Jane Valez Mitchell & other Media People Who Know Only Ramsey Spin Let's Educate Them

[BBB167893]

I am not sure if you guys are aware or not but good touch DNA is not left by brushing up against something. It takes a little force to leave a good pattern

Even if that's true--and I'm not 100%--that leaves a few problems all its own.

but I guess you guys don't care about that.

I've been around these folks a lot longer than you have, Roy. And if there's one thing you can never accuse them of, it's of not caring.

You also don't care that the BPD believed and even suggested that the original DNA was innocent and tried real hard to prove it by testing everyone around that child.

"Everyone?" I have a hard time buying that. Can you honestly tell me that they tested every last single person at that party? Or from her school? Or any number of places I could mention?

 

[BBB167893]

If touch DNA can exclude them then there should be 100's of other touch dna in that house and in the evidence that confirms this. In MY opinion that has not been shown and I find it VERY hard to believe that. This fake intruder perp left no other touch dna and was in the house milling around writing that note for some period of time and there is not touch dna multiple places.

This whole thing is such a crock of crap .... I am with TRICIA and SUPERDAVE on this one, THERE was never an intruder and when someone can show the Ramsey's cell phone records for December of 96 I will change my mind. I do not have friends high enough up in the world to make three sets of cell phone records go away?? But do not forget that the Ramseys DO have friends that can do favors of this type.

Kathy in Texas

There's a yellow rose in Texas... :clap:

 

[Roy23]

HOTYH said it best: Beckner's statement was a thumb in the eye of Mary Lacy's administration.

I guess you guys can't read. There is no thumb in the eye. In two posts, both of Beckner's statements, I have produced more information to you than you have done in your history of posting here.

1. Irregardless of the recent past, The DA's office and BPD had been working really well together.

2. The DA granted the BPD request for them to make their case in front of a GJ.

3. The chief understands that they don't have enough to make their case but will continue on.

4. States that he hopes new technological advances in DNA may shed some light for the future as he continues on.

5. IT DOES

6. Is supportive of the new finding and attaches a lot of significance to it.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I can read very well, thank you. If you read that Beckner cleared the Ramseys with the above statements, it's your reading abilities that I would have to question.

 

[BBB167893]

I guess you guys can't read.

Your humor eludes me.

There is no thumb in the eye.

When he said that they would not discount any possibilities, anyone could read between those lines.

In two posts, both of Beckner's statements, I have produced more information to you than you have done in your history of posting here.

How do you figure that?

1. Irregardless of the recent past, The DA's office and BPD had been working really well together.

I hope so.

2. The DA granted the BPD request for them to make their case in front of a GJ.

I wish I could say that with a straight face. The GJ was only convened as political cover in the wake of ST's resignation letter. It was a total dog and pony show, and the doberman never made it. Numerous witnesses were never even called. I don't see how anyone could deny this.

3. The chief understands that they don't have enough to make their case but will continue on.

Maybe he did feel that way. No argument. But there were so many things that could have been done that were not done.

4. States that he hopes new technological advances in DNA may shed some light for the future as he continues on.

5. IT DOES

It MIGHT.

6. Is supportive of the new finding and attaches a lot of significance to it.

But it's not the end-all, be-all.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I would really love to believe that new investigators will be able to shed new light on this case; however, I don't see how there is anyone left on the planet that does not have preconceived notions about it. Best case scenario is that they will be able to put those notions to the side and start from the beginning. Just hope they will have access to evidence the original investigators didn't (such as the phone records).

 

[Linda7NJ]

If this speck of "touch DNA" can also be found on the rope & paintbrush handle they may sell me on the notion an intruder was to blame....but not until.

 

[joeskidbeck]

If this speck of "touch DNA" can also be found on the rope & paintbrush handle they may sell me on the notion an intruder was to blame....but not until.

ITA, Linda. It's an absurd notion that this "intruder" wore gloves the whole time he was in this home yet removed them to handle the long johns. Why in the world would anyone do that? To get caught after leaving absolutely nothing behind anywhere else in the house and wiping down the flashlight batteries?

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO It was not ever a DNA case. The touch dna in this case is a red herring.

It was and always will be a common sense case. A RDI and my money is still on Patsy

 

[Roy23]

If this speck of "touch DNA" can also be found on the rope & paintbrush handle they may sell me on the notion an intruder was to blame....but not until.

What makes you think they would be so stupid as to not test that? If you will just think outside of the box and think about this just a tad. They have every reason in the world to not tell you, me, and the killer about this. What you do know is just enough for them to make their apology and why.

You do know they understand and know more evidence than us right?

 

[Roy23]

IMO It was not ever a DNA case. The touch dna in this case is a red herring.

