Buzz Mills
New Member
-bump-
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
luvbeaches said:Oh, I think it looks like him, but it also looks like this other guy. I wish I could remember who he was...maybe the housekeepers hubby? I don't remember for sure. Whoever it was, was cleared.
Little things like that don't mean anything to any of our adamant "The Ramseys Are Guilty" posters. They figure DNA didn't stop OJ, and they'll be damned if a little thing like DNA is going to stop John and/or Patsy Ramsey, from being convicted, even in abstentia, or posthumously, whichever way they want to call it. Just when we think DNA is finally really catching on, along comes the flipside of an OJ type case, and we're back to square one all over again.Anngelique said:Okay, I haven't followed this case like so many of you. I never really followed crime until the Lacy Peterson case.
So my question is this...
If they have DNA from under JonBenet's fingernails and that DNA never matched the parents or brother, why do people still think the family did it?
Now I was one who felt like the family was to blame for a long time but like I said I never followed this one closely. But if the reports I'm now reading are correct and they truly have the perps DNA, shouldn't the parents then be exonerated if the DNA did not match.
Anyone have some expert knowledge on this?
Buzzm1 said:Little things like that don't mean anything to any of our adamant "The Ramseys Are Guilty" posters. They figure DNA didn't stop OJ, and they'll be damned if it is going to stop, John and/or Patsy Ramsey, from being convicted, even in abstentia, or possthumously, whichever way they want to call it. Just when we think DNA is finally really catching on, along comes another flipside of an OJ type case, and we're back to square one all over again. .
Anngelique said:But that guy did not confess to doing it. Nor was he charged with child *advertiser censored* before. Nor was obssessed with JonBenet. That's what's so ironic to it to me.
Linda7NJ said:Because the DNA found under her nails wasn't from scratching the perp. It was minuscule. The world is littered with DNA. Humans shed thousands of skin cells everyday. Poor little JonBenet wasn't bathed very often either so who knows how long it was there?
It was never a DNA case, not then and not now.
Anngelique said:So there was no semen either? And why wasn't she bathed often? Sorry, I guess I'm really a rookie.
No semen and Patsy just wasn't that into hygiene.Anngelique said:So there was no semen either? And why wasn't she bathed often? Sorry, I guess I'm really a rookie.
just out of interest, how do we know how often JBR was bathed ?Linda7NJ said:Because the DNA found under her nails wasn't from scratching the perp. It was minuscule. The world is littered with DNA. Humans shed thousands of skin cells everyday. Poor little JonBenet wasn't bathed very often either so who knows how long it was there?
It was never a DNA case, not then and not now.
kazzbar said:This I find hard to believe because Patsy looks like a Neat freak. Bet her house was a pig sty though.