No. I always root for the aliens anyway.
They'll come back for me one day...to check on the microchip my husband is sure they implanted.
Like it or not, JBR murder a DNA case.
- Thread starter Holdontoyourhat
- Start date
No. I always root for the aliens anyway.
They'll come back for me one day...to check on the microchip my husband is sure they implanted.
Hi voynich.
nope. [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Encounters_of_the_Third_Kind[/ame]
Re, Mi, Do, Do, So .....
I'm guessing that you're not familiar with that "light our darkest hour" bit, huh?
err, it's not a microchip I'd worry about. more like a heart attack
sounds boring. try PREDATORS
It's from "Transformers: The Movie" (THERE's something we could go back and forth with!)
there's more to you then meets the eye
You have no idea.
long live the king!
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
Seems to ME that not even the Ramsey's think this is a DNA case
18 Q. You've named Fleet White, I
19 believe, as a suspect. Same question, have
20 you rejected him as a possible suspect?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Bill McReynolds?
23 A. No.
24 Q. No, you have not rejected him?
25 A. No, I have not rejected him.
0022
1 Q. And I believe Chris Wolf you
2 also --
3 A. No, he has not been rejected.
4 Q. I assume then that that is a
5 function of the fact that you have not
6 received any significant information concerning
7 the murder of your child in the last two
8 years that differs from the information that
9 you received prior to your interviews with
10 representatives of the Boulder district
11 attorney's office?
12 MR. WOOD: Hold on before you
13 answer.
14 Do you understand that?
15 THE WITNESS: Not really.
16 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. I'll
17 rephrase it for you. In June of 1998, the
18 individuals that I've named were, in your
19 mind, potential suspects in the murder of
20 your child; correct?
21 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). Correct.
22 Q. You tell us that today, in August
23 of the year 2000, those individuals remain
24 suspects. Correct?
25 A. Correct.
0023
1 Q. I am assuming, based on that,
2 that you have not received, through your
3 investigators or through your experts, any
4 significant new information about the killing
5 which caused you to abandon those opinions or
6 suspicions?
7 MR. WOOD: Let me just caution
8 you. Because he tells you it is something
9 that he assumes, Patsy, I think what he
10 really wants to know is, why have you not
11 necessarily rejected these people in my own
12 mind. Do you follow me? I think that is
13 an easier question.
14 Isn't that what you are driving
15 at, Bruce?
16 MR. LEVIN: Well, not, no, it is
17 not.
18 Q. You've named Fleet White, I
19 believe, as a suspect. Same question, have
20 you rejected him as a possible suspect?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Bill McReynolds?
23 A. No.
24 Q. No, you have not rejected him?
25 A. No, I have not rejected him.
0022
1 Q. And I believe Chris Wolf you
2 also --
3 A. No, he has not been rejected.
4 Q. I assume then that that is a
5 function of the fact that you have not
6 received any significant information concerning
7 the murder of your child in the last two
8 years that differs from the information that
9 you received prior to your interviews with
10 representatives of the Boulder district
11 attorney's office?
12 MR. WOOD: Hold on before you
13 answer.
14 Do you understand that?
15 THE WITNESS: Not really.
16 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. I'll
17 rephrase it for you. In June of 1998, the
18 individuals that I've named were, in your
19 mind, potential suspects in the murder of
20 your child; correct?
21 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). Correct.
22 Q. You tell us that today, in August
23 of the year 2000, those individuals remain
24 suspects. Correct?
25 A. Correct.
0023
1 Q. I am assuming, based on that,
2 that you have not received, through your
3 investigators or through your experts, any
4 significant new information about the killing
5 which caused you to abandon those opinions or
6 suspicions?
7 MR. WOOD: Let me just caution
8 you. Because he tells you it is something
9 that he assumes, Patsy, I think what he
10 really wants to know is, why have you not
11 necessarily rejected these people in my own
12 mind. Do you follow me? I think that is
13 an easier question.
14 Isn't that what you are driving
15 at, Bruce?
16 MR. LEVIN: Well, not, no, it is
17 not.
The Ramsey's don't make that decision Madeline. This case goes nowhere until the DNA has a face to it. Not even a confession would a conviction.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
Maybe I am just confused right now.......okay,DNA points to an intruder,but how does it exonerate the Ramseys???(when all the other circumstancial evidence points to THEM and there is NO other evidence that points to an intruder??)
How come was M.Lacy so sure that it wasn't R and an accomplice or God knows what other possible scenario?
Even if it was found in two places......does that mean that it belongs to the murderer??
