You've obviously mistaken me for one of your friends, HOTYH. They'd certainly know what misinformation looks like.
Maybe you didn't get the memo: I don't deal in misinformation. It does me absolutely no good.
No intruder?
- Thread starter Holdontoyourhat
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
You've obviously mistaken me for one of your friends, HOTYH. They'd certainly know what misinformation looks like.
Maybe you didn't get the memo: I don't deal in misinformation. It does me absolutely no good.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
When I said it was false information, I wasn't being childish or insulting. I sincerely believed that the information is false.
My Irish *advertiser censored**, it is.
You just write that rule now?
Not that I disagree, mind you. Indeed, it's the important items that I care about.
I guess that depends on what you think the "core evidence" is!
Not on your life, me boyo.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
OK I'll rephrase: RDI got eliminated.
oooooohhhhh. Dont want to be in your shoes.
Oh, I know you sincerely believe it. At one time, I did too.
Agatha_C
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,309
- Reaction score
- 23
Could have fooled me! That nonsense left with Mary Lacy, and good riddance!
It's funny you say that! Because IDI is going to be spending a lot of time with my shoes, and not in a good way!
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Thats only if I willingly choose to waste my time, or someone else forces me to.
That's what I said!
Well, now that I'm a little more clear-headed (Fifth Amendment, hint hint), all I ask is a chance to show that it is not false. Can't ask fairer than that, now can I?
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 90
Because so far they didn't find dna on the cord&tape that matches the unknown dna for example,at least no one told me about it.and re the blunt instrument,we don't know what it was yet.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
I doubt they're looking as that would be redundant. "The unknown dna" as you put it, is really three separate, matching, mutually corroborative samples. 9 1/2 markers is therefore no longer an issue, as the touch DNA has more markers than that, and matched all 9 1/2 markers from the DNA deposit found in blood from the assault.
Investigators found enough DNA in enough of the right places to satisfy a rational argument. Those who dispute it do so irrationally. How embarrassing.
nobull,
Even odder is no sign of any touch-dna either on the paintbrush handle or the cord?
Then again we have never been told what type the DNA was which was found in JonBenet's underwear which was placed on her after she was killed.
So whomever redressed JonBenet may simply have transferred touch-dna to the size-12 underwear.
The size-12's are the Ramsey lie which implicate them in their daughters death.
.
madeleine,
You are 100% correct. it looks to me as if the underwear DNA is same as the longjohn touch-dna. And probably arrived there when JonBenet was being redressed.
Has any IDI offered an explanation for JonBenet being redressed and a crime-scene being staged?
I guess they cannot since IDI has no forensic evidence linking or matching to anyone at all.
Just spurious claims by Mary Lacy with no lab reports released to confirm her assertions.
.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 90
The DA people bragged that they tested everybody>no match>this means it's a stranger>this means an intruder did it.I disagree.
For example,I've heard dr.Beuf never gave a DNA sample.This is a problem for me as long as one of the theories is accident+cover-up (not my fav one but it's possible,some claim).
So if there was cover-up and too much staging then I guess it's fair to assume that there were more people involved and MAYBE that's the explanation for the "unknown" (???REALLY??) DNA.
Another thing,reminds me of something jameson(!) said on a forum early when this case was fresh,that "sources" say the DNA belongs to JR.....this and so many other things that happen really make me wonder whether that DNA is THAT unknown to some close to the case...............
Until there's an official list with ALL the people who were tested don't tell me we tested everybody and there's no match so it must have been a stranger who handled those clothes.They left out lots of key players it seems....like our Dr.Beuf.
For example,I've heard dr.Beuf never gave a DNA sample.This is a problem for me as long as one of the theories is accident+cover-up (not my fav one but it's possible,some claim).
So if there was cover-up and too much staging then I guess it's fair to assume that there were more people involved and MAYBE that's the explanation for the "unknown" (???REALLY??) DNA.
Another thing,reminds me of something jameson(!) said on a forum early when this case was fresh,that "sources" say the DNA belongs to JR.....this and so many other things that happen really make me wonder whether that DNA is THAT unknown to some close to the case...............
