Justice Watch "Tipster DNA - Thread II" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Tipster DNA - Thread II, Dunvegan, 17:12:03, 8/17/2001 Since jameson chose to take my posts, Watching you, 17:35:54, 8/17/2001, (#1) We don't threaten anyone here at Justice Watch, Dunvegan, 17:46:08, 8/17/2001, (#2) Sorry Dun, Watching you, 17:49:46, 8/17/2001, (#3) No, WY, search, 18:01:16, 8/17/2001, (#5) I understand, WY...I understand..., Dunvegan, 18:04:22, 8/17/2001, (#6) Dun, JR, 18:19:11, 8/17/2001, (#7) Civil Suggestions, JR, 17:57:38, 8/17/2001, (#4) Me too...geesh...it's migraine time...., Dunvegan, 18:20:58, 8/17/2001, (#8) Do We Need Marilyn Manson's DNA?, JR, 18:27:57, 8/17/2001, (#10) You didn't miff WY, Watching you, 18:27:29, 8/17/2001, (#9) mame, v_p, 18:46:25, 8/17/2001, (#12) let's brush up, janov, 18:42:23, 8/17/2001, (#11) Hold Your DNA Close, JR, 18:54:53, 8/17/2001, (#14) Hey JR or Dun, Tricia, 18:54:43, 8/17/2001, (#13) Yep JR - v_p, Gemini, 19:03:49, 8/17/2001, (#16) GEM, JR, 19:10:54, 8/17/2001, (#17) Missing Posts, JR, 19:00:30, 8/17/2001, (#15) Stupid, KrayonC, 19:27:15, 8/17/2001, (#21) Gem, v_p, 19:20:14, 8/17/2001, (#19) People~, Aurora, 19:18:07, 8/17/2001, (#18) Aurora, it's another red herring., LurkerXIV, 19:58:51, 8/17/2001, (#29) Lurker, Aurora, 20:35:33, 8/17/2001, (#36) LOL, JR, Gemini, 19:24:16, 8/17/2001, (#20) Excuse me Gem, JR, 19:31:37, 8/17/2001, (#25) Aurora, KrayonC, 19:28:55, 8/17/2001, (#22) ROTF, KrayonC, 19:31:32, 8/17/2001, (#24) v_p, Gemini, 19:30:45, 8/17/2001, (#23) I know austingirl..., LurkerXIV, 20:02:16, 8/17/2001, (#30) : ) JR, Gemini, 19:41:42, 8/17/2001, (#26) Gemini, austingirl, 20:05:30, 8/17/2001, (#31) Gem and Mr. Gem, JR, 19:52:57, 8/17/2001, (#28) Gem , v_p, 19:52:09, 8/17/2001, (#27) v_p, austingirl, 20:07:18, 8/17/2001, (#32) Lurker, austingirl, 20:07:48, 8/17/2001, (#33) Ok, OK ladies, Gemini, 20:21:31, 8/17/2001, (#34) a lot of, Gemini, 20:24:52, 8/17/2001, (#35) No, not because you, v_p, 20:39:24, 8/17/2001, (#37) Gemini, austingirl, 20:51:48, 8/17/2001, (#41) Go Back and read #35 again, V_p, Gemini, 20:47:56, 8/17/2001, (#40) Found it, v_p, 20:46:59, 8/17/2001, (#39) Gem, JR, 20:46:18, 8/17/2001, (#38) AustinGirl, Gemini, 21:08:21, 8/17/2001, (#42) I'm raging mad, smellthecoffee, 22:54:47, 8/17/2001, (#54) At the risk of being flamed, JR, 21:43:11, 8/17/2001, (#43) I did say it, Tricia, 22:20:08, 8/17/2001, (#44) Tricia, JR, 22:33:34, 8/17/2001, (#46) It appears, Gemini, 22:27:11, 8/17/2001, (#45) Gem, v_p, 22:41:09, 8/17/2001, (#48) My source , Tricia, 22:37:45, 8/17/2001, (#47) Tricia, Gemini, 22:51:21, 8/17/2001, (#52) Gem, JR, 22:44:02, 8/17/2001, (#50) Y'all must have , v_p, 22:43:03, 8/17/2001, (#49) VP, JR, 22:46:51, 8/17/2001, (#51) JR, Gemini, 22:55:15, 8/17/2001, (#55) I will shout , Tricia, 22:54:46, 8/17/2001, (#53) Tricia, Gemini, 22:59:13, 8/17/2001, (#56) Gem, JR, 23:09:14, 8/17/2001, (#57) Tsk, Tsk Tsk !!!, Ellique, 23:46:25, 8/17/2001, (#59) Ha! Back!, Gemini, 23:19:33, 8/17/2001, (#58) DNA sources, Moab, 01:21:07, 8/18/2001, (#63) Gem, JR, 01:01:12, 8/18/2001, (#62) Lordy!, Ginja, 00:55:46, 8/18/2001, (#60) On this so-called "evidence", Ginja, 00:56:34, 8/18/2001, (#61) Ginja!, LurkerXIV, 10:10:09, 8/18/2001, (#71) Thanks, Ginja, Watching you, 05:38:54, 8/18/2001, (#64) OK, janov, 08:05:01, 8/18/2001, (#65) Janov, Ginja, 10:04:18, 8/18/2001, (#70) Ginja~, Aurora, 08:23:06, 8/18/2001, (#66) Ginja, Tricia, 08:58:48, 8/18/2001, (#67) I'm glad..., Ginja, 09:56:27, 8/18/2001, (#68) Hi Gemini, Cassandra, 10:11:13, 8/18/2001, (#72) What you said, Ginja, Watching you, 09:59:14, 8/18/2001, (#69) WY, Ginja, 10:12:07, 8/18/2001, (#73) "Flesh", v_p, 10:29:21, 8/18/2001, (#75) Ginja, driver, 10:28:17, 8/18/2001, (#74) Gemini, austingirl, 10:37:19, 8/18/2001, (#77) Well, Driver, Ginja, 10:34:15, 8/18/2001, (#76) V_P, Florida, 10:44:00, 8/18/2001, (#78) Yes, Florida, LurkerXIV, 11:43:27, 8/18/2001, (#79) For reasons already, Watching you, 11:53:34, 8/18/2001, (#80) AG, Gemini, 14:43:40, 8/18/2001, (#81) Hi Cassie : ), Gemini, 14:56:17, 8/18/2001, (#82) In true mame fashion..., v_p, 15:10:46, 8/18/2001, (#83) Gem, Ginja, 15:19:31, 8/18/2001, (#84) Ginja, Gemini, 15:41:18, 8/18/2001, (#85) I think we all agree, v_p, 16:00:35, 8/18/2001, (#86) Gee, thanks v_p, Moab, 21:19:20, 8/18/2001, (#87) lol moab, v_p, 22:39:41, 8/18/2001, (#88) ................................................................... "Tipster DNA - Thread II" Posted by Dunvegan on 17:13:00 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:13:00, 8/17/2001 Continuation of previous thread. 85. "L-XIV" Posted by Gemini on 15:42:25 8/17/2001 I can't imagine the investigators would rely on this as sure-fire evidence. The best they could do with it is use it for leverage to get other DNA samples. Have to repeat, I'm very surprised Beckner released this to the media. My first thought is that Lin Wood had a hand in that, but I'd have expected Beckner to just say, "no comment". Thanks for the reminder about the new testing, mame. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "You are still missing the point, Gemini" Posted by Watching you on 16:03:35 8/17/2001 they may NOT be able legally to obtain new DNA samples from a man based on jameson's word that it belongs to a specific man. Wouldn't it just be so nice if the legal system worked that way, but based solely on jameson's word that this DNA belongs to this man, without other probable cause to bring this man in and demand his DNA, it's not going to fly. The BPD wasn't even allowed to get phone records and credit card records belonging to the Ramseys, people who were known to be inside that house that night. Should this man be treated with less respect than they? Should his civil rights be trampled all over just because he isn't a Ramsey? My personal opinion is this DNA is not going to match and it is another Ramsey red herring. Only time is going to tell, but remember WY said that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "janov & Nedd" Posted by Seeker on 17:00:18 8/17/2001 If I might clarify something here. Voting is not a right, it's a priviledge. The same as having a driver's license. You have to sign up/register/apply for both. Neither is a "given" as civil rights are. S: I don't know why they (BPD) would accept DNA from anyone through a 3rd party... Nedd: They ONLY would Seeker if this man could possibly be a suspect. It looks as if he could be. I'm sure you misspoke there Nedd. They would never, could never accept a BLIND sample as possible proof. They would need the suspects name and fresh, uncontaminated DNA samples to verify. There were not enough markers to prove beyond a doubt who this mysterious DNA belongs to, just possible suspects. Dr. Lee said, "This is not a DNA case." Period. Nedd: No Seeker, only the internet web sleuths construed what Dr. Lee meant. As I said before, when he said this was NOT a DNA case, he meant the DNA will NOT lead us to the killer. We need a suspect to check against the DNA You construed what he said yourself right there in your statement. I guess it depends on your POV concerning what he said. He said "This is not a DNA case", if he elaborated about what he meant I sure didn't see it. He's in Las Vegas at a conference today if you want to call Bally's and get him to tell you what he meant. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "the DNA" Posted by mame on 16:30:47 8/17/2001 i do think the question of "rights" is a good question regarding the collection of DNA. i called a couple sources who told me as long as the evidence comes from a private individual there are no laws broken. many times in investigations when a suspect is unwilling to give their DNA the cops go to other family members to collect a sample. i'm told there a no laws broken here. certainly if there is a match...an investigation into the person in relation to this case would take place and a new sample would be taken. one source i have thinks this is grandstanding by the BPD. the person feels that because jameson is known as a ramsey supporter the BPD is willing to test to show they are in fact testing new suspects. this would be an important point in upcoming court cases. others feel that given jameson's reputation with the cops and the DA, there must be something powerful for them to even test it. another different but excellent point. i do give jameson credit for getting involved. regardless of how some feel about the messenger...if this info can rule in or out a possible suspect...so be it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "hmmm, how to preserve dna?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:24:08 8/17/2001 I guess it's safe to assume Jameson had a freezer full of jockies...right next to the horsemeat. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "wrong, WY" Posted by Gemini on 16:44:22 8/17/2001 Not missing the point at all. Anything that points the BPD in the direction of someone who should be investigated in connection with this crime should be considered. Don't even suppose the people in charge of the investigation are not aware of the possible entanglements. If this gives them something to work with, they'll know how to proceed. There are plenty of experts connected with the case who will be happy to advise them. My main concern is getting at the truth for the sake of justice for this little girl. This will, very possibly, not amount to anything. The main reasons I find it somewhat interesting are: 1) Beckner took the time and trouble to give a statement to the media. and 2) it pretty well verifies that there is more, and more complete, DNA for testing than the rumors have had us believe. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "I suppose there is" Posted by Watching you on 16:59:01 8/17/2001 something to be said about the fact that if it were anyone but jameson I might put a little faith in it, and apparently the BPD felt the same way for many months when Beckner refused to even consider taking this evidence from jameson. She has no credibility with me and for damn good reason. She is a known liar. How do you trust someone like that? I don't. I would like to know the reason Beckner caved under jameson's demands when he refused to do so previously. Maybe he's doing it to shut that code 6 wingnut up and prove once and for all she's nuts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "hahaha, Edie Pratt" Posted by Watching you on 16:33:34 8/17/2001 I just choked on my protein bar, you devil. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "Suspect nation" Posted by docg on 16:49:41 8/17/2001 There is no end of "good" suspects in this maddening case. We have them coming out of our ears. There are all sorts of "very good" reasons to be suspicious of any number of people, it's really an endless list. The trouble is, there's really no hard and fast way of determining for sure whether *any* of these people was actually in the house the night of the murder. It's not just that the DNA is mixed and incomplete. It's also very likely to have a totally innocent source. So what can be gained by testing the DNA of any particular suspect? If that person can't be ruled out as the source, so what? There can never be a definitive match. There are probably thousands of people living in the Boulder area whose DNA would fall into the same category. On the other hand, if the person IS ruled out as the source, that does not by any means get him off the hook. Since the DNA may well not be from the attacker anyhow. So where does that leave us? At the end of the day, all we have is another suspect looked at, who may or may not have done the crime, but who can't be indicted because there can be no real DNA match. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "Unless, DocG," Posted by Gemini on 17:08:58 8/17/2001 Mame's source is correct (see post 76) and the key is mitochondrial DNA they have obtained from the hair - or unless there is more complete DNA from the other two sources than the public has been led to believe. I have long suspected there must be more to the DNA than the popular opinions on the forums suggest ... otherwise the FBI would have not directed the BPD to gather samples for testing in the first place. Sure, it could be innocent, but I think it's quite likely a mistake to bank too much on the spin this DNA evidence has been given via leaks and media pundits. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "docg" Posted by mame on 17:06:19 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:06:19, 8/17/2001 each and every piece of DNA evidence found is viable...some may have fewer strands and markers...but if the DNA was not strong there would be no reason to swab or test anyone. i haven't found one forensic source or investigator who says the panty or fingernail DNA could be there innocently. the fingernail DNA is flesh and considered "defensive". there is male DNA in the panties. the mitochondrial DNA sample and testing done on the blanket hair is the most powerful. keep an eye on that one... [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Since jameson chose to take my posts" Posted by Watching you on 17:57:46 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:57:46, 8/17/2001 to her forum than asks if my post should be considered a threat, I didn't make any threats. I made a statement. Post edit: I have removed that which might not be considered appropriate. Best I get out of here, my mood got ugly all at once. good night [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "We don't threaten anyone here at Justice Watch" Posted by Dunvegan on 17:46:08 8/17/2001 Right? Let's be civil, and not "Sybil". I'd rather not get involved in a court case this weekend...I already have plans. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Sorry Dun" Posted by Watching you on 17:49:46 8/17/2001 I'm not going to be accused of threatening anyone when I didn't. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "No, WY" Posted by search on 18:01:16 8/17/2001 you didn't. Obvious spin. She deplores your honesty. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "I understand, WY...I understand..." Posted by Dunvegan on 18:08:41 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:08:41, 8/17/2001 ...that was just a general statement addressing the general topic. Twasn't pointed specifically at you...but you were standing there...so, sorry about the sound of it all. Anyway, since you're going to be taking Blackbird off my hands and doing his laundry, you're now my bestest friend, nu? It's just to say that everyone here should know that it is possible to use the language written on an opinion board as cause (very poor cause, but a nusance basis cause) to bring action against the owner of an opinion board. Personally, I can't wait until the courts get this hammered out...right now, the online law is as shaky as Jell-o. There needs to be a few more decisions at the Appellate level to draw the boundries solidly. And, as much as anyone, I'm ready, willing, and able to defend the First Amendment rights of this board, and the free speech of any forum member. I do just hate to think of myself standing up before the bench, with all of my free speech advocacy lawyers, trying explaining something goofy. So, aside from baiting at other places in the world, I'm hoping that when I do end up in court, that it will be in defense of one of the usual brilliant statements of the Justice Watch membership. And, like I said...I really do have plans this particular weekend. I plan to teach Blackbird to dance, so he'll be ready for you, WY. He's a sweetie...and not the hardest fella I've ever had to babysit...you'll see.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Dun" Posted by JR on 18:19:11 8/17/2001 You poor thing. OK - I am banning me before you have to. ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Civil Suggestions" Posted by JR on 17:59:58 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:59:58, 8/17/2001 Offering up two suggestions here: 1) Let's round everybody in this good old US of A up and enforce DNA testing much like drug testing in the work place. Maybe Dun will add a numbering system to it and give up her copy rights to her sheep sign and we can all have it tattooed on our foreheads. We can exclude hirself and the Ramsey's because we know they ain't murderers. 2) Let's clone the "evidence" and see what we get (thanks be said to an anonymous friend.) Actually, we better send it to France since we aren't too good at cloning yet. What they "L" is another few (9?) months (see who the clone looks like) or even better yet, years, see who the person turns out to be. And yes...I still have a headache. Facetious? Moi? Let's see: Nedd in the closet with a suitcase. Ma in the shoe with Marsha and Jan (one under each arm) and a wooden spoon. WY..in the fireplace with a match. JR (moi) in the pantry with a bottle of Cognac. Dun in the library with a law book. Starry in the garden with a rooster er...uh...hoe (or is that ho?) VP in the boudoir with a (well we won't go there. Rules you know.) How am I doin'? Please tell me when I get warm or did hirself solve the case while I was running spellcheck? Take a deep breath everyone. I took the day and gave myself a time out. It helps the disposition you know? Edited because I'm cranky. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Me too...geesh...it's migraine time...." Posted by Dunvegan on 18:20:58 8/17/2001 Everyone who votes for me to take a nap say, "Aye!" I heard that! OK...I'm officially in napping mode. Just write me at nemo@slumberland.zzz ...gone before I miff WY again.