IDIs On This Forum?

[Ames]

Yeah well where is the forensic document examiner signing on to this comparison??

All I see are two columns of handwriting that have some similarities, but the shapes are mostly dissimilar. No bells, no whistles. Not without the expert opinion.

http://www.acandyrose.com/11031997tommilleranalysis.htm

http://www.acandyrose.com/11141997cinawonganalysis.htm

http://www.acandyrose.com/11261997davidliebmananalysis.htm

http://www.acandyrose.com/04112000thomas-pg281-283.htm

Read the above links, and then tell me what more proof do you need. There are actually two more links of expert opinion, that for some reason...the page had expired and wouldn't open....that were also of the opinion that Patsy wrote the RN...because the link will not open, I do not have their analysis...BUT...these are the links to their home pages, so that you can see that they are respectable companies.

http://www.seraph.net

http://www.policeemployment.com

 

[BOESP]

LOL...did the school that you went to, teach you to write them that way?? I know that some of the population, DO write them that way. My question is...what are the odds that Patsy would write them the same as the intruder, when its not taught that way in school?

No, I wasn't taught that way. The way I was taught wasn't natural for me so I did what came naturally after I realized I didn't have to do what I was told.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I guess we're different in that respect. Being ambidextrous may have helped me come to my conclusion. Regardless, I've read several of the various expert document examiner-opinions and it seems the opinion is mostly in favor of "consistent with" or "can't be ruled out." Knowing that and seeing for myself, I think I could make a decision.

EDIT NOTE: I have no idea why this posted twice because I was only making an editorial change (I added a dash between examiner and opinions).

Would you make that decision if the DNA matched a known child killer, and the known child killer had fewer similarities?

 

[BOESP]

Would you make that decision if the DNA matched a known child killer, and the known child killer had fewer similarities?

You haven't given me enough information to understand what you are asking. What DNA, and fewer similarities to what?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You haven't given me enough information to understand what you are asking. What DNA, and fewer similarities to what?

In the face of another suspect who matched the DNA that they found mixed with JBR's blood, who was also a known killer, would you still believe PR wrote the note?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

http://www.acandyrose.com/11031997tommilleranalysis.htm

http://www.acandyrose.com/11141997cinawonganalysis.htm

http://www.acandyrose.com/11261997davidliebmananalysis.htm

http://www.acandyrose.com/04112000thomas-pg281-283.htm

Read the above links, and then tell me what more proof do you need. There are actually two more links of expert opinion, that for some reason...the page had expired and wouldn't open....that were also of the opinion that Patsy wrote the RN...because the link will not open, I do not have their analysis...BUT...these are the links to their home pages, so that you can see that they are respectable companies.

http://www.seraph.net

http://www.policeemployment.com

Thanks for the links.

After reading this link, I'll be needing more proof. Sorry.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4934911,00.html

 

[BOESP]

In the face of another suspect who matched the DNA that they found mixed with JBR's blood, who was also a known killer, would you still believe PR wrote the note?

Based on what I've read about the DNA found mixed with JonBenet's blood (in her panties), the unknown DNA was degraded. There is no way to come to a valid conclusion with a degraded sample unless and until DNA testing becomes more refined.

So, are you saying you have first-hand knowledge the unknown DNA is a match to DNA of a known killer? I hope you have more than ten markers that match.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Based on what I've read about the DNA found mixed with JonBenet's blood (in her panties), the unknown DNA was degraded. There is no way to come to a valid conclusion with a degraded sample unless and until DNA testing becomes more refined.

So, are you saying you have first-hand knowledge the unknown DNA is a match to DNA of a known killer? I hope you have more than ten markers that match.

Whoa.

It was a hypothetical:

In the face of another suspect who matched the DNA that they found mixed with JBR's blood, who was also a known killer, would you still believe PR wrote the note?

BTW, aren't they using this DNA to rule out people, like JK?

 

[BOESP]

Whoa.

It was a hypothetical:

In the face of another suspect who matched the DNA that they found mixed with JBR's blood, who was also a known killer, would you still believe PR wrote the note?

BTW, aren't they using this DNA to rule out people, like JK?

I don't know about John Karr's DNA test so I can't say. If they are using DNA to rule out anyone, I hope it's a sample other than the degraded, so-called "mixed" DNA.

My understanding is Karr couldn't be placed in Boulder the night of the killing, not to mention the knowledge he supposedly had was public knowledge easily found on the Internet. Frankly, I've wondered if he wasn't brought in to be questioned for additional information rather than as a suspect. I hope they had more evidence than email exchanges between Karr and Tracy to base their suspicions.

My personal opinion is the case will never be prosecuted.

 

[Ames]

Thanks for the links.

After reading this link, I'll be needing more proof. Sorry.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4934911,00.html

You are welcome...