Until there's an official list with ALL the people who were tested don't tell me we tested everybody and there's no match so it must have been a stranger who handled those clothes.They left out lots of key players it seems....like our Dr.Beuf.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 90
1997-04-07: Geraldo Rivera Show Discussion Forum, "Suspects"
Tribune Entertainment Company (http://tribapps.tribune.com/)
jams jameson - 08:32am May 7, 1997 (#399 of 500)
Hunter said the DNA will not be the silver bullet. If it were an outsider and they had a match - it would be, but not necessarily if it is the father's - we know of no scratch on him that day and there are innocent ways that DNA might have gotten there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jams jameson - 08:59am May 7, 1997 (#400 of 500)
A "source" said the CBI lab results indicate it COULD be JR's DNA. That may mean it could be JR as well as 30% of the population - we just don't know. Cellmark labs should have more detailed results.
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-DNA.htm
Tribune Entertainment Company (http://tribapps.tribune.com/)
jams jameson - 08:32am May 7, 1997 (#399 of 500)
Hunter said the DNA will not be the silver bullet. If it were an outsider and they had a match - it would be, but not necessarily if it is the father's - we know of no scratch on him that day and there are innocent ways that DNA might have gotten there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jams jameson - 08:59am May 7, 1997 (#400 of 500)
A "source" said the CBI lab results indicate it COULD be JR's DNA. That may mean it could be JR as well as 30% of the population - we just don't know. Cellmark labs should have more detailed results.
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-DNA.htm
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 90
Geez,how hard is it to switch a sample anyway.....it's not like Boulder is a place where everything is done right in this case.
What IF they DID find 'someone's'(you know who) DNA on JB but we were never told about it because............you KNOW...............??just make it go away,how hard can it be ESPECIALLY since the defense has access to all the evidence (DUH)...
and let everybody wait for a match,never happen for ex if the sample was taken form a dead person or God knows where from.....
yeah silly....or maybe not
see the boston strangler case and what officials do just for the sake of their reputation.....
What IF they DID find 'someone's'(you know who) DNA on JB but we were never told about it because............you KNOW...............??just make it go away,how hard can it be ESPECIALLY since the defense has access to all the evidence (DUH)...
and let everybody wait for a match,never happen for ex if the sample was taken form a dead person or God knows where from.....
yeah silly....or maybe not
see the boston strangler case and what officials do just for the sake of their reputation.....
Agatha_C
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,309
- Reaction score
- 23
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 90
Re what I said about not trusting the evidence presented by officials....
Don't bash my head but for ex,
re the OJ case......I am pretty sure he did it BUT I am also pretty sure the glove was planted to "help" the investigation.I have lots of opinions re the OJ case but I never talk about it cause 99% of the people I'd be talking to would disagree.This is one of those things.It's not black&white.If a person's guilty doesn't mean the ones investigating can't screw up as well.
I once saw a movie where a cop planted evidence in order to nail a pedo.Well,was he right or wrong in this case?Depends on how you look at it,right?It's WRONG,I agree but would I be happy about it if it sends a pedo where he belongs?
What if in this case it was done to SAVE a criminal?
So MAYBE someone really felt in her/his heart that the AR's were innocent and wanted to do something about it?(ML) Or MAYBE someone just wanted it to make it go away,too much pressure?(AH) Or was it indeed about money?
As long as there are soooo many questions and doubts,pls let me be suspicious when it comes to evidence that can be so easily planted,contaminated,whatever.
Don't bash my head but for ex,
re the OJ case......I am pretty sure he did it BUT I am also pretty sure the glove was planted to "help" the investigation.I have lots of opinions re the OJ case but I never talk about it cause 99% of the people I'd be talking to would disagree.This is one of those things.It's not black&white.If a person's guilty doesn't mean the ones investigating can't screw up as well.
I once saw a movie where a cop planted evidence in order to nail a pedo.Well,was he right or wrong in this case?Depends on how you look at it,right?It's WRONG,I agree but would I be happy about it if it sends a pedo where he belongs?
What if in this case it was done to SAVE a criminal?
So MAYBE someone really felt in her/his heart that the AR's were innocent and wanted to do something about it?(ML) Or MAYBE someone just wanted it to make it go away,too much pressure?(AH) Or was it indeed about money?
As long as there are soooo many questions and doubts,pls let me be suspicious when it comes to evidence that can be so easily planted,contaminated,whatever.