It was and always will be a common sense case. A RDI and my money is still on Patsy

It was and it is. Unless you know more than the BPD and the DA's office

 

[Linda7NJ]

What makes you think they would be so stupid as to not test that? If you will just think outside of the box and think about this just a tad. They have every reason in the world to not tell you, me, and the killer about this. What you do know is just enough for them to make their apology and why.

You do know they understand and know more evidence than us right?

I don't think they found a match on the rope, or the paintbrush handle. I think they would say so.

Yes, I think they have more evidence than we know about, but I would bet that too points to someone in the Ramsey house, EVERYTHING else does....with the exception of these specks of touch dna on long johns.

 

[Roy23]

I don't think they found a match on the rope, or the paintbrush handle. I think they would say so.

Yes, I think they have more evidence than we know about, but I would bet that too points to someone in the Ramsey house, EVERYTHING else does....with the exception of these specks of touch dna on long johns.

They absolutely would not say so.

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, I think they have more evidence than we know about, but I would bet that too points to someone in the Ramsey house, EVERYTHING else does....with the exception of these specks of touch dna on long johns.

Could not have said it better.

To everyone here:

NEVER GIVE UP.

 

[DeeDee249]

I also can read very well, Roy , and read your ENTIRE post. By the new DA's OWN WORDS- he would not answer questions on whether the parents had been cleared (factually cleared, not cleared by Lacy's words).
The DNA is a start, not an end. I am not dismissing it. It MAY be the break we have so longed for. But at this point, with no donor identified, it can neither be used to clear or condemn anyone.
I have LONG said that there are many things that can be tested to try to recover DNA that matches what was found on JB. The garrote cord, the paintbrush handle are just two (though the most important). How about the suitcase handle (since Smit was so SURE the intruder used it to climb on when FW himself said HE was the one who put it there, and the Rs said it was always kept in the basement). How about the spoon- teabag (the little paper tag) and glass? How about saliva tests on the spoon and glass? That tissue box that Patsy said she didn't buy? Test it, if a intruder though ahead to bring a box of tissues (sheesh- he'd have needed a U-Haul for all the stuff the Rs claimed they didn't recall owning). How about testing that chair found outside the room with the broken window? You know- the chair JR claimed an intruder had pulled THROUGH a closed door behind them? Test that for the DNA, and prints. I don't think that was even tested for prints, was it?
Let's test that window frame and grate, too.
Sadly- we won't be testing ANYTHING. The glass, teabag, spoon, pineapple, the tissue box and suitcase should all still be in evidence in an unsolved case. If they wanted to test it they surely could have. But anything else is long gone.

 

[Roy23]

I also can read very well, Roy , and read your ENTIRE post. By the new DA's OWN WORDS- he would not answer questions on whether the parents had been cleared (factually cleared, not cleared by Lacy's words).
The DNA is a start, not an end. I am not dismissing it. It MAY be the break we have so longed for. But at this point, with no donor identified, it can neither be used to clear or condemn anyone.
I have LONG said that there are many things that can be tested to try to recover DNA that matches what was found on JB. The garrote cord, the paintbrush handle are just two (though the most important). How about the suitcase handle (since Smit was so SURE the intruder used it to climb on when FW himself said HE was the one who put it there, and the Rs said it was always kept in the basement). How about the spoon- teabag (the little paper tag) and glass? How about saliva tests on the spoon and glass? That tissue box that Patsy said she didn't buy? Test it, if a intruder though ahead to bring a box of tissues (sheesh- he'd have needed a U-Haul for all the stuff the Rs claimed they didn't recall owning). How about testing that chair found outside the room with the broken window? You know- the chair JR claimed an intruder had pulled THROUGH a closed door behind them? Test that for the DNA, and prints. I don't think that was even tested for prints, was it?
Let's test that window frame and grate, too.
Sadly- we won't be testing ANYTHING. The glass, teabag, spoon, pineapple, the tissue box and suitcase should all still be in evidence in an unsolved case. If they wanted to test it they surely could have. But anything else is long gone.

I am comfortable that they have tested many of these items. One thing the BPD and DA's office worked on after the Steve T. debacle is shutting their daggum mouths. Too many players in law enforcement put all kinds of crap all over the internet. Some of it true and some fabrications. They made a point long ago that all evidence will be kept hush hush. It is important if we care about justice. We don't need any more Karr's in this case.

Another thing about touch DNA is that it really isn't easy to leave a good pattern like you suggest in the items above. It is a really big difference between lightly touching something versus some forceful contact. This is why the leggings were the perfect test initially. .

