DNA Revisited

[BBB167893]

Notice JR immediately on the defense blathering about "disgracing his relationship with his daughter", instead of reacting to the fact that his daughter had been molested. Making a big diversionary fuss. Put up a stink and the line of questioning goes away. The Rs were masters of deception and diversion.
Patsy pulled the same thing- when told of the molestation, she said "you tell me where it says that"? Instead of a mother's horror, she also tries to blow it up into a "how dare you say such a thing" ruse.
Nedra said "she was only a little bit molested". What a thing for a grandmother to say about a dead, abused little grandaugghter. How little is a "little bit molested". What a disgusting thing to say.
Another thing- if the Rs claim not to have read the autopsy report, how did Nedra know she was a "little bit molested"? This was discussed between the Rs and Nedra, believe me.

A hit dog barks, DD.

 

[vlpate]

UK GUY We are not talking about blood. Introducing other evidence is spurious. If JonBenet put those size-12's on then her skin cells should be in abundance on the outside of them. Patsy's skin cells should also be on the size-12's exterior. Naturally since he played no part in redressing JonBenet the night before, JR's skin cells and prior fibers should not appear anywhere on the size-12's. We have not been given this information or assurance by the DA.

John claims he carried JonBenet upstairs....his cells would have to be on her shirt. Did they test the shirt? I think I read the test was pretty specific.

Neither Patsy, nor John, mention taking a coat and gloves off JBR. Usually at big parties like the one the White's had, coats and gloves are kept in a room somewhere, piled on a bed, sometimes hung in a closet. All those coats and gloves with skin cells transferring and re-transferring over and over as people pick their coats up. Then there's Christmas shopping, people in those same coats and gloves, rubbing against one another, touching doors and toys, etc.,. I would imagine the touch DNA could have come from just about anywhere, especially if transferred.

Only if it matches someone, someday, does it mean anything - I just can't wrap my head around it clearing the Ramseys.

 

[UKGuy]

John claims he carried JonBenet upstairs....his cells would have to be on her shirt. Did they test the shirt? I think I read the test was pretty specific.

Neither Patsy, nor John, mention taking a coat and gloves off JBR. Usually at big parties like the one the White's had, coats and gloves are kept in a room somewhere, piled on a bed, sometimes hung in a closet. All those coats and gloves with skin cells transferring and re-transferring over and over as people pick their coats up. Then there's Christmas shopping, people in those same coats and gloves, rubbing against one another, touching doors and toys, etc.,. I would imagine the touch DNA could have come from just about anywhere, especially if transferred.

Only if it matches someone, someday, does it mean anything - I just can't wrap my head around it clearing the Ramseys.

vlpate,

Only if it matches someone, someday, does it mean anything - I just can't wrap my head around it clearing the Ramseys.

mmm, how about a nice fat cheque/check, could you wrap your head around that?


.

 

[vlpate]

vlpate,

mmm, how about a nice fat cheque/check, could you wrap your head around that?


.

I guess I could if I were a retiring DA in a pi$$ ant town in Colorado.....

 

[UKGuy]

I guess I could if I were a retiring DA in a pi$$ ant town in Colorado.....

vlpate,
Go directly to GO pass JAIL and collect $100,000,000!



.

 

[DeeDee249]

I guess I could if I were a retiring DA in a pi$$ ant town in Colorado.....

LOVE it! You wrapped up this whole case in that one comment. AH wanted to coast till the day he retired, and this case was something he just wanted to go away. As far as I am concerned, he had already disgraced himself before he left office. The whole country saw the disgrace that was liberal soft-on-ANY-crime Boulder law enforcement. ML continued that disgraceful legacy, and frankly, I don't see much changed there with the new DA. He's made some noise, but I don't think he really intends to tackle this. As time goes by, people care less and less. (except people like us).
This case is solved, IMO. Boulder LE knows who did it, the family knows who did it, their lawyers know who did it. Maybe one day, everyone will know who did it.
Poor JB - no one who knows the truth has stepped up to be her hero.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

DeeDee,

Notice JR immediately on the defense blathering about "disgracing his relationship with his daughter", instead of reacting to the fact that his daughter had been molested.

That was 2000, long after he'd known about the molestation. He was reacting to being accused of being the molester.

Making a big diversionary fuss. Put up a stink and the line of questioning goes away. The Rs were masters of deception and diversion.

In your opinion.

Patsy pulled the same thing- when told of the molestation, she said "you tell me where it says that"?

