The actual vs. desired outcome

[Holdontoyourhat]

There is no doubt that you do not understand the DNA evidence. And it has been explained to you over and over. Apparently you were not watching when Cyrill Wecht came on and explained it all to the uninformed newscaster who looked like, for lack of a better word, an idiot when he was finished. Her only reply was "okay, okay, I get it".

They can test until they raise Clarence Darrow from the dead and they will not get a match, not here in these United States and not in Taiwan either unless the packager is a felon or the like.

But you have been told this over and over again. So why do you keep clinging to what is a well known falacy? Give us some real evidence such as fibers or hairs from an intruder. Surely you must have that since there were three of them absucting JonBEnet. What did they leave Holdon. Must have left something.

Isn't that the one who has been indicted by the feds for fraud? Anyway, whats up with Taiwan?

 

[Solace]

Isn't that the one who has been indicted by the feds for fraud? Anyway, whats up with Taiwan?

I don't believe so, but as to Taiwan. The underwear were made in Taiwan and more than likely the degraded DNA is from the packager there.

What does Cyrill Wecht's being indicted for fraud have anything to do with whether or not he believes the DNA has 13 markers or whether or not the fact that there is DNA that is unsourced does not prove the Ramseys are innocent. You see it is statements like the one above that lead me to believe you really do not know what you are talking about.

Are you one of those who believes because Muhammed Ali was indicted, that means he knew nothing about boxing? Please let me know.

 

[Ames]

I don't believe so, but as to Taiwan. The underwear were made in Taiwan and more than likely the degraded DNA is from the packager there.

What does Cyrill Wecht's being indicted for fraud have anything to do with whether or not he believes the DNA has 13 markers or whether or not the fact that there is DNA that is unsourced does not prove the Ramseys are innocent. You see it is statements like the one above that lead me to believe you really do not know what you are talking about.

Are you one of those who believes because Muhammed Ali was indicted, that means he knew nothing about boxing? Please let me know.

Cyril Wechts has consulted on, or done the actual autopsies for many celebrities. Elvis Presley and JFK (remember HIM Holdon? He was our PRESIDENT)....Anna Nicole Smith, Daniel Smith (her son)...just to name a small few. He wouldn't be used so much, if he didn't know what he was talking about.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't believe so, but as to Taiwan. The underwear were made in Taiwan and more than likely the degraded DNA is from the packager there.

What does Cyrill Wecht's being indicted for fraud have anything to do with whether or not he believes the DNA has 13 markers or whether or not the fact that there is DNA that is unsourced does not prove the Ramseys are innocent. You see it is statements like the one above that lead me to believe you really do not know what you are talking about.

Are you one of those who believes because Muhammed Ali was indicted, that means he knew nothing about boxing? Please let me know.

The DNA doesn't prove the Rs are innocent. The only thing it does is provide a possible lead in the investigation. See, I'm not so stubborn.

On the other hand, your Dr. Wecht was a 3rd party expert with photos given to him by the tabloids. I'm afraid thats not exactly first hand information from someone close to the investigation.

Dr. Wecht is in no position to rule in or rule out the DNA as belonging to the perp.

 

[Ames]

The DNA doesn't prove the Rs are innocent. The only thing it does is provide a possible lead in the investigation. See, I'm not so stubborn.

On the other hand, your Dr. Wecht was a 3rd party expert with photos given to him by the tabloids. I'm afraid thats not exactly first hand information from someone close to the investigation.

Dr. Wecht is in no position to rule in or rule out the DNA as belonging to the perp.

I did find this, from the Daily Camera...

"Gregg McCrary, a retired crime analyst for the FBI, said he isn't convinced the unidentified DNA belongs to the killer.
It's best to think of the DNA evidence as a way to eliminate people than as a way to identify them," McCrary said. "You don't need much of a sample to eliminate someone, but you do need a good sample if you're trying to include someone."

From Ames...Forensics have came along way since 1996-1997. The article that I read said that the Ramsey's DNA remains sealed somewhere, awaiting a new DNA test.

 

[Solace]

The DNA doesn't prove the Rs are innocent. The only thing it does is provide a possible lead in the investigation. See, I'm not so stubborn.

On the other hand, your Dr. Wecht was a 3rd party expert with photos given to him by the tabloids. I'm afraid thats not exactly first hand information from someone close to the investigation.

Dr. Wecht is in no position to rule in or rule out the DNA as belonging to the perp.

Photos of what Holdon. What photos are you talking about? Photos of DNA? You are losing me again. Splain so I can be enlightened. What photos are you talking about?

 

[Ames]

Photos of what Holdon. What photos are you talking about? Photos of DNA? You are losing me again. Splain so I can be enlightened. What photos are you talking about?

I think that HE/SHE is talking about autopsy photos.

 

[Solace]

I think that HE/SHE is talking about autopsy photos.

Well then, let me enlighten you Holdon. He also read the autopsy report. And what he gleans from it is VERY interesting and probably one of the best reports out there. I disagree with some of his findings, but I will say that he explains just what is meant to show prior abuse and why some doctors say there is that.

But we were talking about the DNA, not the autopsy. Since you brought up the autopsy, have you read his book where he dissects the autopsy?:slap:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I did find this, from the Daily Camera...

"Gregg McCrary, a retired crime analyst for the FBI, said he isn't convinced the unidentified DNA belongs to the killer.
It's best to think of the DNA evidence as a way to eliminate people than as a way to identify them," McCrary said. "You don't need much of a sample to eliminate someone, but you do need a good sample if you're trying to include someone."

From Ames...Forensics have came along way since 1996-1997. The article that I read said that the Ramsey's DNA remains sealed somewhere, awaiting a new DNA test.

Didn't the article mention, and obviously omitted here for the sake of RDI, that the DNA was found mixed with JBR's blood, and that the DNA from this smaple was of sufficient quality to be entered into CODIS.

If the DNA is found to belong to a murderous psychopath who likes little blue eyed blond haired American girls, then McCrary will be convinced, I suppose?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well then, let me enlighten you Holdon. He also read the autopsy report. And what he gleans from it is VERY interesting and probably one of the best reports out there. I disagree with some of his findings, but I will say that he explains just what is meant to show prior abuse and why some doctors say there is that.

But we were talking about the DNA, not the autopsy. Since you brought up the autopsy, have you read his book where he dissects the autopsy?:slap:

It would've been a lot better for RDI if he had performed the autopsy. To me he appears to be a tabloid hire.

 

[Ames]

A quote from Cyril Wecht....


"I have learned that the police called in three separate child sexual abuse experts," he reports. "They separately and independently came to the same conclusion that there was evidence of prior sexual abuse. Not that I needed anybody to hold my hand, but for saying that same thing I took abuse on national television from self-appointed Ramsey defenders and sycophants. But it's the most ridiculous thing in the world, a little girl with half of the hymen gone and she's dead, and you've got a tiny abrasion, a tiny contusion and a chronic inflammation of vaginal mucosa. That means it happened more than 72 hours earlier; we don't know how long, or how often it was repeated, but chronic means it wasn't from that night. This was a tragic, tragic accident. This was a game that had been played before."

This has nothing to do with the DNA...but, in case you guys haven't read this...I thought that it was interesting.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

"...This was a tragic, tragic accident. This was a game that had been played before."

Thats more editorial and drama than I would expect from a forensic professional. I would expect their conclusions to be more dry and technical, not so melodramatic.

The tabloids must love this guy.

So what was the coroner's take on the prior abuse idea? What was her pediatrician's take? Oh, I forgot, their POV isn't the same so they don't count.

 

[Ames]

Didn't the article mention, and obviously omitted here for the sake of RDI, that the DNA was found mixed with JBR's blood, and that the DNA from this smaple was of sufficient quality to be entered into CODIS.

If the DNA is found to belong to a murderous psychopath who likes little blue eyed blond haired American girls, then McCrary will be convinced, I suppose?

