Could Patsy's Cocktails Have Played A Part In Her Rage Attack?

[passionflower]

Bruising in and on a 6-year-old's vagina is NOT normal for a kid. Bumps and bruises on legs/knees, sure-. Kids play. Kids sometimes get bruised.

But not THERE.

You are correct.
NG show tonight said that JBR hymen was fine.
Someone didn't penetrate her all the way.
Right away I thought of the book Sybil.
Sybil was abused vaginally with different things by her mother.
I thought that I read a few months ago that ALL the R family was
supposively innocent by the LE.?
I am glad that LE opened this case up again, it was the biggest case
back 12 years ago, and a beautiful little girl!:furious:

 

[BBB167893]

You are correct.
NG show tonight said that JBR hymen was fine.

There wasn't much of it left. Doesn't sound fine to me.

Someone didn't penetrate her all the way.
Right away I thought of the book Sybil.
Sybil was abused vaginally with different things by her mother.

I'm intrigued.

I thought that I read a few months ago that ALL the R family was
supposively innocent by the LE.?

By the DA, who'd been in the tank from Day One.

 

[Tadpole12]

Yes it can. One simple little thing, is all it takes.

Ask the investigators on Pan Am flight 103 if one little thing can be representative of guilt or innocence.

HUH?
say what?
were those geese under 'advizement' to hit those engines?

BTW, can't take all the credit. The misspelling was noted on other not-quite-so-slanted forums.

Ok.
..... I guess, going back to the touch dna evidence, if that unknown dna appeared on an object other than JBR's clothing, then that might shift the opinion that that dna evidence was residual. But I guess, within the RDI theories, the unknown dna could always be dismissed as being the result of contamination.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Ok.
..... I guess, going back to the touch dna evidence, if that unknown dna appeared on an object other than JBR's clothing, then that might shift the opinion that that dna evidence was residual. But I guess, within the RDI theories, the unknown dna could always be dismissed as being the result of contamination.

Shift the opinion?

How about this shift:

Two separate deposits of DNA were found at the crime scene.


One had been previously found, and was sufficient quality to be entered into CODIS.

The other deposit was found much later. It matched the first one.

These DNA deposits were NOT found on the doorknob, on the floor, or in the bathroom. Instead they were found on JBR's longjohns and her underwear.

This is where you would look for and expect to find criminal evidence of that nature.

As a backpedaling, RDI 'invents a story' about a new mystery DNA depositor that never existed before...

 

[Tadpole12]

"As a backpedaling, RDI 'invents a story' about a new mystery DNA depositor that never existed before" - Hotyh

Pardon me, Hotyh, I don't understand this statement.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

"As a backpedaling, RDI 'invents a story' about a new mystery DNA depositor that never existed before" - Hotyh

Pardon me, Hotyh, I don't understand this statement.

Ask your favorite RDI to explain how unknown male DNA makes its way onto undergarments JBR was wearing the night she was murdered.

You can then decide if it is backpedaling or storytelling.

RDI lacks information to explain but will explain anyway, how JBR transferred it around herself, and how she picked it up, and how 'everybody does this'.

IDI simply wants to find the match to the DNA, and THEN make an informed decision on what actually happened. It is evidence of an intruder, though.

 

[JMO8778]

IDI simply wants to find the match to the DNA, and THEN make an informed decision on what actually happened. It is evidence of an intruder, though.

Your whole statement is an oxymoron.First you say you simply want to find a match,then make an informed decision...but not quite.You're already saying it is PROOF of an intruder.
It is quite the opposite of what you say.We are saying we'd like to see a match first,as we don't even know for sure if it was from an ADULT,(which may not be the actual killer in the first place),because it could be from a playmate or other innocent means of transfer.

 

[Tadpole12]

Ask your favorite RDI to explain how unknown male DNA makes its way onto undergarments JBR was wearing the night she was murdered.

You can then decide if it is backpedaling or storytelling.

RDI lacks information to explain but will explain anyway, how JBR transferred it around herself, and how she picked it up, and how 'everybody does this'.