That's not exactly what happened, the full exchange is:

25 TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are
0581
1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal
2 intrusion on JonBenet?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
4 Prior to the night she was killed?
5 TOM HANEY: Correct.
6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.
9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.
11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.
13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.
15 TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have
16 been violated like that?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This
18 is the absolute first time I ever heard that.
19 TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you
20 would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't
21 know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely
23 did not.
24 TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--
25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to
0582
1 see where it says that and who reported that.
2 TOM HANEY: Okay.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?
4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it
5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot
6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the
7 photos, but--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find
9 that?
10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think
11 it's pretty significant?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn
13 significant. You know, I am shocked.
14 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom,
15 that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper
16 whether or not she represented what is true as a
17 fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too
18 much here about whether or not it's absolutely a
19 fact. I just think that should be mentioned to
20 be fair to my client.
21 TOM HANEY: And based on the
22 reliable medical information that we have at
23 this point, that is a fact.
24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say
25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling
0583
1 me here?
2 TOM HANEY: That there was some
3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --
4 something was inserted?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night
6 that she was assaulted?
7 TOM HANEY: That's the--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I
9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking
10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am
11 shocked.
12 TOM HANEY: Well, that's one of the
13 things that's been bothering us about the case.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.
15 TOM HANEY: What does that tell
16 you?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: It doesn't tell me
18 anything. I mean, I knew -- I -- I --
19 TOM HANEY: Okay, for a second --
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Did you know about
21 this?
22 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: I tried to stay
23 out of the making of the record and inserting
24 myself into the tape-recording of this
25 interview. The newspapers have talked about
0584
1 this. Whether or not--
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, they talk
3 about a lot of things that are not true.
4 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: And there has
5 been a debate among the people who talked about
6 the findings in the autopsy report as to whether
7 there was a prior vaginal intrusion or not. So
8 when you ask, either Tom or me or Trip or
9 Jennifer, did we know that, there has been a
10 debate about that. Even in the newspaper.
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I do not know
12 of anything and I am very distressed about this.
13 TOM HANEY: Who could have done
14 such a thing?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I do not know. I
16 don't have any idea.
17 TOM HANEY: What is your best
18 guess?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: I couldn't begin to
20 guess. I am shocked. I don't have any idea. I
21 am just -- I can't believe, I just can't believe
22 this.
23 TOM HANEY: Would that knowledge
24 change your answer to any question that you have
25 been asked?
0585
1 PATSY RAMSEY: No, sir. I have
2 answered every question you or anyone else has
3 asked me to the best of my ability.
4 TOM HANEY: Would that answer or
5 would that statement, that information, would
6 that lead you in any particular direction?
7 Would you think about a particular person being
8 involved or doing something, with JonBenet?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't -- I
10 don't -- I just am shocked is all I can say. I
11 don't -- I don't know what I think. You know, I
12 just want to see where it says that.
13 TOM HANEY: And prior to today, had
14 you heard or read or seen anything about--
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I had heard that
16 the night she was killed that she may have
17 had -- have been sexually assaulted. But not
18 prior to that. Absolutely.

So before she ever says "I would like to see where it says that and who reported that" (not "you tell me where it says that"), she has said she's shock and bothered to hear it. And she is wise to ask where it says that, because she'd probably heard lots of false reports by then and also because interrogators LIE about evidence. And in fact, Haney was lying or overstating the issue when he calls it fact.

And this was about prior molestation, she had already heard she'd been molested the night of.

Instead of a mother's horror, she also tries to blow it up into a "how dare you say such a thing" ruse.

Perhaps if you had concrete evidence against the Ramseys, you wouldn't have to manufacture it by egregiously reading into otherwise nonprobative statements.

Nedra said "she was only a little bit molested". What a thing for a grandmother to say about a dead, abused little grandaugghter. How little is a "little bit molested". What a disgusting thing to say.

It is an odd thing to say, but it goes to anybody's guilt, how?

However, you're playing loose with a quote again. What she really said is,

“I didn’t know that she had been mole…molested to some extent and hit on the head. I didn’t know that. And somehow I hoped that she had died very quickly, and I think that she did. I…I really do believe that whoever has done this strangled her, because I’m sure that she put up a tremendous fight. Although she had tape on her mouth, she couldn’t scream. But I knew she had fought. [From PMPT.]

