Justice Watch Support JW "TODAY FRIDAY..." [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... TODAY FRIDAY..., Pedro, 21:49:22, 5/03/2001 why is your post, v_p, 21:53:00, 5/03/2001, (#1) LOL!, JR, 22:07:20, 5/03/2001, (#2) V-P, Tricia, 22:58:00, 5/03/2001, (#3) Tricia, JR, 23:23:42, 5/03/2001, (#4) Oh Good, Watching you, 03:52:43, 5/04/2001, (#5) I sleep when..., Pedro, 09:02:37, 5/04/2001, (#24) Segment over, Bobby, 05:24:18, 5/04/2001, (#6) Hi Bobby, Watching you, 05:39:47, 5/04/2001, (#7) Schiller, Jellyjaws, 06:49:22, 5/04/2001, (#8) Thanks, JJ, Watching you, 07:12:23, 5/04/2001, (#9) jeopary, mary99, 07:21:30, 5/04/2001, (#11) WY, Jellyjaws, 07:20:54, 5/04/2001, (#10) Thanks JJ, Bobby, 07:31:46, 5/04/2001, (#13) Okay, Watching you, 07:30:15, 5/04/2001, (#12) JellyJaws, Greenleaf, 07:49:16, 5/04/2001, (#14) oooooooo, Watching you, 08:00:19, 5/04/2001, (#15) Neck, Cutter, 08:34:43, 5/04/2001, (#18) Jelly, Ev, 08:33:17, 5/04/2001, (#17) Greenleaf, Jellyjaws, 08:32:02, 5/04/2001, (#16) fingernail marks, maxi, 08:45:07, 5/04/2001, (#19) I was disappointed , Florida, 09:00:49, 5/04/2001, (#22) maxi, 1000Sparks, 09:00:10, 5/04/2001, (#20) 10 minutes..., Pedro, 09:01:57, 5/04/2001, (#23) v_p..., Pedro, 09:00:13, 5/04/2001, (#21) Did any of you catch yesterday........, sds, 09:21:22, 5/04/2001, (#25) He said what?, Watching you, 09:26:38, 5/04/2001, (#26) I thought I heard Smit say that!, tinky, 13:47:23, 5/04/2001, (#55) Scratches, Ginja, 09:50:46, 5/04/2001, (#28) Ginja, Jellyjaws, 10:23:31, 5/04/2001, (#32) WY, fly, 09:47:29, 5/04/2001, (#27) ransom note, lilac, 09:55:35, 5/04/2001, (#29) Transcript, FT, 10:06:27, 5/04/2001, (#30) Ev, Jellyjaws, 10:17:46, 5/04/2001, (#31) Yeh, Jellyjaws, Smitty does sound like......, sds, 10:25:45, 5/04/2001, (#33) JJ, Ginja, 11:15:47, 5/04/2001, (#34) Ginja, Nedthan Johns, 12:34:16, 5/04/2001, (#40) Jesus, Ginja!...&...Fly, Cassandra, 11:33:04, 5/04/2001, (#35) Well, one thing's for sure, Watching you, 11:40:21, 5/04/2001, (#36) Henry Lee on MSNBC, Florida, 11:55:15, 5/04/2001, (#39) WY, driver, 11:54:46, 5/04/2001, (#38) Wow, Bobby, 11:53:23, 5/04/2001, (#37) Watching you, are you sure that......., sds, 12:43:07, 5/04/2001, (#43) Hey Ned, Florida, 12:39:07, 5/04/2001, (#41) Barry Scheck, maxi, 12:41:39, 5/04/2001, (#42) Nope Maxi,, Florida, 12:44:44, 5/04/2001, (#44) White cooperated completely with , Florida, 12:48:08, 5/04/2001, (#46) maxi, Gemini, 12:48:00, 5/04/2001, (#45) Florida, Gemini, 12:51:08, 5/04/2001, (#47) Maxi, Florida and all, Gemini, 12:59:13, 5/04/2001, (#48) DNA, Jellyjaws, 13:04:03, 5/04/2001, (#49) Gemini, Florida, 13:10:44, 5/04/2001, (#50) Florida, Gemini, 13:38:30, 5/04/2001, (#52) Gemini, Florida, 13:53:13, 5/04/2001, (#58) Ned, Ginja, 13:36:40, 5/04/2001, (#51) Question, Ginja, 13:45:09, 5/04/2001, (#54) Ginja, Gemini, 13:44:13, 5/04/2001, (#53) Gem, Ginja, 13:57:03, 5/04/2001, (#59) Steve Thomas, Watching you, 13:52:45, 5/04/2001, (#57) I missed it today, Edie Pratt, 13:51:35, 5/04/2001, (#56) WY and Ginj, Gemini, 14:18:00, 5/04/2001, (#60) Yes, Gem, Watching you, 14:20:49, 5/04/2001, (#61) Let's put that a little differently, Watching you, 14:30:55, 5/04/2001, (#63) Gemini..., Dr. Who, 14:29:30, 5/04/2001, (#62) Dr Who, Gemini, 14:37:20, 5/04/2001, (#65) That was not a slam against, Watching you, 14:39:05, 5/04/2001, (#66) I saw that, Dr. Who, Watching you, 14:33:14, 5/04/2001, (#64) Let's see, Nedthan Johns, 14:49:35, 5/04/2001, (#68) Meyer, fly, 14:43:01, 5/04/2001, (#67) Ginja, Nedthan Johns, 15:02:13, 5/04/2001, (#69) WY, Nedthan Johns, 15:08:39, 5/04/2001, (#70) Really Ned, Watching you, 15:18:46, 5/04/2001, (#72) Ned, fly, 15:13:49, 5/04/2001, (#71) Meyer, Ginja, 15:26:23, 5/04/2001, (#73) LOL Ginja, fly, 15:37:04, 5/04/2001, (#74) fly, Gemini, 15:58:32, 5/04/2001, (#75) : ) fly, post 74, Gemini, 15:59:40, 5/04/2001, (#76) Really?, Ginja, 18:10:14, 5/04/2001, (#77) Ginja, JR, 18:21:46, 5/04/2001, (#78) Ginja & Gemini, fly, 09:11:35, 5/05/2001, (#79) ................................................................... "TODAY FRIDAY..." Posted by Pedro on 21:49:22 5/03/2001 ....The Friday segment is scheduled to air at 7:08 a.m.ET. It lasts approximately 10 minutes. Don't miss it!!!. Pedro. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "why is your post" Posted by v_p on 21:53:00 5/03/2001 reminding me of my ex-husband?? ahhhh, duration, duration, duration ... lol g'night pedro and china [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "LOL!" Posted by JR on 22:07:20 5/03/2001 V_P - the cocktail must have hit the old humor cells! ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "V-P" Posted by Tricia on 22:58:00 5/03/2001 You know the more you indulge in happy hour the funnier you are. I showed my husband your post and he said "10 minutes, man what a guy". Shows you what my life is like. Setting the alarm. Thank you Pedro. Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Tricia" Posted by JR on 23:23:42 5/03/2001 LOL! I do hope your husband was being facetious. ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Oh Good" Posted by Watching you on 03:52:43 5/04/2001 someone else can be scolded about status quo today, haha. Do you people ever sleep? Pedro, you da man. In the shower and out the door for me - not even going to attempt to listen to "that man" this morning - while he gives jameson's story on how the Ramseys have been so mistreated and misunderstood. I'm sure we'll all hear how wonderful he was, not. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "I sleep when..." Posted by Pedro on 09:02:37 5/04/2001 ...I can, I am newlyweed.!!!!! P.