IDI simply wants to find the match to the DNA, and THEN make an informed decision on what actually happened. It is evidence of an intruder, though.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

...we don't even know for sure if it was from an ADULT,(which may not be the actual killer in the first place),because it could be from a playmate or other innocent means of transfer.

Case in point, tadpole. This IS backpedaling.

We don't even have an INKLING that it was from a playmate. Does somebody know of a playmate that had contact with JBR's undergarments the night she was murdered, or shall we add the 'JBR transferred it herself' caveat??

All options considered here EXCEPT an intruder. It is evidence of an intruder, though. It in fact may be proof of an intruder, depending on more information LE has as to the DNA circumstances.

It is presented by the news as proof of an intruder, as the R's were in fact cleared by the DA's office.

 

[JMO8778]

There is no case in point.YOU are the one making the oxymoronic statements,Hold.First,IDI needs to prove the DNA came from an ADULT..and right now, there is not a way to determine that.
YOU are the one saying for sure that it is from an 'intruder'.But...we don't know that.What if the 'intruder' was a 5 yo playmate,or from another innocent source of transfer,like a toilet seat??
The media? The D.A.? Both are laughable,as we all know what they have done to this case.If there's one thing this case has taught me,it's to not believe what I read or hear rightoffhand.ALWAYS search for the truth!

ETA: If the Rams are so 'innocent',then why is the new D.A.turning it over to LE? I mean...if they're cleared,then it's over (for them),right??? Why didn't Lacy do this?? (because she had no real interest in solving the case,or even in making any progress with it).But..
it's not over till it's over...and apparently,it ain't over yet.

 

[BBB167893]

Ask your favorite RDI to explain how unknown male DNA makes its way onto undergarments JBR was wearing the night she was murdered.

You can then decide if it is backpedaling or storytelling.

Absolutely, Tadpole! Just like he said: ask me! Since we're all letting Tadpole decide on his/her own, RIGHT?

RDI lacks information to explain but will explain anyway, how JBR transferred it around herself, and how she picked it up, and how 'everybody does this'.

Lacks information, eh? Try this on for size:

There's a man in Maine serving a life sentence for murder. His name is Dennis Dechaine, and his victim was a 12-year-old babysitter named Sarah Cherry. The evidence was damning, including a confession, eyewitnesses, papers that showed he was at the scene, even a confirmation from his lawyer a la Danielle Van Dam. BUT, some people in Maine are trying to free him. WHY? Because there was DNA under Sarah's fingernails that was not his. I read about this in a book --which had NOTHING to do with JBR, by the way-- where the author, a well-known lawyer and political pundit, had this to say:

"The world is fairly bristling with human DNA. She might have picked up human DNA from any number of people, by reading a magazine, eating candy, or playing with friends before her babysitting job that day. Only in cases of rape where ejaculate is present is DNA capable of excluding a suspect-and even then only if the victim was not sexually active and there was only one single rapist. In virtually all other cases, DNA can only include suspects; it can't exclude suspects."

JB was NOT raped. No ejaculate was found. She was six-years-old, so she was not sexually active (although PR said she flirted with people, and we all know what THAT is a sign of).

And yes, everybody DOES do this. If you knew how much foreign DNA you had on you right now, you'd probably freak. Yes, she very well could have transferred it to herself, most likely from her own hands. Here's how that happens: you shake hands with someone, then rub it off on yourself. It's that simple. And it's NOT just me or JMO8778 saying that. I can think of two pathologists and a criminologist for the FBI, just off the top of my head.

Now, Tadpole, aren't you glad you asked me?

IDI simply wants to find the match to the DNA, and THEN make an informed decision on what actually happened

Right. And as for the DA and the media, I'd trust them about as far as I can throw an aircraft carrier barehanded.

 

[Ames]

Craig Sliverman, former Chief Deputy DA in Denver was on Fox News just a little while ago. I will try to find the transcript for it, but until then...here is a little bit of what he said.

"Mary Lacy lost credibility with the Karr Fiasco."
"Karr arrest was gift to the Ramsey's".

Reporter and Silverman talk about the new DNA evidence....