It could be different.Maybe JB was molested by a stranger (who left his dna some other time) but killed by a parent?
How does that DNA exonerate the Ramsey's.And I want a logical answer cause the one I got(the official one) is BS.IMO
How come was M.Lacy so sure that it wasn't R and an accomplice or God knows what other possible scenario?
Even if it was found in two places......does that mean that it belongs to the murderer??
It could be different.Maybe JB was molested by a stranger (who left his dna some other time) but killed by a parent?
How does that DNA exonerate the Ramsey's.And I want a logical answer cause the one I got(the official one) is BS.IMO
I can't say that the Ramsey's were not accomplaces. Let me get that out of the way.
The circumstancial evidence does not point one way. It points both. The DNA in the panties was followed up on extensively to provide an innocent explanation for. They could not do it. That is why the prosecution team suggested it could be from a factory worker. In 2006, another DNA technique found skin cells. It is not the same type of DNA in the panties. They isolated an area based on LE findings and hit "the homerun" as we call it. This is where you have to make your decision on whether you like my explanation. At this point, LE or the DA would do additional testing for numerous things while releasing AS LITTLE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC as possible to clear the Ramsey's.
Also, Holdon is correct that if one of the Ramsey killed JBR, there would be a ton of unseen evidence whether it be on the clothes, the person, or anywhere. I am not talking about fibers. It is about more than taking a shower and washing your clothes. Take that for what it is worth to you.
Now, again why they cleared the Ramsey's I don't know. Maybe in the aftermath, they felt that LE had just a bunch of inconstant statements from the Ramsey's. And not much evidence that supports the crime. Or maybe they have evidence that they are keeping close to the vest just like every other crime in the news. Or maybe, the DA jumped the gun. I think they know that the Ramsey's did not perform the act of killing.
The circumstancial evidence does not point one way. It points both. The DNA in the panties was followed up on extensively to provide an innocent explanation for. They could not do it. That is why the prosecution team suggested it could be from a factory worker. In 2006, another DNA technique found skin cells. It is not the same type of DNA in the panties. They isolated an area based on LE findings and hit "the homerun" as we call it. This is where you have to make your decision on whether you like my explanation. At this point, LE or the DA would do additional testing for numerous things while releasing AS LITTLE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC as possible to clear the Ramsey's.
Also, Holdon is correct that if one of the Ramsey killed JBR, there would be a ton of unseen evidence whether it be on the clothes, the person, or anywhere. I am not talking about fibers. It is about more than taking a shower and washing your clothes. Take that for what it is worth to you.
Now, again why they cleared the Ramsey's I don't know. Maybe in the aftermath, they felt that LE had just a bunch of inconstant statements from the Ramsey's. And not much evidence that supports the crime. Or maybe they have evidence that they are keeping close to the vest just like every other crime in the news. Or maybe, the DA jumped the gun. I think they know that the Ramsey's did not perform the act of killing.
It doesn't. As one of my favorite authors, lawyers and political pundits like to remind us:
DNA can only exclude suspects in cases of rape, and even then only if there was only one rapist and the victim was not sexually active. In virtually all other cases, DNA can include suspects, but not exclude suspects.
She was sure it couldn't be them from Day One.
DNA convicts rapist all the time. Especially when the two parties do not know each other.
I think I said that.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
I think the DA used the same rationale to exhonerate the R's.
Why does DNA exclude suspects in cases of rape? Because of the incriminating nature and location of the DNA. The idea there is that semen is found in the victim. If the victim is not sexually active, then the semen belongs to the rapist.
What is the nature and location of JBR's foreign DNA? Mixed with blood in her underwear, and on the surfaces of the waistband of her longjohns. Thats incriminating because it was deduced that an assailant that left DNA in JBR's underwear would also leave touch DNA on the waistband. They found touch DNA, and it did match the other DNA in JBR's blood droplets in her underwear.
The key is in the incriminating nature and location. Your favorite lawyer is right and the DA applied the principle correctly, thus exhonerating the R's.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
It still doesn't mean that it belongs to the killer.It might very well belong to someone helping the R's cleaning the crime scene.(cause ALL the other evidence you ignore points to them).Maybe that person whiped her down ,hence touch dna on the waistband of her longjohns,he redressed her afterwards.We don't know what kind of dna was found in her underwear now do we.would have been helpful for IDI's if it were sperm.But we don't know.So I might very well speculate that the one helping them out sneezed or God knows what.
as far as i know dna must be coroborated with other evidence.what other evidence supports the intruder theory?and don't tell me the rn.