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Do We Need Marilyn Manson's DNA?" Posted by JR on 18:27:57 8/17/2001 Warrant Issued for Arrest of Marilyn Manson August 17, 2001 7:47 pm EST LONDON (Reuters) - Authorities in Michigan have issued a warrant for the arrest of controversial rocker Marilyn Manson on charges of criminal sexual conduct [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "You didn't miff WY" Posted by Watching you on 18:27:29 8/17/2001 chief little head did. Not to worry, I took my rant to another forum where hirself also posts. I don't expect an answer from hir not do I expect hir to steal that post. She would rather leave her accusation standing as it with nothing to refute it. So much for good old jams. I'm not here, I left 10 minutes ago. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "mame" Posted by v_p on 19:03:29 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:03:29, 8/17/2001 >>>the fingernail DNA is flesh and considered "defensive". there is male DNA in the panties.<<< NO, it was NOT flesh and it was NOT considered DEFENSIVE. You definitely need better sources, the ones you have suck... I only say that because I know this is what someone told you since you were not there at the collection of evidence... Your surprising arrival here today is telling mame... wonder where Jammy got her DNA. Gem... really, enough. Give AG more credit than what you are giving her. It's very condescending to poo-poo what she's describing about the DNA strands by constantly referencing the past weekend. There were absolutely no revelations, as there were at Holly's bbq... just getting to know each other and rehashing the same old same old... mostly getting to know each other. I don't remember DNA being brought up at all... IMO, it's a non-issue. edited for clarification on the DNA issue... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "let's brush up" Posted by janov on 18:42:23 8/17/2001 http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/civil_rights.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Hold Your DNA Close" Posted by JR on 18:54:53 8/17/2001 Unless of course you don't care where it ends up. Gem - VP is right. The information I have on DNA in this case I had before this weekend and so did Austingirl. People were complaining that there wasn't enough case posting yet when we post case we get slammed. I don't get it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Hey JR or Dun" Posted by Tricia on 18:54:43 8/17/2001 Could you please bring over my post from "Tipster" one thread? I posted it at the same time Dunvegan started thread 2. I can't do it because I have only 6 functioning brain cells. All six are busy trying to understand this case. Thanks Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Yep JR - v_p" Posted by Gemini on 19:03:49 8/17/2001 You DID have the info before because Bob posted it many times, citing a "source". It just does not stand up to the fact that the BPD has been testing samples against "something" (hello) since late fall '97 ... plus, the new testing techniques may have provided even more to work with. Unless you have a direct (not 2nd/3rd party) source within the investigation who has told you in depth info about the DNA - personally - I think you're hauling out opinion and trying to make it stand as fact. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "GEM" Posted by JR on 19:10:54 8/17/2001 Could you point me to a thread where I didn't say IMHO please. I usually try to do that. I will edit it if you tell me where it is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Missing Posts" Posted by JR on 19:00:30 8/17/2001 102. "Edie Pratt" Posted by Tricia on 17:14:26 8/17/2001 I have missed you:) Ok I am on vacation. Sitting here with my trusty lap top. I am at a loss for words. WHATTHEHELL?????????????????? *Why did Beckner take a DNA sample provided by a concerned citizen? (yes I am being nice here) *Why did Beckner COMMENT on it? That's like admitting "Yes I am an idiot and I don't know what else to do". If Beckner is wacko enough to take a DNA sample from hir then he is mentally unstable to admit in the press he did it and is having it tested no less. *If I sent Beckner my husband's underwear will he spend the 5 grand to have it tested too? Just because I said so? Let me put this in perspective: While investigating O.J. would the L.A.P.D. accept DNA from somebody who brought them a baggie containing who knows what? OF COURSE NOT! Didn't the leading DNA experts say "This is not a DNA case? Is Beckner believing Jameson now instead of Henry Lee? I am just numb with shock at the stupidity of Beckner. Oh God I have FOX on and they just promoted a "new clue" in the JBR case. Mark Beckner should be mortified. Mark Beckner should be fired. Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "Suspect nation" Posted by docg on 16:49:41 8/17/2001 There is no end of "good" suspects in this maddening case. We have them coming out of our ears. There are all sorts of "very good" reasons to be suspicious of any number of people, it's really an endless list. The trouble is, there's really no hard and fast way of determining for sure whether *any* of these people was actually in the house the night of the murder. It's not just that the DNA is mixed and incomplete. It's also very likely to have a totally innocent source. So what can be gained by testing the DNA of any particular suspect? If that person can't be ruled out as the source, so what? There can never be a definitive match. There are probably thousands of people living in the Boulder area whose DNA would fall into the same category. On the other hand, if the person IS ruled out as the source, that does not by any means get him off the hook. Since the DNA may well not be from the attacker anyhow. So where does that leave us? At the end of the day, all we have is another suspect looked at, who may or may not have done the crime, but who can't be indicted because there can be no real DNA match. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "Unless, DocG," Posted by Gemini on 17:08:58 8/17/2001 Mame's source is correct (see post 76) and the key is mitochondrial DNA they have obtained from the hair - or unless there is more complete DNA from the other two sources than the public has been led to believe. I have long suspected there must be more to the DNA than the popular opinions on the forums suggest ... otherwise the FBI would have not directed the BPD to gather samples for testing in the first place. Sure, it could be innocent, but I think it's quite likely a mistake to bank too much on the spin this DNA evidence has been given via leaks and media pundits. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "docg" Posted by mame on 17:06:19 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:06:19, 8/17/2001 each and every piece of DNA evidence found is viable...some may have fewer strands and markers...but if the DNA was not strong there would be no reason to swab or test anyone. i haven't found one forensic source or investigator who says the panty or fingernail DNA could be there innocently. the fingernail DNA is flesh and considered "defensive". there is male DNA in the panties. the mitochondrial DNA sample and testing done on the blanket hair is the most powerful. keep an eye on that one... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Stupid" Posted by KrayonC on 19:27:15 8/17/2001 I don't know where to start...(so many posts) but this is just stupid....straight up. What if it IS the DNA of the perp? Why not just give him a get-out-of-jail-free card? Oh, you can BET there's going to be some media attention over this. But it isn't going be a "good samaritan submits 8 month old second hand dna evidence" kind of story. I'm no law expert, but it doesn't take a genius to see how this man's rights have been violated. From the article: Jameson said the person also lived in the Boulder area at the time of the Ramsey murder. She also gave the person's name to Beckner. The chief thinks the CBI may have already examined it for Ramsey links. I appreciate Fly's point of view, but like I said above...."What if it IS the DNA of the perp?" It's just stupid. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Gem" Posted by v_p on 19:20:14 8/17/2001 I am so not in the mood to argue about this. I have never read or heard anything from BobC concerning DNA... honest to gawd. My take on it comes from what I've read.... I will dig out my own sources tomorrow. I don't even understand what the hell AG is trying to point out because I'm not that bright. I skimmed over your post above because my point was not about DNA, it was about denying AG her own opinion just because we all met for 3 hours. I have no clue what BobC has to say about DNA or what his sources have told him. I make up my own mind based on what I read from reliable sources... Now I must eat. If you want to rag me... I'll be back in about 40 minutes :o) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "People~" Posted by Aurora on 19:19:45 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:19:45, 8/17/2001 Think about how ludicrous this all sounds. Jams is sending in man's jam samples to be tested for DNA!!! Just last week "hir" called me a stalker for taking pictures while on vacation. This week...she has outdone herself. Anything to put the umbrella on someone ...other than the Ramsey's. I pity the poor dude that is getting scrutizned due to her lack of scruples. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Aurora, it's another red herring." Posted by LurkerXIV on 19:58:51 8/17/2001 Thanks to you, we all know that Patsy Ramsey answers to the name "Murderer!" Jams and Smitty got their little heads together to concoct this one. They have to come up with SOMETHING to earn their pay. Particularly when "Son of Crock" bombed out, and Tracey was unable to sell it to an American outlet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Lurker" Posted by Aurora on 21:17:27 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:17:27, 8/17/2001 Lets see... I have a few crummy pictures and am labeled a "stalker"...she has someones DNA... *hmmm* does that make her a lunatic? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "LOL, JR" Posted by Gemini on 19:24:16 8/17/2001 Give it up : ). You aren't going to send me on a wild goose chase through the threads. Ha! You guys just have a seat where you've committed yourselves. I'm gonna perch up here with my charmin and wait and see. I never mind admitting I'm wrong if it comes to that, sooo, I'm not afraid to go on record as believing there's more to the DNA than popular forum opinion claims. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Excuse me Gem" Posted by JR on 19:31:37 8/17/2001 I just went back through the Ned thread one and found a couple of posts and fixed the, I also stated on my very first post that I was not accusing the parents that I was tossing out "food for thought." So move yer hiney over cause this big ole' hiney is right beside it...nah...I take that back, my little piggies are beside it cause I am only holding on by a toe these days. I didn't find any posts on Ned II where I didn't say "I believe" or "IMHO." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Aurora" Posted by KrayonC on 19:28:55 8/17/2001 Exactly Aurora.....exactly. (stalking) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "ROTF" Posted by KrayonC on 19:31:32 8/17/2001 "Hold your DNA close" Funny JR. Read that while I was trying to do my mascara. Needless to say..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "v_p" Posted by Gemini on 19:30:45 8/17/2001 I intended to be courteous to AG. The reason I posted that to her is because one of you ladies mentioned you had learned a lot about the DNA at your meeting (from BobC). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "I know austingirl..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 20:02:16 8/17/2001 ...from her incisive reasoning and clearcut thinking on another (non-JBR) board. You are greatly underestimating this fine critical thinker if you suppose she gets any of her opinions secondhand. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. ": ) JR" Posted by Gemini on 19:41:42 8/17/2001 Yeah, I suspected you'd be editing. I really didn't remember which threads I saw them on and am just back from a 2 mile walk and laazzzzy. Thank you for conducting your own search : ). Now hold on ... I said nothing about who was guilty or not ... just that I'm willing to bet there is a more viable DNA sample than all this old, compromised, degraded stuff that has become forum legend/myth. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Gemini" Posted by austingirl on 20:05:30 8/17/2001 I based my post not on information from anyone, but on science. DNA has many alleles on each strand, a scientific fact. The DNA from the panties had missing alleles - a fact. There can never be a match that will stand up in court as beyond a reasonable doubt because any suspect's sample that matches the few existing alleles from JonBenet's body has as a defense that no one knows what the missing alleles are and hence, they can't convict him! This is not forum opinion - this is hard science. You can't match what doesn't exist. Barry Scheck doesn't think you can even legitimately eliminate anyone because of the poor condition of the DNA found on JonBenet. Others do. No one can be eliminated, not even John and Patsy Ramsey (yes, a female) if the DNA is a mixture from two or more people. They don't even know if it is or isn't. These are facts, not some spin. No test can ever be devised to say with any degree of certainty that partial DNA can identify anyone. An attorney would have a field day with the billions of combinations that could exist for the missing alleles (each could be one of four compounds). As to the new mitochondrial DNA testing. The old DNA testing requires a cell nucleus. Mitochondrial DNA testing does not. That is why everyone is so excited about the hair. MtDNA is in hair whereas regular DNA is only in the hair follicle. But, MtDNA cannot positively identify anyone either. Scientific fact - not forum opinion. MtDNA contains only maternal DNA data and can be used for elilmination purposes. I bothered to educate about DNA, not just blindly follow some forum spin. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Gem and Mr. Gem" Posted by JR on 19:52:57 8/17/2001 There were 7 people at the DO. 95% of the time I couldn't hear what Bob said because I was furthest away from him and not only were there several conversations at our table but it wasn't the quietist (sp) restaurant to begin with. I did sit next to him briefly at one point which is why I said 95% of the time and not 99%. We learned a lot because that atmosphere encourages more sharing of opinion which includes articles, news reels and so forth we might not have read or seen. No one can do case 24/7. As you know (or should from my posts), I don't even watch TV unless told something is on. Since the local cable company took MSNBC off of basic, I don't even get case news that way. If I hear the reports at all it's because I use Real Player or a like software to do it on-line. Suggest we preface belief from sourced fact with IMHO but understand that you are doing the very same thing here IMHO. Maybe some did discuss DNA but that certainly doesn't say we all did nor could we all hear what was said. Picture a typical Tex-Mex restaurant that's quite popular (so I gather) for "Happy Hour" while sitting at a table of 7 and you will get a better idea of the acoustics. ;-) Talk to Mr. Gem because IMHO, you are losing out on a lot by not meeting others and honest we aren't all weird. I too went to a "live" forum event way back when (94-95 I believe) and yeah, those people were kind of off the wall but that was a totally different type of group to begin with. It was mostly singles and we weren't trying to concentrate on anything serious. Maybe if Mr. Gem met some of use he would see there are different facets of net friendships. Also, show him our pictures so he knows we don't have fangs and fly around on brooms - honest I would even let him drive my "cool car" as it's been labled. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Gem " Posted by v_p on 19:52:09 8/17/2001 >>>23. "v_p" Posted by Gemini on 19:30:45 8/17/2001 I intended to be courteous to AG. The reason I posted that to her is because one of you ladies mentioned you had learned a lot about the DNA at your meeting (from BobC). <<<< Please take the time to find the post and bring it here for me... please. I certainly did not say I learned anything from the meeting about DNA... and I learned only one thing from BobC... he's way cute... that's it. OK OK OK OK, there was one revelation ... that the beehive lady in the booth behind us was a "friend" of loosemitts and might have been involved in the murder investigation only because there were leaves stuck in her hair... and a blue streak across her forehead.... but that's it... honest. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "v_p" Posted by austingirl on 20:07:18 8/17/2001 You are too much! I never saw that blue streak. You are very observant. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Lurker" Posted by austingirl on 20:07:48 8/17/2001 I am blushing I tell you, blushing! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Ok, OK ladies" Posted by Gemini on 20:21:31 8/17/2001 Thanks for the in depth summary, AG. I'll just hang on to my charmin and wait and see. JR, your post belongs on the Daily ... at least part of it. I try not to get into big time discussions about personal things on a case topic thread. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "a lot of" Posted by Gemini on 20:36:20 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:36:20, 8/17/2001 twittering going on here. Guess I bumped against something sensitive : ). edited to add Tricia was the one who posted about learning a lot about DNA (the Monet thread). I think a few of you are getting all defensive about nothing. You've heard - and believe - the only DNA samples they have are too degraded to use for viable testing. However, the actions of the BPD (to me) say otherwise. Has nothing to do with anyone's integrity ... just with who you choose to believe about the condition of the samples taken from the body and the hair. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "No, not because you" Posted by v_p on 20:39:24 8/17/2001 bumped into something sensitive Gem, because you threw out a statement which some might take as gospel, and you have yet to back it up. 23. "v_p" Posted by Gemini on 19:30:45 8/17/2001 I intended to be courteous to AG. The reason I posted that to her is because one of you ladies mentioned you had learned a lot about the DNA at your meeting (from BobC). You know how things become fact if not cleared up right away... right? I didn't sit at the table with BobC, flutter my eyelashes and hang on his every word... which is how you are trying to make it sound. Now you are being pithy because I'm asking for confirmation. Bumped into something sensitive? You damned right you did, now, if it's not too much trouble, please, clear it up. Thanks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Gemini" Posted by austingirl on 20:51:48 8/17/2001 I'll defend myself when I'm faced with snide insinuations that I'm quoting forum spin when I know my scientific facts. That is not being sensitive - merely prudent. There are people spreading misinformation on this board. The police may very well be using the partial DNA for elimination purposes - whether that is valid or not. IMO I think they are spinning their wheels. It is my opinion that John and Patsy are responsble for the murder of their daughter. The DNA information is fact. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Go Back and read #35 again, V_p" Posted by Gemini on 20:50:34 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:50:34, 8/17/2001 It didn't occur to me but I'll bet I should have written another post instead of editing that one. I did not question A.G.'s technical info ... just the idea that the DNA is too old and degraded to use ... and v.p. ... that idea came from an old, old Carol McKinley media comment. I have trouble believing people are continuing to hang onto that in spite of the BPD actions. Now why is a difference of opinion about that something to get all upset about? Beats me. (lol edited because I was rushing to get v_p to re-read the earlier post : ) ) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Found it" Posted by v_p on 20:48:30 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:48:30, 8/17/2001 My apologies Gem... >>BobC thanks for picking up the tab:). I learned more from BobC about dna and this case than I have in years. What a great guy!<<< Tricia did, indeed, write this. I sat right beside her and never heard a word about DNA... I think her tongue may have been a bit in her cheek though... then again maybe not... I can't speak for Tricia. Although I apologize for so staunchly stating the above was never said, I stand behind what I said about AG... very smart cookie more than capable of coming to her own conclusions about many things. edited because I never frigging proof-read. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Gem" Posted by JR on 20:46:18 8/17/2001 I'll try to rememeber next time. Just read your post there (I think it was there anyway.) One loses a train of thought if they always take chit elsewhere IMHO. So guess what Gem...BYTE me. ;-\ Now go directly to my SB problem and come up with a smarter (and I did not say smart mouthed - LOL!) answer por favor. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "AustinGirl" Posted by Gemini on 21:10:18 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:10:18, 8/17/2001 One more time. I'm not questioning your technical information ... don't think I've been snide either ... think, perhaps, you're ultra sensitive. What I DO question (heavily) is how you know for a fact exactly what the police/crime labs have to work with. Unless someone directly inside the investigation has given you that information ... your opinion is only your opinion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "I'm raging mad" Posted by smellthecoffee on 22:54:47 8/17/2001 Haven't been in this forum for months. As soon as I saw JAMESON in the news I uncorked. Let's make a list of all the people in this and all forums who have been burned by that biotch. The police would have to be insane to take anything she says seriously. I can't think of one other person on forums that I detest more. Just venting....sorry, but I just read all the posts and I couldn't agree with you more. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL smellthecoffee ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "At the risk of being flamed" Posted by JR on 21:43:11 8/17/2001 How about we all take 3 deep breaths re-read our own posts (objectively if possible) and maybe agree to disagree or take it to the WOR? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "I did say it" Posted by Tricia on 22:20:08 8/17/2001 Yes I was the one talking to BobC. Yes we did discuss dna. I discussed what I knew, like the dna was so miniscule it was as much as someone lightly brushing a fingernail across a cheek. BobC talked about dna evidence. SO WHAT? Because BobC and I discussed it doesn't mean it changes the evidence. It is still true. Austin Girl is right. Austin Girl knows her stuff. I want to remind you again the experts have said this is not a dna case. It is not. If it was a dna case there would more plain and simple. Please I would ask posters not to turn what was a lovely evening into something it was not. It was a wonderful evening with new friends. That's all. Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Tricia" Posted by JR on 22:39:11 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:39:11, 8/17/2001 IMHO, the problem here is that we all got charged to talk case again and Nedd had provided us that avenue with his thread. Since Bob has always been "vocal" about the DNA the assumption is being made that he converted us. It isn't true and belaboring the point isn't helping nor getting the much needed case discussion going again. Then of course this spin today. So now we have recharged Do'ers, DNA which is always an issue and emotions running high because of today's (sorry I do not consider it "news") commentary and who had a hand in it. If we all think about it, who or what ever is behind Becker being "vocal" for a change, has accomplished the goal of derailing case discussion, once again. Let's not allow that to continue happening. Hirself always uses it to hir advantage, posting only the posts which hir can twist to make us look bad and never the actual case discussion. Edited to add: Jameson you do not have permission to steal my post like you have the last half dozen or more. If you post one word I write, then post them all. I have seen WY's comment and your little twist to make it look like she threatened you when we all know she DID NOT! SO, post 100% of of mine or none. Just because I chose not to add this warning to every dang post does not give you the liberty to steal them and twist or clip them to your liking. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "It appears" Posted by Gemini on 22:27:11 8/17/2001 you gals surrrre don't like it if someone disagrees with you. What a bland, boring forum this would be without different opinions. So Tricia, how do you KNOW the DNA samples are miniscule ... and why do you suppose the BPD continues to test? I'm open if any of you will convince me you are working with factual information and not just stating opinions. What are your sources beyond ST, who has been out of the loop quite a long time. my, my ... JR, a little shepherding goes a long way. Too much gets kind of insulting ... especially when one is not part of the flock. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Gem" Posted by v_p on 22:41:09 8/17/2001 You know very well it's not a matter of anyone in this "group of girls" agreeing or disagreeing... it was your condescending remark that we gathered our collective DNA opinion from BobC at the Texas Do. Disagree without throwing that part in and I'll not have a problem at all with your opinion... as usual. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "My source " Posted by Tricia on 22:37:45 8/17/2001 is ST's book. I don't have it with me but I will try and find a quote for you when I get back. if I am not mistaken PMPT also mention the small amount of dna. Henry Lee is another source. He has said this is not a dna case. Henry Lee. Now him I believe. Gem if I am wrong I will be the first to admit it, but from what I have read so far DNA is not going to make or break this case because there is not enough to prove anything other than it was not an intruder. If it was an intruder more DNA would have been found. JMHO Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Tricia" Posted by Gemini on 22:51:21 8/17/2001 I have to exclude ST as a credible source because he is no longer in the loop and has been out of it since before the more sophisticated testing was done. I MIGHT think it's just me who can't get past all the orders the labs have had to test samples against this "miniscule" DNA, but as long as the BPD continues to use it to rule out potential suspects, I have to believe what I see happening beyond just opinion. I think you share your opinion in good faith, Tricia. We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out, I guess. Personally, I'll be very surprised if the current tests come to anything, but would rejoice if that, or anything else, helped bring justice to this case. LOL! Have to add this (for all). Got a call from my elder daughter a little while ago. She and her friends are terribly impressed that Jameson has been in the news tonight ... especially since she (daughter) has had such disdain for these forums : ). I didn't see the coverage, but apparently it was not negative. I think she was a little disappointed when I told her Jameson's forum was not the one I posted on. Think I'll go watch a movie with hubby. This has been one strange day. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Gem" Posted by JR on 22:44:02 8/17/2001 If you are insulted because I care about issues like people's feelings then what can I say? You will have to learn to live with it, because I am me, you are you and our approaches to people and life are what make us unique as individuals. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Y'all must have " Posted by v_p on 22:43:03 8/17/2001 talked dna whilst Janab and I were outside getting some fresh air :o) Now that was an interesting conversation... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "VP" Posted by JR on 22:46:51 8/17/2001 Yeah, and Y'All never shared it with us PpPpPp. You know dang well if I came out to feed the cows with Y'all I would have had to live with "OP's" and that's something I never did! ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "JR" Posted by Gemini on 22:55:15 8/17/2001 I think you're just a natural born supervisor and you will do it in spite of yourself : ). I see no flames anywhere on this thread so have a hard time understanding why you'd want to squelch a lively discussion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "I will shout " Posted by Tricia on 23:04:03 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:04:03, 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:01:39, 8/17/2001 this loud and clear BOBC AND I TALKED ABOUT DNA. No big deal. I don't think anyone else at the table heard our discussion. BobC is a wonderful. Gem I see your point about the police testing dna to eliminate suspects but my opinion is the police want to cover all thier basis if this case ever goes to trial. So they test everyone even close to the case. It seems they can eliminate people with the dna they have but can't get an exact match to the dna left on JonBenet. Thanks Tricia edited because I wanted to change my whole train of thought. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Tricia" Posted by Gemini on 22:59:13 8/17/2001 I didn't think it was a big deal either. After all, Bob has shared his opinion (gleaned from an unnamed contact) many times on this forum. Just a guess, but I'd say ST was McKinley's leak/source. (off to watch the movie now) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Gem" Posted by JR on 23:09:14 8/17/2001 "...so have a hard time understanding why you'd want to squelch a lively discussion." I answered this in the WOR since you brought it up there first only I believe you used the word "heated" there. I am not trying to "squelch" anything except perhaps what IMHO, is building frustration, which leads to flaming and we all know it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Tsk, Tsk Tsk !!!" Posted by Ellique on 23:46:25 8/17/2001 JWers, I beg you to get a grip before you become completely unglued. How long have we all known about Jams holding some DNA in a safe place? How long have we all known that Beckner had asked Jams to send it to him? How long have we all known that jams said, "Not NO but L NO, not until I have certtain assurances",or words to that effect. The two, Jams and Beckner, fianlly got together and agreed to cetain conditions and the DNA in question arrives in Boulder. That is it folks, plain and simple. What have we JWers done lately, evidence wise, to help the "investigation along? We cannot possibly be against the Boulder police asking for help and/or evidence from anywhere, can we? Lord only knows, they seem to need it. I, for one, commend Jams for her work and dogged determination to help find the Killer of that little child. I have grown to actually like most of you here on JW, but I have to tell you that I wince when I read your posts here and on Jams site giving her the devil when you really have no basis to do so. So cut it out!!!!!! You sound like you don't want the murder solved, you really do, especially if someone you don't particularly like is instrumental in getting it done. That is inane. Jams, hang in there. You have and I am sure you will contnue to take the heat. Let us all hope any pray that something comes along that will lead us to the killer. Maybe this DNA will. Love to all, Ellique [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Ha! Back!" Posted by Gemini on 23:19:33 8/17/2001 Hubby decided to make a pepsi run. JR, the discussion in the WOR is more heated, this one is more lively. You can't go around policing threads just because you fear there MIGHT be flames sometime in the future. Well ... I guess you can try. Where's Jonesy! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "DNA sources" Posted by Moab on 01:21:07 8/18/2001 I am not on top of the DNA evidence in this case. I can add this, which isn't much. When Smit was on GMA in May, MSNBC was doing their commentary on the show and had a judge and a lawyer from Colorado talking with the network anchor on this particular day. The judge and the lawyer said the DNA in JB's panties was male, not semen, and I believe not a Ramsey. (Not much, but that's all they said about DNA that I remember. I remember that because it surprised me about it being that far identified.) The other thing I remember hearing about the DNA in this case recently was also on TV, though I can't remember which show as I tend to zone out over the DNA because it's not something I understand well. But the information was given by a lab forensic technician who was demonstrating why the DNA was not able to be used for a positive ID, but could be used to exclude some people. She showed something that looked much like what AustinGirl said. The degraded DNA is broken and incomplete in the strands, so some markers are there, but others are missing, making an incomplete strand of DNA. However, if someone matches the markers that are there, then they cannot be eliminated. But they also cannot be positivily identified because of the missing markers that would have to be present to get a complete match. In other words, they might match the markers present but not match the missing markers. There is no way of knowing that at this time. Conversely, anyone not matching the markers present in the incomplete strand can be eliminated, as the Ramseys and many suspects were. It was also mentioned that further developments in DNA sequencing(?) or some such hocus pocus could make it possible to use this DNA in the future to obtain the perfect match. Don't know if that will help, but maybe a little. One point about the DNA and "suspect" now in question turned in by Jameson I haven't seen discussed. Mame said that she has a network producer who is already telling her this "suspect" is not this person or that person, implying the producer knows who the "suspect" actually is. Strange, since Jameson claims she has not told Beckner his name. So how is this information being circulated and how long will it be before, match or no, this man has his life turned upside down? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Gem" Posted by JR on 01:01:12 8/18/2001 I am not going around policing threads. I read many threads on many forums, just as you and others here do. You have opinions, I have opinions and we are both free to speak them. If my concern for other posters feelings bothers you so much, then please, feel free to scroll, post, tsk tsk me or what ever your lil' ole' heart desires, but I will voice my opinion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Lordy!" Posted by Ginja on 00:55:46 8/18/2001 Before I get into the nitty gritty here, a few 'outside' comments. Janov, convicts lose certain privileges such as voting rights, as you noted. What's that got to do with a law-abiding citizen's right to privacy? And I hardly think Jameson's right to freedom of speech extends to her stalking; harassing; fraudulently collecting DNA illegally from, without the knowledge of, a 'free' citizen (e.g., not ex-convict or parolee); and feloniously, without justification, libeling by labeling a free citizen a "murderer" and reporting same to law enforcement authorities. Mame, I question the alleged flesh under JBR's fingernails as being "defensive". Compare the manner in which her abuser sexually molested her to the likelihood that she would have been brutally raped if that abuser was not known to her. Likewise, compare the condition of her arms, hands and fingers that were free of bruising, scratching, abrasion, bleeding/blood with a small amount of only flesh under her fingernails to the same arms, hands and fingers being bruised, scratched, bleeding and containing a larger amount of perp's flesh mixed with his blood and hair under the fingernails. Note too, that if her attacker had actually been "attacking" (her reason for "defending" herself), his blood, his dna, his hair, etc. would have been deposited not only with the flesh under the nails, but around her wrists and arms and clothing. This perp wiped her private area inside and out to supposedly eliminate any evidence of himself; so he wasn't wearing gloves. Would he have grappled with her wearing gloves, thus not depositing anything of himself, and then take the gloves off to sexually molest her? There was no evidence her arms or hands were cleaned. Like the sexual abuse, I suspect the flesh under the fingernails stands alone because she knew her attacker, like he knew her. He didn't want to "hurt" her in his molestation of her, and she didn't want to "hurt" him in trying to reject his unwanted advances. And why so much hullabaloo over the hair on the blanket? How does it link to JBR's murder? It could have been deposited by anyone at anytime. Heck...the front door was practically a revolving door with people coming and going all day long; it could have blown in from outside! To have any significance at all, it would have to link to the crime and that can only be done by matching it to other evidence that links to the crime. Matching it to the unidentified DNA still wouldn't be enough, especially beyond a reasonable doubt, to identify the killer. A good example of linking evidence to the crime is the fiber evidence stuck to the duct tape. It can be dated because Patsy was wearing that jacket the night of the murder. Patsy was home the night of the murder. Patsy had access the night of the murder. Patsy had opportunity the night of the murder. The tape was on the body. The tape was put on the body when the body was dead. Ergo, it links a suspect to the victim at the time and place of the victim's murder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "On this so-called "evidence"" Posted by Ginja on 00:56:34 8/18/2001 Needless to say, this evidence is going to go nowhere fast. Everything about its collection and chain of evidence is illegal and compromised as noted by a number of posters. One poster in the previous thread said something about Dershowitz having a field day with this. He already did in State vs. vonBulow! For those of you not familiar (or if your memory has faded), Sunny vonBulow's children from her first marriage were the precursors to Jameson (probably where hir got the idea!) They hated their stepfather and set out to frame him for attempting to kill their mother; their mother still in a coma to this day because of her own substance(s) abuses (which induced said coma). She was hypoglycemic and wasn't supposed to consume sweets or alcohol; she also had a drug problem, shooting herself up with "speed balls" taught to her by Truman Capote; her son, Jameson the First, supplied her with the drugs. At Christmas, she overate, overdrank, and overdrugged herself into a coma. She was rushed to the hospital and out for days, but recovered, with stern warnings from her doctors that she had to stop such practices or else the next time she wouldn't wake up. The following Christmas, she woke at noon and spent the afternoon drinking and doing her drugs. She sat with the family for their holiday meal. She then followed the meal drinking a full pitcher of spiked eggnog, half a pound cake, bowl of ice cream and shot herself up with her favorite shot - a speedball. In a drunken stupor, Jameson the First and his hated stepfather carried the half-conscious Sunny to her room and put her to bed. She never woke up. Jameson the First and his sister, Missy Jameson, contacted a New York detective, Richard Kuh. They presented him with a little black bag that contained a hypodermic needle and a small jar of insulin. The black bag, they said, belonged to their stepfather. They "found" it inside his "locked" closet. They then handed it over to authorities, claiming it was evidence that vonBulow had injected Sunny with insulin, plunging her into a coma. The trial court accepted the "evidence" and the jury convicted vonBulow of attempted murder. He hired Dershowitz to appeal the conviction. There was plenty of "new" evidence discovered after the trial, including the fact that the hypo was never inserted into Sunny and that Jameson the First supplied drugs to his mother. The fact that she had such problems, or that she had had an identical coma, almost to the day, the previous year was never entered into evidence the first time around. Nor could any of this be introduced in the appeal. The appeal has to be based on the evidence and conduct of the trial. Anything new is introduced in the new trial. So what the appeal attacked was "illegal" evidence brought in by the NY detective, from the black bag to Kuh's notes. For all the reasons WY and others have pointed out, Jameson the First's and Missy Jameson's illegal evidence was thrown out and a new trial ordered. Now, as far as Beckner finally taking this DNA evidence is concerned, it's nothing more than turning over one more stone. He's in a catch-22; if he doesn't take it, he'll be criticized for ignoring "evidence"; if he does take it, he can't do a thing with it! (e.g., it can't be used to solve the case or present at trial). It's also why the BPD have taken DNA samples from everyone. Not because they have anything significant to compare it with, but to make sure every stone is turned. They've got some DNA on the body, so they have to make sure they cover all the bases and see if they can find a match. IOW, they can't ignore it. They have to go where the evidence leads, and if there's DNA evidence, then they have to follow up, only because it would be gross negligence not to. Besides, any defense attorney worth his salt would divert all attention at trial away from the real evidence, and focus only on the fact that the police didn't try to find a match to the evidence found on JBR. It doesn't matter that that evidence can't be dated or linked to the crime, or that it can't definitively identify JonBenet's killer. What that defense attorney would ensure is that it stick in the minds of the jurors that the BPD didn't follow up on evidentiary leads; that they focused in on the Ramseys and only the Ramseys and did whatever they could to make sure the Ramseys were convicted. Look at what happened in Simpson. They had more than ample blood evidence....a trail!...from Nicole's and Ron's bodies at Gretna Green to OJ's car, the glove on his property and his socks in his bedroom! But what stuck in the minds of the jurors is that the bloodied glove didn't "fit". All Mark Beckner is doing with all this testing is making sure defense doesn't have a field day diverting attention away from the real evidence. Finally, let's just suppose Jameson's "evidence" pans out and matches. Then what? Can the cops move in and make an arrest? No. Can the cops get a warrant to get a "legal" dna sample? No. The evidence would be thrown out of court, therefore, it can't be used as a basis for "going after" a suspect. In order to go after this person, they need probable cause. That probable cause cannot be based on illegally-gotten evidence. The cops have to work as though they have no knowledge that the DNA matches. So they'd be back to square one, especially considering the fact that Beckner has already stated the department has already checked this person out. As a matter of fact, it would be more difficult the second time around because they'd have to have new information, new probable cause to go after the person. And that, my friends, is mho. J [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "Ginja!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:10:09 8/18/2001 I'm sure glad you're back. It's great to hear your "Voice of Reason". The comparison to the VonBulow case is very good. It seems that in every high profile case, there is some bogus person foisting bogus evidence on us. Love the reference to "Jameson the First" and "Missy Jameson". In so many of these cases, the end game becomes a contest between defense and prosecution over who has more tricks in his bag to confuse and distract the jury. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Thanks, Ginja" Posted by Watching you on 05:38:54 8/18/2001 did you get your computer fixed or are you on a different computer? I sure don't like it when you're not around to clarify some of these legal issues. I was pretty certain that anything that grew out of this tainted and illegally-obtained evidence would not be allowed in court. You explain it oh so well. So much of it is just plain common sense. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "OK" Posted by janov on 08:05:01 8/18/2001 I'll drop the subject,since it seems we are discussing it on two different planes. What WAS Monica going to do with that dress? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Janov" Posted by Ginja on 10:04:18 8/18/2001 >I'll drop the subject,since it seems we >are discussing it on two different >planes. What WAS Monica going to >do with that dress? I think I'm lost completely on this! I'm not following your train of thought at all. Monica kept the dress because Linda Tripp told her to, as evidence. This is a different situation because it was her dress that she wore when the Prez dirtied it. Jameson didn't crawl into the Watergate one night and steal it from Monica's closet and then present it to Congress as evidence that the Prez was a womanizer and cheat! From my standpoint, you're mixing apples and oranges. When you make comparison like this, they have to be "like-comparisons", e.g., same-type situations. For example, I compared Jameson's illegal evidence collection to Sunny's kids' illegal evidence collection -- like situations. I don't see how Monica's dress or a convicted felon's lost privilege to vote have anything to do with the topic at hand. But hey! I've been out of the loop for a couple of weeks...what am I missing? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Ginja~" Posted by Aurora on 08:23:06 8/18/2001 What a great analogy! I agree...totally.. with you! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Ginja" Posted by Tricia on 08:58:48 8/18/2001 once again you put everything into words we can all understand. you are amazing. Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "I'm glad..." Posted by Ginja on 09:56:27 8/18/2001 I could put this into some kind of logical order. As noted, even if this sample matches, the cops can't use it, even to build a probable cause case to get a "legal" sample. They have to work as though they have no knowledge of any matching DNA. Without that as a basis, they have to come up with some other cause to go after the guy. And if it's true they've already looked at him, then it's safe to assume they had nothing on him. If they had nothing on him back then, what new development has come up that they could make a second investigation? And remember, that second investigation can't have anything to do with hir 'evidence'. She is sooo out there! WY, I'm back on temporarily with my old motherboard seeing as how the new board was defective! Another one's on order and the techs were able to get this one up and running again. But I've already started running into problems so I'm taking it "gingerly". :-) The good news is that I'm at least "on"; I'd rather be here with a half-baked motherboard than not be here at all! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Hi Gemini" Posted by Cassandra on 10:11:13 8/18/2001 Still hanging in there, I see. You are a glutton for punishment, girl! lol Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "What you said, Ginja" Posted by Watching you on 09:59:14 8/18/2001 was what I was trying to say, haha, but nobody listens when I say it, and I don't really blame them because I have no legal background. I real a lot, though. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "WY" Posted by Ginja on 10:12:07 8/18/2001 Reading is how you learn...you don't need to go to law school! Jameson can argue til she's blue in the face of how illegally seized evidence is good evidence. She talks of BORG lies and myths constantly...she ought to heed her own words! Since she can't, I will. Hir's wrong! And Beckner's only covering all the bases so it doesn't get thrown back in his face by defense attorneys! The vonBulow situation is a perfect example of why such evidence is illegal. Jameson wasn't there...but I was. And as the case unfolded and we learned more about the underworld and Jameson the First's involvement in drug trafficking, things got so involved and scary (you wouldn't believe what crawled out of the woodwork!), that I had to have full time security to make sure I didn't wind up in the obits. It got to a point where security actually sat with me in the office! The are laws protecting citizens against illegal searches and seizures, for cripes sake! But when you've got a loose nut screwing up an investigation, officials have no choice but to go along with it and follow through. They have no choice! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. ""Flesh"" Posted by v_p on 10:29:21 8/18/2001 under the fingernails would, no doubt, supply unbroken strands of DNA. I've never read "flesh" was found beneath her nails. Please give me somewhere to go to read this. Thanks [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Ginja" Posted by driver on 10:28:17 8/18/2001 didn't you mean to say Loo Snut?? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Gemini" Posted by austingirl on 10:37:19 8/18/2001 You need a dictionary if you don't think you were snide and insulting. And not just to me. There was no fresh flesh found under JonBenet's fingernails. If there was it would indeed have provided plenty of DNA material from which a positive identification could be made, full DNA strands would abound. The material is described as dried, cracked, impossible to date, and a mixture from JonBenet and others. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Well, Driver" Posted by Ginja on 10:34:15 8/18/2001 >didn't you mean to say Loo Snut?? > A rose is a rose by any other name, eh? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "V_P" Posted by Florida on 10:44:00 8/18/2001 The only source I've ever seen for flesh as the source for the DNA under JonBenet's fingernails is mame. I don't have a clue who her source is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Yes, Florida" Posted by LurkerXIV on 11:43:27 8/18/2001 Mame and her "source" are the only ones we have for this "factoid". Not exactly what you would call an impeccable reference or an umimpeachable source. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "For reasons already" Posted by Watching you on 11:53:34 8/18/2001 given here, the flesh under the fingernails is absurd. In the first place, Steve Thomas said there was no new flesh or blood under her nails - it was old and cracked material. In the second place, if there WERE flesh under her fingernails, what a wonderful complete source of DNA - very little material is needed for a complete DNA strand. The amount found under her nails was miniscule and incomplete, making it illogical that it was fresh flesh. It wasn't flesh. It makes no sense - it defies logic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "AG" Posted by Gemini on 14:43:40 8/18/2001 I said nothing about "fresh flesh" under fingernails or anywhere else. I think you may have me confused with another poster. I'm sorry you misunderstood my first post to you. I was, sorta-kinda, poking fun at myself because BobC and I had scrambled a bit in the past on the same subject ... the info that all the DNA samples are contaminated, cracked, old, degraded, etc.. I simply do not see and have not seen a good source for this claim beyond Steve Thomas who has not been around the case since the newer testing was done. I fully understand there can't be a "match" without complete samples, but believe it's obvious there's enough to eliminate potential suspects. Again, I really didn't intend to ruffle feathers and I hope you'll accept my apology for not making myself clear. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "Hi Cassie : )" Posted by Gemini on 14:56:17 8/18/2001 If I'm trying to figure something out and looking for information/various viewpoints ... I have no shame : ). It rolls off my back like water off a duck. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "In true mame fashion..." Posted by v_p on 15:10:46 8/18/2001 no source for the "defensive flesh" reference has been given. Thanks again... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 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. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Gee, thanks v_p" Posted by Moab on 21:19:20 8/18/2001 I was beginning to think I was typing in invisible font. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "lol moab" Posted by v_p on 22:39:41 8/18/2001 It's hit and miss around here... lmao. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE