DNA Revisited

[UKGuy]

The alleged Fox News report was from 2002.



Wood refer to the "pubic" hair in the Wolf suit and the Fox News suit.

Smelly Squirrel,
For all we know, you might be posting on behalf of Wood. He is not an unbiased observer.

Prior to a court case he can refer to anything he wants e.g. DNA as opposed to touch-dna, pubic hair as opposed to follicle.

He has an agenda, and is employed by John Ramsey to to sow the seeds of doubt, not to clarify and enlighten the general public.

 

[DeeDee249]

No dee Dee I have linked it time and time again, it was a AUXILIARY hair, and it being matched to Patsy is absolute hearsay.

From the website you rdi theorist always link to (acandyrose) even says it's auxiliary, they claim it belongs to Patsy, but I have seen no other documentation.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

UNIDENTIFIED HAIR
12/26/96 One pubic or auxiliary hair found on the white blanket in wine cellar - Pubic hair reportedly belonged to Patsy Ramsey via mitochondrial dna testing (FoxNews2002)

You are correct - but it is still an error. The proper term would be "ancillary". As you see in that link- it was PROVEN to belong to Patsy Ramsey via mitochondrial DNA testing.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

As you see in that link- it was PROVEN to belong to Patsy Ramsey via mitochondrial DNA testing.

Do you have an original source for that claim?

 

[DeeDee249]

Do you have an original source for that claim?

Sure. I never post sources. I never gave homework answers either.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

? There is a question about the Fox News report. Do you have the original report?

 

[vlpate]

You are correct - but it is still an error. The proper term would be "ancillary". As you see in that link- it was PROVEN to belong to Patsy Ramsey via mitochondrial DNA testing.

You are correct, Candy simply made a typo.

 

[vlpate]

? There is a question about the Fox News report. Do you have the original report?

Do you have google? You could probably find it that way...??

 

[vlpate]

Smelly Squirrel,
For all we know, you might be posting on behalf of Wood. He is not an unbiased observer.

Prior to a court case he can refer to anything he wants e.g. DNA as opposed to touch-dna, pubic hair as opposed to follicle.

He has an agenda, and is employed by John Ramsey to to sow the seeds of doubt, not to clarify and enlighten the general public.

"Saliva in blood" .... this was from Lin Wood in a Topix chat. Whether or not it originated with him, I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[vlpate]

The alleged Fox News report was from 2002.



Wood refer to the "pubic" hair in the Wolf suit and the Fox News suit.

I was actually answering Junebug who posted in the body of her comment "12/26/96. I didn't read the link, just her quote.

If Lin Wood said it, it must be so. Not.

 

[UKGuy]

"Saliva in blood" .... this was from Lin Wood in a Topix chat. Whether or not it originated with him, I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.

vlpate,
It would not be him, likely one of his bag carriers, since LW would be shot down in court if he could not substantiate this claim forensically. His claims about John Ramsey's fibers would also be in doubt and open to objection if he was posting unsubstantiated claims on topix!

there are no known DNA test results stating that either saliva or semen DNA was found at the crime-scene.

This along with the unidentified crime-scene artifacts are all part of the smoke and mirrors agenda, all promoted to sow doubt in the minds of readers.

I was watching the Conrad Murray trial yesterday and noticed his attorney pursue the same strategy when he had Kenny Ortega testify Michael Jackson was absent for specific rehearsals, yet Kenny Ortega could not place a date or location on certain rehearsals, nor why Michael Jackson was absent e.g. seeds of doubt sown early on?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Do you have google? You could probably find it that way...??

Yeah, I already said that I've looked, or I wouldn't have asked. acandyrose cited message board posts that claimed they saw it reported on TV. But I can't find a Fox News article or any other news sources who has mentioned this since, even though others do mention the palm print and shoe print matches.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I was actually answering Junebug who posted in the body of her comment "12/26/96. I didn't read the link, just her quote.

Yeah, you missed the 2002 in her quote.

If Lin Wood said it, it must be so. Not.

I see, so you're backtracking from, "Trust me, if it did not belong to Patsy Ramsey, Lin Wood would be shouting it from the rooftops with his 'saliva in the blood' bull."

 

[Junebug99]

You are correct, Candy simply made a typo.

Apparently a lot of others did to, I have yet to find a credible source call it ancillary. Every thing I found says it's a unmatched auxiliary hair. I would ask for a legitimate source, but I know it won't happen. They are scarce around these parts.......

 

[vlpate]

Apparently a lot of others did to, I have yet to find a credible source call it ancillary. Every thing I found says it's a unmatched auxiliary hair. I would ask for a legitimate source, but I know it won't happen. They are scarce around these parts.......

Put this in a google search:
jonbenet + ancillary hair

If the Chinese source is what you deem credible, then you probably will not think any of the news and book sources you find by doing said google search, credible.

Auxillary hair.... you are mistaken, there are no sources for this except a typo by ACR.

 

[vlpate]

Yeah, you missed the 2002 in her quote.



I see, so you're backtracking from, "Trust me, if it did not belong to Patsy Ramsey, Lin Wood would be shouting it from the rooftops with his 'saliva in the blood' bull."

If that's how you see it, then you are seeing it - it has been seen as you see it, see?

 

[vlpate]

vlpate,
It would not be him, likely one of his bag carriers, since LW would be shot down in court if he could not substantiate this claim forensically. His claims about John Ramsey's fibers would also be in doubt and open to objection if he was posting unsubstantiated claims on topix!

there are no known DNA test results stating that either saliva or semen DNA was found at the crime-scene.

This along with the unidentified crime-scene artifacts are all part of the smoke and mirrors agenda, all promoted to sow doubt in the minds of readers.

I was watching the Conrad Murray trial yesterday and noticed his attorney pursue the same strategy when he had Kenny Ortega testify Michael Jackson was absent for specific rehearsals, yet Kenny Ortega could not place a date or location on certain rehearsals, nor why Michael Jackson was absent e.g. seeds of doubt sown early on?

You are probably right about the CM trial. I haven't been watching it or any coverage of it. IMO, MJ was a pedophile who paid for his victim's silence - just as he was a drug addict who paid for his physician's cooperation. This case is only unique because MJ is the dead guy - the practice is all too common by physicians. Like Nixon, CM just got caught.

But, I digress - I know what you mean about all the smoke and mirrors - trying to research a fact in this case is like trying to find a needle in the proverbial haystack. The first 300 or so results are opinion blogs, propagandists, and tons of "experts", who have read those first 300 results, writing books LOL. It really is disheartening. The propagandists are easy to recognize, especially on the forums - same old rubbish, over and over and over and over and over again. Hell, I've been second guessing myself on facts that haven't changed in 14 years because I keep reading the same bull over and over again when researching.

 

[learnin]

Apparently a lot of others did to, I have yet to find a credible source call it ancillary. Every thing I found says it's a unmatched auxiliary hair. I would ask for a legitimate source, but I know it won't happen. They are scarce around these parts.......

I just happened to be leafing through ST's book last night and came across his discussion of the hairs. He called this particular hair an "ancillary hair" which could have come from an arm, leg, etc.

"Auxillary" hair has come about, evidently, by someone, somewhere, confusing and mispelling the term.

 

[BOESP]

Apparently a lot of others did to, I have yet to find a credible source call it ancillary. Every thing I found says it's a unmatched auxiliary hair. I would ask for a legitimate source, but I know it won't happen. They are scarce around these parts.......

There is no such thing as an auxilary hair.

 

[Junebug99]

There is no such thing as an auxilary hair.

You sure about that? This is not related to JBR, but it does discuss auxilary hair and puberty.

http://wcwpds.wisc.edu/childdevelopment/resources/TeenplusDetails.pdf

 

[Junebug99]

You can even have it transplanted.



http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss-articles/auxiliary-hair-transplant-269.htm