Reporter: There has been new advances in Linquistics, tell us more about that.

Silverman: (Talking about the touch DNA that was found) "DNA evidence could be significant or contamination. There is a debate about that. As far as linquistics, we have the War and Peace of Ransom Notes here. There is alot of language, alot of handwriting, so it may be that some new sophisticated program can identify who wrote that ransom note, at least provide a good clue."

From Ames: We can ONLY HOPE!!!!

 

[kh1967]

HUH?
say what?
were those geese under 'advizement' to hit those engines?



Ok.
..... I guess, going back to the touch dna evidence, if that unknown dna appeared on an object other than JBR's clothing, then that might shift the opinion that that dna evidence was residual. But I guess, within the RDI theories, the unknown dna could always be dismissed as being the result of contamination.

geese did not take down Pan Am 103, terrorists did!:furious:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Absolutely, Tadpole! Just like he said: ask me! Since we're all letting Tadpole decide on his/her own, RIGHT?



Lacks information, eh? Try this on for size:

There's a man in Maine serving a life sentence for murder. His name is Dennis Dechaine, and his victim was a 12-year-old babysitter named Sarah Cherry. The evidence was damning, including a confession, eyewitnesses, papers that showed he was at the scene, even a confirmation from his lawyer a la Danielle Van Dam. BUT, some people in Maine are trying to free him. WHY? Because there was DNA under Sarah's fingernails that was not his. I read about this in a book --which had NOTHING to do with JBR, by the way-- where the author, a well-known lawyer and political pundit, had this to say:

"The world is fairly bristling with human DNA. She might have picked up human DNA from any number of people, by reading a magazine, eating candy, or playing with friends before her babysitting job that day. Only in cases of rape where ejaculate is present is DNA capable of excluding a suspect-and even then only if the victim was not sexually active and there was only one single rapist. In virtually all other cases, DNA can only include suspects; it can't exclude suspects."

JB was NOT raped. No ejaculate was found. She was six-years-old, so she was not sexually active (although PR said she flirted with people, and we all know what THAT is a sign of).

And yes, everybody DOES do this. If you knew how much foreign DNA you had on you right now, you'd probably freak. Yes, she very well could have transferred it to herself, most likely from her own hands. Here's how that happens: you shake hands with someone, then rub it off on yourself. It's that simple. And it's NOT just me or JMO8778 saying that. I can think of two pathologists and a criminologist for the FBI, just off the top of my head.

Now, Tadpole, aren't you glad you asked me?



Right. And as for the DA and the media, I'd trust them about as far as I can throw an aircraft carrier barehanded.

RDI should, at some point, concede that the DNA could be intruder DNA, and that likelyhood is raised beyond 'background DNA' to which you repeatedly refer. IMO without that concession, the argument appears as simple bias. That is, no matter what evidence is uncovered, RDI will persist its argument.

It is raised beyond 'background DNA' because it is found in multiple places that are associated with sexual assault activity. Media reported DNA found in fingernails, longjohns, and underwear. These locations are not the same as face, hands, or feet.

They're where the criminal actions were taking place.

The possibility that the DNA belongs to an intruder isn't considered at all, per your post. It is, however, a real possibility that can't be rationally discounted.

 

[Ames]

RDI should, at some point, concede that the DNA could be intruder DNA, and that likelyhood is raised beyond 'background DNA' to which you repeatedly refer. IMO without that concession, the argument appears as simple bias. That is, no matter what evidence is uncovered, RDI will persist its argument.

It is raised beyond 'background DNA' because it is found in multiple places that are associated with sexual assault activity. Media reported DNA found in fingernails, longjohns, and underwear. These locations are not the same as face, hands, or feet.

They're where the criminal actions were taking place.

The possibility that the DNA belongs to an intruder isn't considered at all, per your post. It is, however, a real possibility that can't be rationally discounted.

