Help me Jesus. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Lou Smit" Posted by Gemini on 17:28:27 8/19/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:28:27, 8/19/2001 may have said it ("this child fought for her life"), but someone else said it earlier in the case. L-XIV, I can't remember who it was but do remember when ... right after the autopsy report was released. That must have been late in the summer of '97. My memory banks keep trying to toss it out to me with a Chuck Greene collumn. Dunno ... maybe CG was the one who said it. (edited to change the date from 98 to 97, which is what I meant to type in the first place) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Wwhere do you think" Posted by Watching you on 17:27:51 8/19/2001 Chuck Green got it, Gem? There is only one person I know of who has ever stated that JB fought for her life - Lou Smit. If Chuck Green or anyone else printed this, it wouldn't be difficult to figure out the source. Could it have been the, chit, I can't remember the article that appeared in a magazine? What was it, chit. Vanity Fair - that's it. A good many people believe Lou Smit was the source for that article. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "WY" Posted by Gemini on 17:32:55 8/19/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:32:55, 8/19/2001 I don't know where Greene stands on the case now, but at that time, he was very anti-rams. It would be too much to swallow to believe he was quoting Smit unless Smit was, supposedly, working with the BPD at the time. When was Smit hired, exactly? (geez ... edited to clarify ... gotta quit hittin' that post-button too soon) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "I'm not sure" Posted by Watching you on 17:35:12 8/19/2001 but I think it was something like six months into the investigation when Hunter brought Smit on. I'm going to try to find a date. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "According to Schiller in PMPT" Posted by Watching you on 17:41:20 8/19/2001 Smit was hired on March 13, and formally joined the team on March 17 - both he and Ainsworth. That would be March 17, 1997, just three months after the murder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Smit/Crime Library" Posted by janov on 17:37:39 8/19/2001 Smit, 63, a former El Paso County homicide investigator and a respected veteran of more than 150 Colorado murder investigations, had previously come out of retirement in March 1997 to work with District Attorney Alex Hunter on the investigation. He resigned Sept. 20, 1998 due to concerns that Hunter's team was wrongly targeting the Ramseys. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Thanks Janov" Posted by Gemini on 17:44:45 8/19/2001 OK WY, Smit was already on the spot when the autopsy report was released, so it could have been he who said that and was quoted by someone in the media. I don't remember his name in connection with this early remark, but, then, there was no reason to notice Smit in particular until he tendered his well publicized resignation. Sorry to interrupt. I just had not connected this to Smit. There were other quoteable remarks flying around at the time (this child suffered horribly, etc.) that were attributed to various MEs who were asked to comment, and my first thought was that it may have been one of those (quoted by Greene or someone), but it could easily have been said by Smit as anyone I guess. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "Contrary to popular opinion" Posted by Watching you on 17:55:50 8/19/2001 Gem, I do not always have to be right. There has never been any evidence released to the public that shows that JonBenet fought for her life; quite the opposite, in fact. That was part of Smit's media campaign and jameson touted it on her forum. He claimed marks on her neck, which the coroner described as petechia, were fingernail marks. The coroner's report said nothing about scratch marks or fingernail marks and the best evidence is what the coroner saw with his own eyes. I don't care how many photographs anyone looks at, the coroner saw those marks up close and personal. It's crazy to say now the coroner's report was a lie or not complete. The man isn't an idiot - he can tell scratches and gouge marks. Yet, Smit completely discounts the coroner's report and another false factoid is born, and it suddenly become gospel truth to some. It is beyond arrogant to disregard the coroner's report. That is the best evidence there is. I happen to believe the coroner. His report was six or seven pages long - he was very thorough in his examination. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Yes, I'm sure" Posted by Gemini on 17:58:43 8/19/2001 Meyer was thorough, but he also said (in an interview) that he kept his own "notes" with information he considered "speculative" and did not release to the public. That being the case, we can't really KNOW the full story. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "I would sure like to" Posted by Watching you on 18:03:00 8/19/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:03:00, 8/19/2001 see those notes, speculation or not. Speculation by the man who did the autopsy and witnessed first-hand the condition of her body would be vedy interesting. Edited to add: we cannot know what his thoughts were, but it was his job to fully describe the condition of her body - no speculation there, only facts. That report is thorough as to facts about her body. Any speculation in his notes would not be in the report, anyways. I think we know everything he saw. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "But of course" Posted by Gemini on 18:13:58 8/19/2001 it's possible he speculated on the cause of abrasions, scratches, etc., in the private notes. You (and he) are right, though. That would have had no place in the official autopsy report. Jumping to the DNA subject, I ran across this article about the DNA testing that was resumed at the request of the GJ. Parts of it are rather interesting. http://63.147.65.175/news/jon05079.htm I ran into a dead end trying to trace The Denver Post JBR archive back into 1997. Either they aren't making that year available, or I'm missing something. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "LOL ... about the article," Posted by Gemini on 18:19:41 8/19/2001 notice Bob Grant's vague-as-'ell comments : ). Isn't he the one who said the public had a lot of incorrect information? Is it possible he knew this because he had tossed part of it out there? : ) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "I recall a comment " Posted by FT on 20:12:21 8/19/2001 along the lines of "This poor baby fought for her life" made by a Dr. Cynthia something-or-other in one of the People magazine features on JonBenet. Unfortunately, I didn't save the magazine. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Thanks, FT" Posted by LurkerXIV on 20:15:54 8/19/2001 It's been bugging me all day....I know someone said it WAY BACK before Lou Smit and his shinola. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Well, you know me" Posted by Watching you on 04:55:32 8/20/2001 haha, show me the evidence that proves she fought for her life. A little girl fighting for her life would have had visible evidence of that fact. I've seen nothing that would lead me to that conclusion; in fact, quite the contrary, everything I've read about the evidence in this case shows no sign of struggle on her part. Steve Thomas said there was no "flesh" under her nails. I believe him, even if others don't want to. It would be ludicrous for him to lie about something like that. It would be ludicrous for him to lie about any of the evidence. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Evidence JonBenet fought for her life..." Posted by Show Me on 05:26:41 8/20/2001 Show me too! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "She was 6..." Posted by v_p on 06:11:00 8/20/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:11:00, 8/20/2001 How hard could she have fought if she'd wanted to? Every time I look at a child who's around 6 I'm amazed at how small they are ... and how easily an adult could restrain them. The tape over her mouth and the ligatures on her wrists were staging... the tape showed no sign of a struggle. It really isn't worth arguing over, but I'm sure there's a reason for someone wanting others to believe she fought for her life... just don't know what that reason is. edited to correct html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Please go to thread IV Now" Posted by JR on 06:14:35 8/20/2001 Please go to thread IV for our webbie friends. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE