Recent content by My Take

jayelles, ok, at least i know you are ok with spinning something out of context. bottom line is that when evidence is so sparce, as it is in this case, the presumption of guilt is wrong and unethical. i'm not claiming this evidence is factually true - i don't know. i am saying that if it is...

i never said both fingernals. i said both hands. go back and reread. were those clipper used to cut through the panties and remove the blood? after all, dna that matches 9 markers was foudn there, too. not to mention dnax was alledged to have been a match, too. were the clippers dropped...

jayelles, that isn't even relevant to what was asked. what evidence do you have that the foreign dna found mixed with both jbr blood drops, under her nails and possibly found a few feet from her body was found in the same underwear outside of jbr's blood? that is what is relevant and it is...

from the article... A year ago, Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan issued a statement saying the weight of the evidence was more consistent with an intruder killing JonBenet than the Ramseys committing the crime. ;-) Keenan could not be reached for comment on the latest report...

this is good... -lol- some more... if it is proven another guy killed jbr, it will be a lot of fun to find out who the rdi people blame for their grave error in rational thinking ability. my guess is that steve thomas gets tossed where he belongs - under the bus.

when bennett was talking about old information, he was talking about the idea that the dna now magically excludes the ramseys. that was the context. some folks will try and extend the context where bennett didn't apply it. a full dna profile is "new evidence." has any public official...

you've not proved that the full dna profile wasn't made whole after 12/11/03. the irony is you quote the ramseys as a better source than the guy who actually did the dna testing for the bda... so, you trust the ramseys as a source now? -lol-

show me where bennett said "no new evidence." cite your source.

when you have to run from the evidence, your pov may well be faulty. 48 hours put up the guy responsible for the testng of this dna on their show. the level of conspiracy required to make this guy hired by the bda to be actively lying to public is pretty steep. only the bpd can get away...

this statement just goes to show that you realize you have no hard evidence to support your position of assumed guilt.

source? my source they didn't find the foreign dna outside the blood is 48 hours and the lack of response from the bpd and bda. what is your source?

westerfield is 100% guilty. but if he had stunded and garrotted danielle in her bed, there would not be any evidence of him in the home. the rdi profile wouold blame the van dams - and be wrong. except in the van dam case their cries of "there's no evidence of an intruder" would actually...

actually, the 48 hours show claimed none had been found outside the blood. now, one could believe that bpd is still borderline retarded, but i think they probably did look - if only in a vain attempt to find patsy's dna on the underwear. the issue of prior contamination was brought up - and...

it has come to my attention that some rdi folks are so ingrained in their prior beliefs that they are unable to comprehend new information. well, for those who missed it, *they now have a full dna profile of the person who left foreign dna in jbr's blood* it is not the same old partial dna...

they now have a full dna profile taken from the second blood drop that the boulder pd didn't even bother to send for testing. you guys need to keep up to date instead of repeating the same old mantras...