- [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Segment over" Posted by Bobby on 05:24:18 5/04/2001 more garbage from him/them. wish I could type. Schiller will be on in the next half hour. Hope he sounds like he did the other day. Pretty even handed [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Hi Bobby" Posted by Watching you on 05:39:47 5/04/2001 nothing much to say? I didn't see it. I'll be interested in hearing what Schiller has to say. What a circus. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Schiller" Posted by Jellyjaws on 07:11:05 5/04/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:11:05, 5/04/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:00:34, 5/04/2001 Well, let's see how good I am at a summary. (Not even close to Cassie aka "The Champ") Schiller was excellent, I thought, in describing both sides and balancing the week. Too little, too late. He said smit's presentation is powerful because he "ammalgamates" all the aspects which point to an intruder, although each has been investigated by BPD. Problem with Smit's stuff is it can't be "dated," i.e. hand pring, boot print, open window, moved suitcase. BPD, on other hand, starts with RN and works out from there. Handwriting and linguistics experts point to Patsy. Smit interviewd John extensively and is convinced of his innocence. Tom Hanney interviewed Past and is just as convinced of her guilt. Re Stun gun, Coroner who did autopsy didn't describe burns or elctrical injury which an ME would do. Must give weight to who was actually and did the autopsy. No doubt that child was strangled but question of timing re the blow to the head, before or after. He mentioned "finger marks" on neck. BPD still reviewing some of 800 pieces of evidence, i.e. 70 fibers found on body, some of which have not been tested. Katie were her same self but did seem to be making a stab at "showing a balanced view." Schiller was good! I have a question, though. Smit and Couric talk about JBR clawing at garrote/self-inflicted scratches on her neck. That's not true, is it? I'm so mad that my bookmark for the autopsy has turned into what looks like the home page of Rocky Mountain News. Especially after Cutter's interesting thread yesturday, I want to read autopsey again. Can anyone provide a URL, please? Search of site didn't work. Edited to say that as Couric asked a question about each aspect of the week, Schiller would often begin by saying, "Again, you're seeing only one side." Interview ended with Schiller expaining "jeopardy attaching" if trial held now. Must wait for new evidence or technology. Barring confession, probably not going to be solved. Edited one more time: re DNA, Schiller included the DNA in panties and under fingernails as another example of how Smit's citations are "undated." DNA could have come from playmate (as yet untested), earlier in the day. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Thanks, JJ" Posted by Watching you on 07:12:23 5/04/2001 I'm glad that Schiller was on this morning. This whole week has been entirely RS. I saw red mark - one big one - on the picture of her neck. Gawd, that's an awful picture. Anyways, I don't see any scratches on her neck and this is the first time scratches on her neck have been mentioned, to my knowledge, except by the Rambot over yonder. It may be true, and they wanted that kept quiet. It's not quiet anymore, thanks to Lou Smit as something only the killer would know - about her being conscious and clawing at the rope. I question that, though, and doubt that it is even true. I'm not sure what Schiller meant by "jeopardy attaching." Do you know? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "jeopary" Posted by mary99 on 07:21:30 5/04/2001 Means if you are acquitted you can't be tried again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "WY" Posted by Jellyjaws on 07:20:54 5/04/2001 He meant that as things stand right now, there is enough ambiguity in the evidence for a very good defence of the charges. If found "not guilty", the Ramsey's could never be tried again, i.e. "double jeopardy." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Thanks JJ" Posted by Bobby on 07:31:46 5/04/2001 that was atstanding. You are pretty fast transcriber. I had already forgotten half the stuff schiller said. great job [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Okay" Posted by Watching you on 07:30:15 5/04/2001 I understand about jeopardy, I just didn't have the complete context of it here, I guess. Since there hasn't been a trial yet, I wasn't understanding how jeopardy could EQUATE, haha, with this case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "JellyJaws" Posted by Greenleaf on 07:49:16 5/04/2001 JJ, you wrote: " Smit and Couric talk about JBR clawing at garrote/self-inflicted scratches on her neck. That's not true, is it?" Question: If JBR was "clawing" at her neck, WHEN did the killer tie her hands, and WHY? After she died? GL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "oooooooo" Posted by Watching you on 08:00:19 5/04/2001 GL. Very good question. But, don't forget, this was a high-risk intruder, capable of leaping high buildings in a single bound... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Neck" Posted by Cutter on 08:34:43 5/04/2001 I guess nobody told Lou that there was no evidence under her fingernails of her "clawing her neck". And I guess they forgot to tell him that fingernails don't make straight lines. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Jelly" Posted by Ev on 08:33:17 5/04/2001 I didn't go looking into detail, but I think you may find what you are looking for under "Coroner's Report." I, too, have to establish my bookmarks all over again after reloading AOL from scratch. Oh, the bother! http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/topics/ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Greenleaf" Posted by Jellyjaws on 08:42:28 5/04/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:42:28, 5/04/2001 GL, I had to go back to the tape to catch the context. The clawing/scratches remark originally came from Couric. In a long, phrase filled question, Couric noted red marks on JB neck. She then cited Smit and ME Doberson as noting that had JB been already dead the ligature mark would be white and "...there would not be scratch marks of the little girl trying to get the thing off her neck." Schiller begins his response, "Again, you are seeing only one side." He then discusses head fracture a little bit, sort of trying to put the whole subject matter in some kind of context. Schiller then adds, "Certain;y there are possibilities of finger marks on the neck." "There's no question the girl MAY have woken up or may have screamed out during the time she was garrotted." That's how it was brought up, GL. May not be exact words, but pretty close. I haven't the stomach to go back to all of Lou's remarks right now. I haven't had breakfast yet. Edited, GL, just to finish Schiller's thought. After that last quote, he says that there's no question the garrote strangled this child but the question is whether blow to head came before or after. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "fingernail marks" Posted by maxi on 08:45:07 5/04/2001 Carol McKinley mentioned this possibility a long time ago. At the time, she said she felt it pointed away from Patsy as the killer. Some who have seen more autopsy photos say the area that Meyer describes as unpatterned abrasion includes small crescent-shaped marks typical of fingernail marks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "I was disappointed " Posted by Florida on 09:00:49 5/04/2001 in the whole Today Show series. The pictures were very disturbing but don't prove anything except she died a violent death. Smit going through the window proves someone could go through the window but that person would have left fibers and disturbed the sill and the well. It doesn't prove someone did go through the window. Both Scheck and Lee have said the DNA could be from contamination at autopsy and have said it isn't a DNA case. The stun gun measurement is 1/8" off between the inside of the prongs and the inside of the marks. No matter how much Smit wants them to match they don't. His ransom note explaination left me shaking my head. There is no way a brutal pedophile is going to write that note. The advertising (both by NBC and jameson) certainly did not live up to the actual product that was presented. I can't imagine more compelling evidence was left on the cutting room floor. This must be all he's got. I thought Larry Schiller brought a little balance without going overboard this morning. For John and Patsy to be innocent someone else had to be there and Smit didn't offer anything substantial enough to prove to me that there was. I hope Smit keeps working, I hope a special investigator is brought in to go over the whole case, I hope they can find and prove there was an intruder because I can't think of anyone who wants the last person JonBenet saw to be one of her parents. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "maxi" Posted by 1000Sparks on 09:00:10 5/04/2001 I think anyone would scratch/scrape at a rope around the neck regardless of who was holding it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "10 minutes..." Posted by Pedro on 09:01:57 5/04/2001 ...I am not going to comment on that!!!!! :-) Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "v_p..." Posted by Pedro on 09:00:59 5/04/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:00:59, 5/04/2001 ....men always remind *us* of our husbands!!! ;-) Pedro. Edit: 'cause I can't type *our husbands* without having laugh attack!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Did any of you catch yesterday........" Posted by sds on 09:21:22 5/04/2001 when Smitt said that the ramsom note was found on a small table facing the spiral stairway instead of at the bottom of the stairs? (And they showed a mock set-up of how it looked on the table). After 4 1/2 years I find this awfully strange that the Rams are changing where they first saw the note. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "He said what?" Posted by Watching you on 09:26:38 5/04/2001 are you sure you heard that right? That is absolutely contrary to what the Ramseys claimed. Oh my. The plot thickens. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "I thought I heard Smit say that!" Posted by tinky on 13:47:23 5/04/2001 I posted a question about the hall table on the MSNBC thread. Katie said..."And this is where the table was where the ransom note was found." And Lou said "yes." I had just tuned in when this segment was on, and I was very surprised because I thought Patsy had said the note was spread out on the spiral staircase, and in fact she had to step over it or something. Glad someone else heard this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Scratches" Posted by Ginja on 09:50:46 5/04/2001 Excellent counterpointing by Schiller this morning! I think what we're talking about is what I mentioned long ago: We know the injuries to the neck are not consistent with a brutal strangulation; that is, she'd have had more damage to the tiny bones and more inflammation in the tissue and whatnot. I think a possibility here is that she was knocked unconscious and thought dead. She was brought downstairs where JR tied the garotte around her throat as what he thought was staging to divert attention away from the family and onto a brutal killer from outside. The cord was wrapped tight, but not too tight. She was still alive and unconcious, near death and left in the room. Breathing was very shallow. Daddy left her there and the her neck started swelling from the ligature. That swelling caused the cord to constrict and she started having trouble breathing. Whether she woke or not, I can't say. Consciously or unconciously. Her head would have