He is...The poor guy can't even RIP. It just sickens me how far the IDI's will go to "save" their "sainted Ramseys."
And, if possible, enrich themselves in the bargain.
He is...The poor guy can't even RIP. It just sickens me how far the IDI's will go to "save" their "sainted Ramseys."
Good question! LE, medical personnel, etc. were ruled out as possible innocent sources of contamination; this practice is standard protocol. I believe you can find the info in PMPT, for sure.
Please listen to Tricia's radio show with the DNA instructor. I will link it when I have time. It's worth a listen, he explains this better than I could ever hope to do.
I will be back with the link as soon as RL allows me to search for it.
JMO
ETA: Here is the link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleu...t-8-pm-eastern
Good idea, tezi! While I was listening, I made a note that at 125 min. is when the DNA discussion gets started -- it was easy to understand and explains a lot about this case. I recommend it to everyone who hasn't heard it. The whole program has lots & lots of great info.
Well, if he was cleared by DNA then, the Ramsey's were too. For the record I'm not in either camp although I lean towards a Ramsey doing it, mostly John. Nothing is set in stone in my mind, actually, I was just asking a question! I'm new here and tried to start my own thread, but, I don't have enough posts to do so. Sorry if I clogged up your DNA thread with useless nonsense:seeya: I just was thinking with my fingers.
Still, the DNA exhonerated the Ramsey's , right? But, you still feel like they are guilty, right? And the DNA exonerated the Santa guy? I still feel like too many things are fn weird about his tale and plus he looks creepy too! Jmo
Good idea, tezi! While I was listening, I made a note that at 125 min. is when the DNA discussion gets started -- it was easy to understand and explains a lot about this case. I recommend it to everyone who hasn't heard it. The whole program has lots & lots of great info.
Before we get off of the wrong foot here cherisa, the DNA profile is not even a complete profile. It's also touch DNA, not blood, saliva, or semen.
The totality of the evidence assures me and a lot of others here that the Ramseys are at the very least guilty of being accessories to the crime of murder and guilty of child abuse resulting in death. Four people went into that house alive Christmas night and only three came out alive. You can do the math.
JMO
How can you be so sure though? I see your valid points, but also,the Santa guy makes me a bit nauseous. I fluctuate all the time as to who did it. I just don't know for 100% that a Ramsey did it? I don't. Sometimes, I'm sure they did especially with The seemingly endless parents who kill their children as of late, but some of the coincidences surrounding BM just makes my skin crawl. I guess, I wish I could be as confident, but, I'm sure I'd be confindently WRONG! And since the DNA is useless..... Well, then we cannot rule anyone out right?I'll take it a step further than that.
cherisa, I realize at first that it seems like we (RDI) are trying to have our cake and eat it too. But as ST and Mary Lacy reminded us, DNA was only ONE factor of many in the decision to clear or not clear a suspect. I guess the best way to explain it is this:
if you believe that the DNA HAS to be from an intruder, then if it doesn't match, you HAVE to let the person go, even if other evidence points to them. But if you consider the possibility (likelihood, IMO) that the DNA is irrelevant to the case, that still doesn't mean you can't use it as part of the overall investigation, but you're using other evidence in the process, too. It's the old school vs new school approach I've often spoken of.
Also, no amount of forensic technology in the world will ever replace good, old-fashioned legwork. That's the mistake too many people have made.
Here endeth my spiel.
I'll take it a step further than that.
cherisa, I realize at first that it seems like we (RDI) are trying to have our cake and eat it too. But as ST and Mary Lacy reminded us, DNA was only ONE factor of many in the decision to clear or not clear a suspect. I guess the best way to explain it is this:
if you believe that the DNA HAS to be from an intruder, then if it doesn't match, you HAVE to let the person go, even if other evidence points to them. But if you consider the possibility (likelihood, IMO) that the DNA is irrelevant to the case, that still doesn't mean you can't use it as part of the overall investigation, but you're using other evidence in the process, too. It's the old school vs new school approach I've often spoken of.
Also, no amount of forensic technology in the world will ever replace good, old-fashioned legwork. That's the mistake too many people have made.
Here endeth my spiel.
Before we get off of the wrong foot here cherisa, the DNA profile is not even a complete profile. It's also touch DNA, not blood, saliva, or semen.
The totality of the evidence assures me and a lot of others here that the Ramseys are at the very least guilty of being accessories to the crime of murder and guilty of child abuse resulting in death. Four people went into that house alive Christmas night and only three came out alive. You can do the math.
JMO
Didn't JBR say Santa came to visit her in the middle of the night or was coming to visit her that night? CREEPER
Santa also gave hair, fingerprint, and DNA samples with NO MATCH, AND his alibi was checked MULTIPLE times.
Succint, tezi........Simple and true. KISS and all that.
Hello, Nehemiah...I recently watched a show on the Brianna Denison murder, a case that I had followed when it first occurred. The detectives harvested 'touch DNA' from the doorknob on the back door and that was used to find and ultimately help convict the killer. When they said this i thought about just how much DNA would be on a doorknob at any given time.
I had pretty much ruled out the touch DNA in the JBR case but now I wonder what's the difference in using that for the arrest of Brianna's perp vs using it for a JBR perp? Am I missing something?
I recently watched a show on the Brianna Denison murder, a case that I had followed when it first occurred. The detectives harvested 'touch DNA' from the doorknob on the back door and that was used to find and ultimately help convict the killer. When they said this i thought about just how much DNA would be on a doorknob at any given time.
I had pretty much ruled out the touch DNA in the JBR case but now I wonder what's the difference in using that for the arrest of Brianna's perp vs using it for a JBR perp? Am I missing something?