Sure it's a possibility. But, considering that the fingernail clippers were contaminated, when ONE pair was used to clip every nail, when a new, sterile one should have been used for EACH nail...how far fetched is it to consider that the longjohns and panties too, could have been contaminated? They weren't exactly careful with that evidence...the touch DNA could belong to anybody..including the handlers of the evidence.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Sure it's a possibility. But, considering that the fingernail clippers were contaminated, when ONE pair was used to clip every nail, when a new, sterile one should have been used for EACH nail...how far fetched is it to consider that the longjohns and panties too, could have been contaminated? They weren't exactly careful with that evidence...the touch DNA could belong to anybody..including the handlers of the evidence.

There's a dozen media reports on the touch DNA, not one having any comment on how they needed twenty (20) clippers (lol).

Nor was there any media comment on 'contaminated DNA' possibly belonging to evidence handlers.

Where do you get this stuff?

 

[DeeDee249]

Bottom line- the DNA can't be said to be the killer's unless it can be sourced to a person. Actually, it can't be said to belong to anyone unless it can be sourced to a person.
But a big step towards ruling OUT innocent transfer is to test every male that attended the White's Christmas Day dinner, the Ramsey party on the 23rd (no matter what their age at the time), and any male (including kids) who was at the Ramsey house Christnas Day. PR admitted there were kids playing there that day.

 

[Ames]

There's a dozen media reports on the touch DNA, not one having any comment on how they needed twenty (20) clippers (lol).

Nor was there any media comment on 'contaminated DNA' possibly belonging to evidence handlers.

Where do you get this stuff?

I am not talking about touch DNA being underneath her nails, silly. I am saying that the same clippers were used to clip all of her nails, when it is proper procedure to use a sterilized clipper for each nail. Using the same clippers for each nail, causes contamination. All that I am saying here, is how do YOU know that the TOUCH DNA that was found on the long johns, was NOT from contamination? If they didn't use proper procedure for clipping her nails to gather DNA, then how do you know that they followed proper procedure when gathering evidence such as her long johns? It has been reported that the Touch DNA could have came from CONTAMINATION. How the contamination happened, IF it did happen...I haven't a clue. It COULD have come from the evidence handlers...FOR EXAMPLE.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I am not talking about touch DNA being underneath her nails, silly. I am saying that the same clippers were used to clip all of her nails, when it is proper procedure to use a sterilized clipper for each nail. Using the same clippers for each nail, causes contamination. All that I am saying here, is how do YOU know that the TOUCH DNA that was found on the long johns, was NOT from contamination? If they didn't use proper procedure for clipping her nails to gather DNA, then how do you know that they followed proper procedure when gathering evidence such as her long johns? It has been reported that the Touch DNA could have came from CONTAMINATION. How the contamination happened, IF it did happen...I haven't a clue. It COULD have come from the evidence handlers...FOR EXAMPLE.

It is convenient for RDI to omit certain facts from the discussion. For instance, omitting from your post the fact that the touch DNA found on her longjohn waistband MATCHES regular DNA found in her underwear, regular DNA that was mixed with her blood.

The bottom line is this: the DNA evidence 'favors' IDI. This is to the dismay of RDI believers, who leave out the possibility it belongs to and intruder, and who simultaneously leave out most of the details of the DNA discovery.

 

[Tadpole12]

Case in point, tadpole. This IS backpedaling.

We don't even have an INKLING that it was from a playmate. Does somebody know of a playmate that had contact with JBR's undergarments the night she was murdered, or shall we add the 'JBR transferred it herself' caveat??

Hi Hotyh, I have no favorites, and I have no problem understanding your perspectives.
And aren't we all learning about the validty of and interpretation of dna evidence?

All options considered here EXCEPT an intruder. It is evidence of an intruder, though. It in fact may be proof of an intruder, depending on more information LE has as to the DNA circumstances.

I've read lots of known IDI and unknown IDI scenarios online and I'm pretty sure here at WS, I've read back through starting at 2005 .... guess it doesn't really matter ...
And you're right, back to the beginning ... the sloppy BP department and even the coroner, his late arrival and lack of procedure .... back to the beginning, there are LA's notes and as many in the DA and BPD have said so much eveidence unkown to the public....

It is presented by the news as proof of an intruder, as the R's were in fact cleared by the DA's office.

Yes it has.