I am sorry guys, but you guys can't seriously be this naiive. Use your brain.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I am comfortable that they have tested many of these items. One thing the BPD and DA's office worked on after the Steve T. debacle is shutting their daggum mouths. Too many players in law enforcement put all kinds of crap all over the internet. Some of it true and some fabrications. They made a point long ago that all evidence will be kept hush hush. It is important if we care about justice. We don't need any more Karr's in this case.

Another thing about touch DNA is that it really isn't easy to leave a good pattern like you suggest in the items above. It is a really big difference between lightly touching something versus some forceful contact. This is why the leggings were the perfect test initially. .

I am sorry guys, but you guys can't seriously be this naiive. Use your brain.

That's why I stated the rope and paintbrush handle specifically. The rope wasn't tied in preparation for this crime, it was tied while on her neck and the paintbrush handle was forcibly broken ...to complete the staging. Surely would wouldn't consider those acts "lightly touching"? Or would you?

I would bet they're still stinging from the egg on their faces over Karr!! I wouldn't have much confidence in anyone that actually thought Karr had anything to do with it.

 

[BBB167893]

They made a point long ago that all evidence will be kept hush hush. It is important if we care about justice. We don't need any more Karr's in this case.

I agree with that completely, but from a different perspective.

I am sorry guys, but you guys can't seriously be this naive.

We're not. Indeed, I'm puzzled as to how you could get the idea we were.

Use your brain.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[cynic]

The DNA is very significant and was a case changer. How come you guys can't understand that?

Because it's not true.
As I've pointed out repeatedly, you cannot ascribe the same probative value to this type of DNA.
This is not blood, semen, or urine. Many innocent explanations are possible.

The BPD got it all explained to them.

Did they? The DA’s office was in charge of the case at that time, and there is no way to know whether they discussed or shared much information. For all we know, the BPD may have simply received a memo giving a broad overview of the findings.

They had DNA but couldn't place 100% significance on it. But, advances were being made and the case was still being investigated.

It was degraded DNA, evidenced by the partial profile that they had difficulty producing.

Then the touch DNA homerun they were looking for came.

It was a long ball that hooked foul, sorry, no home run.
It did provide an excuse for ML to exonerate the Ramseys, but it ignored a host of issues that this type of DNA evidence is known to have.

Everyone has accepted it excect for you guys.

Everyone?

If you want to say a Ramsey paid someone to kill their daughter go ahead.

I’m not saying it.

I am not sure if you guys are aware or not but good touch DNA is not left by brushing up against something. It takes a little force to leave a good pattern but I guess you guys don't care about that.

And I'm not sure if "you guys" are aware that there are actually several factors involved, length of contact, pressure, type of surface/substrate, and the “shedder profile” of the person or persons involved in the transfer. A good shedder can transfer DNA quickly.

Additionally, with respect to your characterization of the touch DNA found on the long johns as "good," it may well be that the DNA was a difficult partial profile that produced few markers.
Keep in mind that, once upon a time, the RST were busy touting the fingernail DNA as somehow matching the other DNA. Unfortunately, for Lin Wood and others, Lou Smit let it slip that there were only two markers in common with the DNA in JBR’s panties.
There are at least two markers, clear distinct markers under the fingernails of the right hand.
-Lou Smit deposition
To say that two markers constitute a “match” is preposterous.
If they played fast and loose with the DNA evidence in the past, can you blame anyone for being a bit wary with respect to these recent findings?

You also don't care that the BPD believed and even suggested that the original DNA was innocent

I am aware of that, and it lends support to my long-standing view that the DNA in this case is weak.

and tried real hard to prove it by testing everyone around that child.

It appears that they missed one innocent DNA donor, probably a child.

This is why the leggings were the perfect test initially.

The fabric substrate of the long johns is not particularly notable. Touch DNA has been obtained from a variety of items and surfaces, including rope, handguns, steering wheels etc.


I think the reason that the ligature may not have been tested by ML is because JR’s and, or PR’s DNA is likely to be found there, and that would certainly pose a bit of a problem (for IDI.)

 

[Linda7NJ]

I am comfortable that they have tested many of these items. One thing the BPD and DA's office worked on after the Steve T. debacle is shutting their daggum mouths. Too many players in law enforcement put all kinds of crap all over the internet. Some of it true and some fabrications. They made a point long ago that all evidence will be kept hush hush. It is important if we care about justice. We don't need any more Karr's in this case.

Another thing about touch DNA is that it really isn't easy to leave a good pattern like you suggest in the items above. It is a really big difference between lightly touching something versus some forceful contact. This is why the leggings were the perfect test initially. .

I am sorry guys, but you guys can't seriously be this naiive. Use your brain.

For an interesting read, google "PCR amplification and stuttering"