To be fair, you're not the only RDIer to repeat that misquote, I've seen it elsewhere. I'm beginning to think I might have to start a list of the "Top ten RDI myths." :crazy:

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee,



That was 2000, long after he'd known about the molestation. He was reacting to being accused of being the molester.



In your opinion.



That's not exactly what happened, the full exchange is:



So before she ever says "I would like to see where it says that and who reported that" (not "you tell me where it says that"), she has said she's shock and bothered to hear it. And she is wise to ask where it says that, because she'd probably heard lots of false reports by then and also because interrogators LIE about evidence. And in fact, Haney was lying or overstating the issue when he calls it fact.

And this was about prior molestation, she had already heard she'd been molested the night of.



Perhaps if you had concrete evidence against the Ramseys, you wouldn't have to manufacture it by egregiously reading into otherwise nonprobative statements.



It is an odd thing to say, but it goes to anybody's guilt, how?

However, you're playing loose with a quote again. What she really said is,



To be fair, you're not the only RDIer to repeat that misquote, I've seen it elsewhere. I'm beginning to think I might have to start a list of the "Top ten RDI myths." :crazy:

We've got quite a list of our own! I'd start with the "pubic hair" myth and the palm print myth.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

You're forgetting one crucial thing, Smelly Squirrel: Patsy digging herself deeper. She couldn't give an explanation in 2000. TWO FULL YEARS later she gave an explanation to a news reporter, but her story ("I had my whole body on her body") is in conflict with John's own writings in DOI, about how he had covered JB's body.

What is the conflict here?

Wendy Murphy, the former prosecutor has stated that in order for Patsy's story to work, it would require "flat-out magic."

Well if the great Wendy Murphy said it, ....

Don't fool yourself, Smelly Squirrel. I've only said this a million times: the Rs weren't prosecuted because no one could ever be sure which one of them did what. It's called "Cross fingerpointing," the same thing Casey Anthony's attorney did to George. The only way to break such a stalemate is to get one suspect to confess. And believe you me, I'm going to be talking about THAT!

Possible, but then if nobody can be sure who did it, maybe that's because neither really did it. (Yet, there are RDIers who are sure of one or the other's guilt.)

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

We've got quite a list of our own! I'd start with the "pubic hair" myth and the palm print myth.

True, if I repeat one, I'd hope I'm corrected. Very gently,

 

[Junebug99]

Dee Dee, please link where the auxiliary hair is a myth, every sight I read mentions it as a fact, except here.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

It's been posted on forums that Carol McKinley reported it was matched to Patsy.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=61144&postcount=57"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Need your help and FAST please!!![/ame]


Can't find the original reporting though.

 

[Junebug99]

That link is complete hearsay, even if they did report it, they aren't exactly known for being fair and balanced. But until I see the actual news report, I'll consider it more RDI propaganda.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Hm, maybe. It is unusual that there are lots of news stories at that same time that mention the hand print and shoeprint but not the hair.

Google News

 

[DeeDee249]

Dee Dee, please link where the auxiliary hair is a myth, every sight I read mentions it as a fact, except here.

It was an ANCILLARY hair. Not an auxillary hair or axillary hair (underarm). An ancillary hair comes from the forearm and is easily distinguished from a pubic hair.

 

[Junebug99]

Dee Dee, that depends on what report you read, I've seen conflicting, with the majority reporting it was an auxiliary hair.

 

[DeeDee249]

Dee Dee, that depends on what report you read, I've seen conflicting, with the majority reporting it was an auxiliary hair.

"Auxiliary" is not the correct term anyway. You probably saw the word "axillary" which means underarm. Patsy would have to have not shaved her underarms for quite a while and handled the blanket while undressed for an underarm hair to have gotten on there.
But an "ancillary" hair (from the forearm) is easily shed.

 

[Junebug99]

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)

 

[vlpate]

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)

This was the day the murder happened. There were also reports that day of semen on her leg, which was not true. On 12/26/96, they could not have possibly known the type of hair. I'm surprised they had any evidence at all to report. Same old media sensationalism. The hair was not a pubic hair - and it did belong to Patsy Ramsey. 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. The shoe print, the palm print, and the ancillary hair have all been identified - that's why all that's left is the sketchy DNA.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

This was the day the murder happened. There were also reports that day of semen on her leg, which was not true. On 12/26/96, they could not have possibly known the type of hair.

The alleged Fox News report was from 2002.

The hair was not a pubic hair - and it did belong to Patsy Ramsey. 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.

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