No intruder?

[MurriFlower]

Bingo Becky!! That's the true problem with dna evidence in this case. Degraded. Too small of an amount so it is replicated. Too few OR too many markers! And there is no accounting made for the dna that should be there!

Wrong again!!

 

[MurriFlower]

Murri, I misread something and for that I apologize. I am however not going to play the childish games you play with your antagonizing. Done with you for the day... Bye Bye...

You were the author of a post asking for a link and source of something already posted on this thread this very day. You accuse me incorrectly of "bringing up the DNA under her nails" and then you balme me for being antagonising!!

You are becoming annoying.

 

[BBB167893]

"DNA from two sites on the long johns matched genetic material from an unknown male that had previously been recovered from blood in JonBenet's underpants. The matching DNA from three places on two articles of JonBenet's clothing convinced the district attorney that it belonged to the killer, and hadn't been left accidentally by a third party."

That's about the ONLY person it convinced. Not that she needed it.

 

[BBB167893]

Far as I know they were the only thing tested. Touch DNA, because it can't be seen, is taken by the technicians from areas where they can assume the article would have been touched by a perp. I suppose had they the time and money, they could have scraped every single item in the house for touch DNA, BUT when the DNA obtained from BOTH SIDES of the waistband of the longjohns matched the previously discovered (years earlier) DNA in the bloodspot on the panties, it would have served no purpose. It proved there was an unknown male involved in the crime, and that was that. No amount of denials by RDI can change this.

It "proved" no such thing. And as for that being that, doesn't look that way.

 

[BBB167893]

you need to ask bode these questions.

i did.

 

[BBB167893]

Look at all the people that touched her and those are just the people that we know about. Who touched those pants before? Who touched them at the autopsy? Who could have touched her while she laid under that dang tree for at least eight hours.

I find it funny that IDI argues and hangs its hopes on touch DNA found on the OUTSIDE of her clothing but totally disregard the fibers of her fathers shirt being on her vagina and her mothers hair in the ligature. Just to name a few, but then thats all you need to hang your head and shake it in disbelief.

It was funny for a while, Agatha.

 

[BBB167893]

What you are saying here is that they tested the only areas that ML needed tested in order to "clear the Ramseys".

At least she admits it, Beck.

She was very afraid to test lots of other areas because that dna was not going to show up anywhere else and that would have ruined her exoneration of the Ramseys. Let's all hope the new DA has a lot more dedication to justice and will test all the pertinent areas.

:clap: Could not have said it better.

 

[Agatha_C]

Dave,

I know, but the words I wanted to use aren't allowed.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

I know, but the words I wanted to use aren't allowed.

I know exactly what you mean.

 

[MurriFlower]

It was funny for a while, Agatha.

Funny how things get mixed up. 'Mother's hair in the ligature' and 'Father's shirt fibers on her vagina'. I think not.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Strawman proposals. Like the absurd DrBDI idea.

To whoever can take the most profoundly noble person who has probably saved the lives of several children, dedicating his life in this noble profession, and slander his good name without reason: Dishonor to you, your family, and your cow.

slan·der

   /ˈslæn

dər/ Show Spelled[slan-der] Show IPA
–noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.

2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

3. Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

 

[UKGuy]

Funny how things get mixed up. 'Mother's hair in the ligature' and 'Father's shirt fibers on her vagina'. I think not.

MurriFlower,

Yes it is funny how things get mixed up. Can we have your reference for your vagina quote please? This is novel.




.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

Yes it is funny how things get mixed up. Can we have your reference for your vagina quote please? This is novel.

Certainly. Not my quote, just commenting on how RDI constantly change the facts to suit themselves.

Originally Posted by Agatha_C View Post
Look at all the people that touched her and those are just the people that we know about. Who touched those pants before? Who touched them at the autopsy? Who could have touched her while she laid under that dang tree for at least eight hours.

I find it funny that IDI argues and hangs its hopes on touch DNA found on the OUTSIDE of her clothing but totally disregard the fibers of her fathers shirt being on her vagina and her mothers hair in the ligature. Just to name a few, but then thats all you need to hang your head and shake it in disbelief.

 

[Agatha_C]

MurriFlower,

Yes it is funny how things get mixed up. Can we have your reference for your vagina quote please? This is novel.




.

UK,

Sorry about my mistake, I meant to say the crotch of her panties. I really need to post when I'm not so busy. Sorry again.

 

[Agatha_C]

Strawman proposals. Like the absurd DrBDI idea.

To whoever can take the most profoundly noble person who has probably saved the lives of several children, dedicating his life in this noble profession, and slander his good name without reason: Dishonor to you, your family, and your cow.

slan·der

   /ˈslæn

dər/ Show Spelled[slan-der] Show IPA
–noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.

2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

3. Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

You tend your cursed cows and I'll tend mine.

 

[joeskidbeck]

"Far as I know they were the only thing tested" quoted by MurriFlower BBM

Murri, excuse me, but I did not put those words in your mouth. They are there for all to see. So, far as I know, they didn't test anything else for fear they might NOT find this mysterious dna anywhere else.

 

[MurriFlower]

"Far as I know they were the only thing tested" quoted by MurriFlower BBM

Murri, excuse me, but I did not put those words in your mouth. They are there for all to see. So, far as I know, they didn't test anything else for fear they might NOT find this mysterious dna anywhere else.

Originally Posted by joeskidbeck View Post
What you are saying here is that they tested the only areas that ML needed tested in order to "clear the Ramseys". She was very afraid to test lots of other areas because that dna was not going to show up anywhere else and that would have ruined her exoneration of the Ramseys. Let's all hope the new DA has a lot more dedication to justice and will test all the pertinent areas.

My bold

What I said was not that they tested the only areas that ML needed tested in order to "clear the Ramseys" Those were your thoughts. I said Far as I know they were the only thing tested. I explained that because touch DNA is not able to be seen, they would only test areas where it could be reasonably assumed the person who removed her longjohns touched them. As it happened, there was unidentified male DNA found on both sides. Voila!!

 

[SunnieRN]

Wrong again!!

Not wrong in any way shape or form MF.

Funny how things get mixed up. 'Mother's hair in the ligature' and 'Father's shirt fibers on her vagina'. I think not.

MF are you from the US? Or another country. Just curious, thanks.

 

[BBB167893]

Funny how things get mixed up. 'Mother's hair in the ligature' and 'Father's shirt fibers on her vagina'. I think not.

I'm sure you don't. Sure glad we got that settled!

 

[BBB167893]

You tend your cursed cows and I'll tend mine.

How appropriate! Somebody around here was raised on sour milk!