been hurting like hell and she would have been in a daze between here and there (dreamstate). She couldn't breath and started scratching at her throat to pull off whatever it was. She didn't have the strength and wasn't "aware" enough. She died. I think a little later, Patsy went in to leave a few of JBR's favorite things with her, thinking JBR had been dead when brought downstairs. When she goes into the room, she finds JBR's hands at her throat, her head tilted and the mucous running across her cheek. "We didn't mean for this to happen" They thought she was dead long before setting her up downstairs. This freaked Patsy out of her gourd. She screamed so loud the Stanton's heard her. So did John. He rushed downstairs to see what was wrong. Horrified, they couldn't let her be found like that, so they "tied" her hands above her head and pressed a piece of duct tape across her mouth. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Ginja" Posted by Jellyjaws on 10:23:31 5/04/2001 Oh, Ginja, your post is very painful to read. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "WY" Posted by fly on 09:47:29 5/04/2001 Yep, that's what was said: (Katie Couric and Lou Smit inside the house) Couric: "If an intruder came into this home, you believe he familiarized himself, came up to this first floor from the basement. And this is where the ransom note was found. There was a table against this wall, is that correct, Lou?" Smit: "Right against this wall." Couric: "Against this wall." I suspect something was misunderstood, because Smit had earlier shown where on the stairs the note was found. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "ransom note" Posted by lilac on 09:55:35 5/04/2001 Yes, I caught that too. I'd always heard that the ransom note was found with the three pages spread out side by side on a stair rung. So, no, you weren't imagining it when you might have questioned what you were hearing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Transcript" Posted by FT on 10:06:27 5/04/2001 http://www.msnbc.com/news/568594.asp [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Ev" Posted by Jellyjaws on 10:17:46 5/04/2001 Wow, Ev, thank you for the very comprehensive link. Did you see "61*" ? Did you love it? Re note on table. I remember this came up before. It was attributed to editing error. Lou Smit is giving me the creeps with all his talk of standing in JonBenet's shoes. He souds like he's got a fetish, fer crying out loud! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Yeh, Jellyjaws, Smitty does sound like......" Posted by sds on 10:25:45 5/04/2001 he has a fetish. I thought that calling JBR a "pedophile's dream" was a bit off the wall and disrespectful. Sounds like Smitty has really gotten into this thing, don't you think? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "JJ" Posted by Ginja on 11:15:47 5/04/2001 The murder of any child goes beyond painful...even if it is "accidental". I've struggled with numerous different scenarios to correspond to the evidence and what we know. It's just a matter of getting rid of the chum and working with "real" evidence that definetly goes to the crime of that night. DNA, prints, open/broken windows, suitcases, etc....this is evidence that can't be dated and therefore, cannot be linked. But you can link the fact that someone with access and opportunity was molesting her. You can link the fact that only 4 people were in the house that night. You can link the ransom note to someone close enough to the Ramseys to have so much familial knowledge of them to have put the ransom note together. I'm still not sure why it is that Boulder officials are "terrified" of matching wits with the RST defense team. Especially if they use this "pedokiller" as a defense. There is no evidence to support such a theory. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Ginja" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:34:16 5/04/2001 That's a real nice theory but you forgot to add in the male DNA, you know the one from the intruder [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Jesus, Ginja!...&...Fly" Posted by Cassandra on 11:33:04 5/04/2001 Ginga: You curdled my blood with that post up there! Fly: Yes, the table comment would be confusing to viewers not familiar with the case. There were several annoyingly vague comments let stand on the "Smit Saves the Ramseys Show". NBC and 'Today' must have had to respond to criticism about the one-sided Smit show all week, by calling Schiller in, after Smit was not there to be challenged. Schiller blew Smit's theories out of the water, too bad he wasn't there as counterpoint early on. Schiller points out that the DNA under the nails could not be dated. She could have picked it up before the time of the murder. She was around other males all that evening, at the Whites, etc. Who knows how many others? There could have been others the day before, if her nails weren't scrubbed with a nail brush. The coroner clips the nails and examines them. Good job, Jelly! I have to watch Geraldo. I taped it last night and watched Survivor all evening. I did notice that the Poz tamed his coiffure, and seemed to be going for the Caligula look last night! Does he have a rug wardrobe like Marv? One for needs a haircut, one for just got one, one for roadkill casual, one for Betty Boop, and one for Roman Emperor? Just asking. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Well, one thing's for sure" Posted by Watching you on 11:40:21 5/04/2001 since there are those who are dead sure that DNA was identifiable and it was left there by the killer, I guess that eliminates Fleet White. After all, they have his DNA sample. Therefore, there is no longer any need for conjecture regarding FW's involvement in this crime. And, if he is not involved in this crime, there is no connection between Nancy Krebs and the crime. Just thought I'd mention that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Henry Lee on MSNBC" Posted by Florida on 11:55:15 5/04/2001 Henry Lee was just interviewed on MSNBC by Mika Brezenski. A little more info than usual... She asked about Smits theory. Lee responded that many have different hypothesis and all of the things he said are a judgement call. Some resemblence to stun gun injury but no scientific proof. Blue line is definitely NOT part of stun gun injury. DNA - too much emphasis on source. Such a minute quantity that you can't really say intruder. Says DNA could be from handling - cross-contamination. He says there are many hypothesis on the way it happened (blow and strangulation or strangulation and blow) but not enough scientific evidence to support any theory. Thinks Smit is a fine detective but he didn't appear to be too impressed with his findings. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "WY" Posted by driver on 11:54:46 5/04/2001 and that is what makes you the Goddess of all reason. guess that means that fracas will be dead in the water forevermore. heh [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Wow" Posted by Bobby on 11:53:23 5/04/2001 this board IS active all about FW. Didn't LS give out enough BS to keep everyone off that topic? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Watching you, are you sure that......." Posted by sds on 12:43:07 5/04/2001 they have Fleet White's dna sample? I remember in one of the discussions it being mentioned that he refused to give a sample. Anyone else remember that? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Hey Ned" Posted by Florida on 12:39:07 5/04/2001 This is what Henry Lee said about the DNA this afternoon on MSNBC. You know, that Henry Lee, the one who has actually seen the DNA evidence and been involved with the tests from day 1. "DNA - too much emphasis on source. Such a minute quantity that you can't really say intruder. Says DNA could be from handling - cross-contamination." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Barry Scheck" Posted by maxi on 12:41:39 5/04/2001 I sure would like to hear what Barry Scheck has to say about the dna. Did Lee mention anything about Smit's assertion that it was male dna? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Nope Maxi," Posted by Florida on 12:44:44 5/04/2001 that was all he said - more than he usually does. I can't remember where I read it but Scheck said basically the same thing - contamination possibly at autopsy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "White cooperated completely with " Posted by Florida on 12:48:08 5/04/2001 the BPD - gave the samples (as did the guests at his house Christmas night) and gave them something like 18 interviews. Somewhere along the line he and Hunter had falling out and thats when the trashing began. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "maxi" Posted by Gemini on 12:48:00 5/04/2001 Did Smit say "male DNA"? or was that one of the commentators? Trying to catch up. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Florida" Posted by Gemini on 12:51:08 5/04/2001 Poor ol' Meyer has gotten the flail so often over this autopsy I'm surprised he hasn't been re-called. Do you suppose he's really that incompetent? IS he still ME for Boulder? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Maxi, Florida and all" Posted by Gemini on 12:59:13 5/04/2001 this reminds me of something I've been meaning to mention. It's been reported, and never questioned that I know of, that "blood samples" were routinely taken from a number of people - both the Ramseys, Santa Bill, others who were questioned. Is this SOP for a murder investigation ... even when there is no foreign blood for comparison? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "DNA" Posted by Jellyjaws on 13:04:03 5/04/2001 The spin machine phasing bothers me. What's the phrase, "DNA under the fingernails and in her panties that doesn't match the Ramsey's." That sounds like somethink Clinton would say. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Gemini" Posted by Florida on 13:10:44 5/04/2001 I think it was reported at first that there was some kind of DNA on her leg. I'm sure that's why they started taking DNA samples from everyone that had been in contact with her. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Florida" Posted by Gemini on 13:38:30 5/04/2001 So ... the blood samples were for obtaining DNA? Y'd think mouth swabs would have been just as effective and a lot less expensive. Oh well ... thanks for your take. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Gemini" Posted by Florida on 13:53:13 5/04/2001 I must not have read your post correctly - I was just talking about DNA samples - not blood samples specifically - mouth swabs would do the same thing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Ned" Posted by Ginja on 13:36:40 5/04/2001 I left out nothing! I think if you were here beside me, I'd clunk you over the head. Aren't you listening? LOLOL Ever since this 'dna' issue came up, I've said repeatedly it was too minute to consider "real" evidence; that is, it's random evidence that not only can't be identified, but it can't be linked to the crime. It does not change the direction of the case either way. And it certainly doesn't take precedence or impact all the other physical evidence in this crime. Henry Lee has already been quoted twice on this thread as to his comments today on MSNBC in direct response to Smit's presentation. Lawrence Schiller this morning stated that the dna can not be linked to the crime...that is, it cannot be dated. As he noted, she could have picked it up any time during the day. Wecht has been on Geraldo all week and has stated this cannot be related to the crime and is probably contamination. BTW, my "clunk" remark was meant to knock some sense into you. I wouldn't crack your skull in half the way Patsy cracked JonBenet's! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Question" Posted by Ginja on 13:45:09 5/04/2001 Smit's theory states that the intruder came in and hid in the basement while the Ramseys were out. Didn't John tell police that he was 'downstairs' helping Burke put together the model? Where is "downstairs"? And didn't Patsy go into the basement to pull out last minute gifts and things for the trip to Charlevoix? Pretty ballsy perp, wouldn't you think? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Ginja" Posted by Gemini on 13:44:56 5/04/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:44:56, 5/04/2001 It seems as if anyone whose theory is rattled by the DNA has a knee jerk tendency to blow off its importance. Yet, those within the investigation have obviously taken it seriously ... yes, even Henry Lee ... evidenced by the continued sample taking and testing that went on. And, we still do not know that everyone in contact with JB was tested. IOW, I'm not sure, but it kinda looks like some folks got a "pass" on the mouth swabbing ... and that concerns me. I believe Carol McKinley was the first source of the "old and degraded" remark. It would be great if someone (mame?) would ask her about that, NOW ... how reliable she now believes her source to have been, etc.. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Gem" Posted by Ginja on 13:57:03 5/04/2001 I'm not rattled. The 'dna' is too minute to change the course of the investigation. It can't be dated. It can't be identified. Lee made his statements today on MSNBC saying the source was too minute to say there was an intruder. He also said it's probably cross-contamination. It most likely came from the morgue when the body was examined. Let's see....one possibility would be that the nails were clipped without being cleaned between each clipping. The same hands that clipped the nails and bagged the clippings are the same hands that removed the panties from body. The Ramseys have grabbed onto any thing they could that would point away from them. This panty/fingernail dna is one; the stun gun is another. These are things, according to them, that proves it wasn't them. If the prosecution were to go into a courtroom without taking all the samples it did, then defense could turn around and use this to their advantage, stating things like the police didn't investigate these things and they didn't investigate possible sources for the dna, thus proving the BPD was blindsighted and rushed to judgment and only investigated what pointed to the Ramseys. IOW, they could use this to sow the seeds of reasonable doubt. That all those tests were done goes to the prosecution's case that they were not blindsighted, that they did not rush to judgment, that they investigated everyone - not just the Ramseys, and that as a result of all the testing, they found nothing to indicate the dna was nothing more than random evidence and most probably caused by cross-contamination in handling the body. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Steve Thomas" Posted by Watching you on 13:53:53 5/04/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:53:53, 5/04/2001 specifically says in his book there was no flesh, no blood under her nails - nothing to indicate she fought back. I know some don't like the guy, but I seriously doubt he would lie about that. Edited to add I believe he also states the findings were the DNA was old and degraded. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "I missed it today" Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:51:35 5/04/2001 but wasn't it about the Ramsey's behavior? Did Katie ask him about John's call to the pilot? I caught a clip of his opinion on Patsy's splayed fingers, but didn't hear anything about booking a flight... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "WY and Ginj" Posted by Gemini on 14:18:00 5/04/2001 WY, I don't think Thomas would lie either. But, he wouldn't have been able to use info that was obtained after he left the investigation, would he? Seems to me a lot of DNA testing went on after he left. Thanks for the heads up about Lee's comments, Ginja. Now, I need to find the transcript and read exactly what it was he said. Lee's comments are rather obscure sometimes ... maybe not this time, but I'd like to read it for myself. As I mentioned on another thread ... a lot of things have come out to suggest Dr Meyer was one sloppy ol' ME. Does he still hold that position? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Yes, Gem" Posted by Watching you on 14:20:49 5/04/2001 but old and degraded doesn't suddenly change after ST leaves, does it? I realize with the more sophisticated DNA tests they allegedly did after he left, they may have gotten a little closer to identifying the (alleged) DNA. But, the old and degraded does not just turn into flesh and blood. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Let's put that a little differently" Posted by Watching you on 14:30:55 5/04/2001 Gem, because I know you are going to misunderstand it. Forget the DNA. The "gunk" under her nails was referred to as cracked and old. Nothing fresh. Now add the DNA. The DNA was referred to as old and degraded. Old and degraded DNA from cracked and old gunk under her nails. Now, I could believe this DNA stuff - that is, they have a whole sample and blah, blah, if someone could kindly tell me how cracked and old gunk turns into new flesh. Or blood. Or both. And, if there was indeed "flesh" there, there would have been no problem in obtaining a decent sample of DNA, unless it became contaminated. And, the DNA would not have been old and degraded no more than her own blood in her own underwear was old and degraded. They identified her DNA from that sample with no problem, apparently - the same under her fingernails. If she had dug her assailant, they mostly likely would have obtained a very good DNA sample without resorting to all the extra fancy tests. Doesn't that make sense? There very well may have been skin cells under her nails, different from gobs of flesh. Where those cells came from is debatable. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Gemini..." Posted by Dr. Who on 14:29:30 5/04/2001 someone posted a link I believe that was to the Daily Camera(?) in the last week or two. Dr. Meyer is being done in by terms limits. I believed the article stated that he either was seeking an exemption or stated that if he could get one he would run again? Anyone?... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Dr Who" Posted by Gemini on 14:37:20 5/04/2001 Thanks for that information. It will be a surprise if no one challenges him in light of the way so many questions have arisen about his work in this case alone. WY, I don't reply to posts that start out "... I know you are going to misunderstand". Just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring you : ). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "That was not a slam against" Posted by Watching you on 14:41:28 5/04/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:41:28, 5/04/2001 you, Gemini. It was an acknowledgement that I didn't make myself clear. Sorry you misunderstood. :-) Try again, WY. Misunderstand my previous post because I was not clear enough. Screw it. I'm not explaining myself anymore. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "I saw that, Dr. Who" Posted by Watching you on 14:33:14 5/04/2001 and he was also cited as being the only board certified pathologist either in the county or the state, can't remember which. Don't know where I saw it, though. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Let's see" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:49:35 5/04/2001 In order to STILL beleive the RAmsey's committed this crime one would have to think: 1. They tortured her and burned her with something. According to Rose it was a curling iron, someone else mentioned bed bugs. 2. They took considerable time writing the ransom note, while John flipped through their video library catching favoite lines from suspense thrillers. 3. Of all the places the could of molested and abused their child, the choose the cold dirty basment, where of course the scream was heard from Melodie Stanton's house, unless of course you don't beleive Melodie. 4. According to Ginja, JR or Patsy didn't know she was dead, but strangled her anyway, to make it look more like a staging. 5. And oh yea, they dug through her panty drawer finding old panties that they knew contained a minute degraded source of male DNA, scrapped it and stuck some under both sets of her fingernails. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Meyer" Posted by fly on 14:43:01 5/04/2001 WY - I think he was the only one in the county. Somebody commenting on the JBR case/Smit interviews (Schiller this morning, I think) declared Meyer a "very experienced" ME. I saw the term limits article too. Makes sense to exempt certain positions. You don't have dozens of eligible people willing to be the coroner/ME. Of course, our coroner used to be a vet. No lie. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Ginja" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:02:13 5/04/2001 Lawrence Schiller this morning stated that the dna can not be linked to the crime...that is, it cannot be dated. As he noted, she could have picked it up any time during the day. Wecht has been on Geraldo all week and has stated this cannot be related to the crime and is probably contamination. BTW, my "clunk" remark was meant to knock some sense into you. I wouldn't crack your skull in half the way Patsy cracked JonBenet's! Nedd: We;; Ginja, here is what I have to say to that. If you want a conviction against the parents you need to find the source of the DNA. PERIOD. There is enough there to cast a doubt in the juries mind, so it has to be explained. You cannot throw it out. Now if the BPD really did an investigation, which they claimed they had they interviewed something like over 290 suspects. I would imagine the tested sources of DNA from every male person who came in contact with JB shortly before the crime. NO MATCHES It's not like she just brushed against someone. This had to be someone within CLOSE contact with her. So spew all you want GINJA, I will, along with millions of others NEVER believe that there is NO evidence of an intruder, because there CLEARLY is, and Smit made an excellent presentation with facts to back it. It is not right to persecute innocent people, and I will no longer bash the RAmsey's. IN order to beleive this, you have to dismiss too many facts. 1. RANSOM NOTE IS NOT AN EXACT MATCH TO PATSY RAMSEY'S HANDWRITING. IN FACT IT WAS A PROBABLE NOT LIKELY. 2. THE BOOT PRINT, PALM PRINT, DEBRIS AND OPEN WINDOW CAN NOT BE DISMISSED. 3. THE SEVERITY OF THE ATTACK CAN NOT BE DISMISSED. NOW KNOWING THAT JONBENET WAS ALIKE THE ENTIRE TIME. 4. CHRISTMAS TIME, BURGLARIES AND CRIME IS UP TWICE AS MUCH AND THE RAMSEY'S LIVED IN A WELL TO DO AREA, WITH NO ALARM AND CLEAR ACCESS FOR AN INTRUDER IF HE NOTICED THE BROKEN WINDOW. 5. THE ROPE AND TAPE HAVE NEVER BEEN MATCHED TO THE RAMSEY'S 6. FINALLY THE SOURCES OF DNA SUGGEST WITH ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE THAT THIS CHILD WAS IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH A MALE SHORTYLY BEFORE OR DURING THIS CRIME. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "WY" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:08:39 5/04/2001 specifically says in his book there was no flesh, no blood under her nails - nothing to indicate she fought back. I know some don't like the guy, but I seriously doubt he would lie about that. Nedd: Really WY. Well we certainly know he lied about a bed wetting incident. No wet bed. Actually I don't think Thomas book was meant to present any evidence what so ever, and now that I think back about it he purposely dismissed evidence such as the scream Melodie Stanton heard, claiming she later said when questioned again that perhaps she thought she heard her scream, and was picking up on her spirit or something to that effect. Pure BS. Thomas refused to discuss DNA, refused to discuss anything that could suggest an intruder. You can't do that in a murder investigation. His book was full of vent, not written for the purpose of catching a killer. He wanted to piss the RAmsey's off and spark a civil suit. Well now he's got one. I for one am putting a bet down he will lose. He has to prove that Patsy wrote the note, and I don't beleive he can. I think Thomas has realized now, that he is wrong. He know's his theroy is wrong, and he know's he does not have enough evidence to point to anyone. I almost feel sorry for him. This case is going to be a valuable tool for future investigations, on what NOT to do. Thomas will make a shinning sample [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Really Ned" Posted by Watching you on 15:18:46 5/04/2001 Well we certainly do not know he lied about anything. That was his opinion, right or wrong, not a lie. But, I can see where a Rambot would want to call it a lie. Actually, you're right. Thomas didn't present much evidence. He was a lot more professional than that. It was your hero Smit who gave away the case on TV. And now that I think back about it, Melodie Stanton herself said off the wall things about maybe just hearing the spirit scream or whatever. That wasn't Thomas speaking, that was Stanton speaking. Dismissed? What exactly did he dismiss? You're right, Ned, there is a lot of pure BS around here, but Thomas isn't the source. Spin it all you want, but you are the one who refuses to see anything. Oh, right again, nedo, Thomas didn't write his book to "catch a killer," LOL. He most certainly didn't. He wrote it to expose the cesspool that is Boulder, Colorado office of the District Attorney. Along the way he exposed Smit for what he was, too. Don't bet the farm, Ned. Your reasoning skills aren't the sharpest. Just trying to save your farm, that's all. Fact is, ned, you don't know diddly about what Thomas can prove or can't prove. As usual, you talk out your butt. Now, don't be bugging my anymore tonight. One loopdeloo is all I can deal with at a time. It's not your turn tonight. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "Ned" Posted by fly on 15:13:49 5/04/2001 Ned - The autopsy says nothing about any visible debris under her nails. All it says is that the nails are of sufficient length to clip. That suggests to me that if there was any blood or tissue under her nails, it was awfully limited because otherwise it would have been visible and noted as such. Sure, there might have been enough blood cells to be picked up with microscopic analysis, but apparently not enough to see with the naked eye. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Meyer" Posted by Ginja on 15:26:23 5/04/2001 Wecht also stated this week on Geraldo that Meyer was a very "qualified" coroner and knew what he was doing...and what he saw. For example, Wecht said the coroner saw abrasions and scratches, NOT burns! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "LOL Ginja" Posted by fly on 15:37:04 5/04/2001 Ginja - The only Boulder "experts" you've reamed more viciously than Meyer are Hunter and Beuf. And now that Meyer can serve your purpose you suggest he's a good guy? Oh, the humanity! LOLOLOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "fly" Posted by Gemini on 15:58:32 5/04/2001 According to the reports to date, do you believe Meyer is the kind of sloppy ME who would risk contamination (such as fingernail clippings) in his autopsy room? There have also been several early reports (CG article for one) that absolutely ragged on Dr Meyer for supposed blunders reg. the JBR autopsy. What do you think? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. ": ) fly, post 74" Posted by Gemini on 15:59:40 5/04/2001 Yeah, that is kinda what I was getting around to. heh heh [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Really?" Posted by Ginja on 18:10:14 5/04/2001 Hunter and Beuf I'll definitely go along with. But I don't remember it being "me" reaming Meyer. No matter what's been posted, I think I've always said the only "real" evidence in this case is the autopsy report and the only expert whose testimony counts is Meyers. In a different topic a week or so ago, I backed Meyer's examination and how he reported it in the AR. So I don't know... As far as "backing my theories", you guys really have to be kidding. Either that, or you started enjoying the weekend early! My theories haven't changed in 4 years. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Ginja" Posted by JR on 18:21:46 5/04/2001 I think they started their weekends early - notice there is hardly a soul around? ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Ginja & Gemini" Posted by fly on 09:11:35 5/05/2001 Gemini - I can't pass judgement on Meyer. I know some commentators have faulted the report, and others have said Meyer is very competant, so it's probably a case of it overall being a reasonable, but not perfect, autopsy. Ginja - I sure thought you had blasted Meyer for his incomplete autopsy, but if my memory is wrong, sorry. BTW, I wasn't saying you were changing your theory, just that you were now apparently championing somebody because they were in line with (backing) your theory. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]