LOL..no wonder you don't believe Patsy wrote the note!! Geez...

The only thing that I can say about that is....JMK was NOT in the Ramsey home that night...but, Patsy was....AND more experts said that Patsy wrote it, than JMK. Also, I wonder how much of an EXPERT were the couple of folks that analyzed JMK handwriting, compared to the experts that examined Patsy's. Just a thought....

 

[Solace]

Whoa.

It was a hypothetical:

In the face of another suspect who matched the DNA that they found mixed with JBR's blood, who was also a known killer, would you still believe PR wrote the note?

BTW, aren't they using this DNA to rule out people, like JK?

This is a moot question because there are only 10 markers and frankly Team Ramsey knows that the likelihood of a match with 10 markers is moot also. Here is the deal with dna, 99 percent of human DNA is a match, it is that 1% or those extra markers that separate us and they don't have those - what they have is 10 markers and that is old. So if you have another question rather than one that makes, to be frank, no sense, lets hear it.

And more to the point, it is the kind of question that is asked when one has been shown perhaps irrefutable proof of guilt that a question like this is asked.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

This is a moot question because there are only 10 markers and frankly Team Ramsey knows that the likelihood of a match with 10 markers is moot also. Here is the deal with dna, 99 percent of human DNA is a match, it is that 1% or those extra markers that separate us and they don't have those - what they have is 10 markers and that is old. So if you have another question rather than one that makes, to be frank, no sense, lets hear it.

And more to the point, it is the kind of question that is asked when one has been shown perhaps irrefutable proof of guilt that a question like this is asked.

The people who handle these things professionally claim that there is enough information within the DNA left at the crime scene to compare with and rule out suspects. Thats why it has been entered into CODIS, and why JK was tested.

There has been no match as yet to the DNA profile entered into CODIS. To rephrase my original question, what if a suspect was found who matched the CODIS DNA profile, and was a known killer. Would you still believe PR wrote the note?

 

[eleven]

This is a moot question because there are only 10 markers and frankly Team Ramsey knows that the likelihood of a match with 10 markers is moot also. Here is the deal with dna, 99 percent of human DNA is a match, it is that 1% or those extra markers that separate us and they don't have those - what they have is 10 markers and that is old. So if you have another question rather than one that makes, to be frank, no sense, lets hear it.

And more to the point, it is the kind of question that is asked when one has been shown perhaps irrefutable proof of guilt that a question like this is asked.

To paraphrase your above statement: The extra markers are the only thing that distinguishes everyones DNA 99% of the human population ha a DNA match, and they don't have the extra markers, so the DNA they have would have to virtually match 99% of the population.

I do believe that is an incorrect statement. Did they not test Karr and make the statement that his DNA was not a match?

I'm completely in the dark regarding your last paragraph/sentence. Not sure what you mean by that statement.:waitasec:

 

[BOESP]

The people who handle these things professionally claim that there is enough information within the DNA left at the crime scene to compare with and rule out suspects. Thats why it has been entered into CODIS, and why JK was tested.

There has been no match as yet to the DNA profile entered into CODIS. To rephrase my original question, what if a suspect was found who matched the CODIS DNA profile, and was a known killer. Would you still believe PR wrote the note?

Holdon, I'm not going to speculate and answer for a hypothetical question, however, the unknown DNA was reportedly degraded. Obviously, if it was a fresh sample, they would get a complete marker set. JonBenet's DNA was fresh. The two DNAs were deposited on different occasions.

 

[Ames]

Holdon, I'm not going to speculate and answer for a hypothetical question, however, the unknown DNA was reportedly degraded. Obviously, if it was a fresh sample, they would get a complete marker set. JonBenet's DNA was fresh. The two DNAs were deposited on different occasions.

And so...how would an intruder leave old, degraded DNA??

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

And so...how would an intruder leave old, degraded DNA??

I think old and degraded are RDI characterizations.

From the article I read, the DNA found in a blood stain met the threshold for a 'genetic fingerprint' to be added to the national DNA database.


​

 

[Ames]

I think old and degraded are RDI characterizations.​

From the article I read, the DNA found in a blood stain met the threshold for a 'genetic fingerprint' to be added to the national DNA database.​

Holdon...do you think that you could find this article again?...I would like to read it. Thanks..

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon...do you think that you could find this article again?...I would like to read it. Thanks..

Google search 'JonBenet Ramsey DNA timeline'

​

 

[Ames]

Google search 'JonBenet Ramsey DNA timeline'​

Okay....thanks!!!

 

[BOESP]

I think old and degraded are RDI characterizations.

From the article I read, the DNA found in a blood stain met the threshold for a 'genetic fingerprint' to be added to the national DNA database.


​

Wiki encyclopedia isn't proof or evidence. If they squeezed out ten markers, it was degraded, as in been there too long to get a full profile.

You sound desperate.