Yes, to your first question...and then this was also in the article...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE FROM JACOBSON...

Jacobson, who is nationally recognized for his defense work regarding DNA, said, however, that the evidence is good enough to at least secure another arrest in the aging case "if the testing is done right and if they're interpreting it correctly."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM AMES: Could it be that he thinks that when it was tested with the Ramsey's DNA...that it was NOT done right, and they did not interpret it correctly??

 

[Solace]

"...This was a tragic, tragic accident. This was a game that had been played before."

Thats more editorial and drama than I would expect from a forensic professional. I would expect their conclusions to be more dry and technical, not so melodramatic.

The tabloids must love this guy.

So what was the coroner's take on the prior abuse idea? What was her pediatrician's take? Oh, I forgot, their POV isn't the same so they don't count.

No, the pediatrician counts. Just in this case, he says he did not do an internal of JonBenet and he also said there was no abuse. But one would have to ask how he would know that since he did not do an internal.

I don't happen to agree with Wecht. I think it was corporal cleaning by the lunatic "Patsy" and hence the abrasions inside of JonBenet. However, thre are several other forensics who believe she was raped by someone in the home. Wendy Murphy, a prosecutor who has just written a book and has prosecuted many incest cases, says this is one. Do you think the tabloids love her also?

Probably, the tabloids love anything to do with incest. But it hardly makes it untrue.

Get a better arguement. Sarcasm is not working. Didn't anyone ever tell you that sarcasm is a sign of immaturity. Why do you constantly resort to it. This is a discussion board and you have yet to present a valid arguement, but your sarcasm runneth over.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, the pediatrician counts. Just in this case, he says he did not do an internal of JonBenet and he also said there was no abuse. But one would have to ask how he would know that since he did not do an internal.

I don't happen to agree with Wecht. I think it was corporal cleaning by the lunatic "Patsy" and hence the abrasions inside of JonBenet. However, thre are several other forensics who believe she was raped by someone in the home. Wendy Murphy, a prosecutor who has just written a book and has prosecuted many incest cases, says this is one. Do you think the tabloids love her also?

Probably, the tabloids love anything to do with incest. But it hardly makes it untrue.

Get a better arguement. Sarcasm is not working. Didn't anyone ever tell you that sarcasm is a sign of immaturity. Why do you constantly resort to it. This is a discussion board and you have yet to present a valid arguement, but your sarcasm runneth over.

My purpose is to exchange ideas, not provide Solace with a valid argument. Besides, I've provided a lot of arguments with more validity than most. If you can't understand them or don't like them thats your problem not mine. Feel free to start your own thread, something like 'arguments that I like'

Here's an idea: that two intruders carried JBR to their boss waiting in the basement, spent as many as two or three hours there doing who knows what, JBR wouldn't acquiesce, so they killed her and then walked out the front door.

At least that fits the known evidence.

 

[Ames]

No, the pediatrician counts. Just in this case, he says he did not do an internal of JonBenet and he also said there was no abuse. But one would have to ask how he would know that since he did not do an internal.

I don't happen to agree with Wecht. I think it was corporal cleaning by the lunatic "Patsy" and hence the abrasions inside of JonBenet. However, thre are several other forensics who believe she was raped by someone in the home. Wendy Murphy, a prosecutor who has just written a book and has prosecuted many incest cases, says this is one. Do you think the tabloids love her also?

Probably, the tabloids love anything to do with incest. But it hardly makes it untrue.

Get a better arguement. Sarcasm is not working. Didn't anyone ever tell you that sarcasm is a sign of immaturity. Why do you constantly resort to it. This is a discussion board and you have yet to present a valid arguement, but your sarcasm runneth over.

I believe it was from corporal cleaning too, I just wanted Holdon to understand that whatever had been inserted was done BEFORE that night.

 

[Ames]

My purpose is to exchange ideas, not provide Solace with a valid argument. Besides, I've provided a lot of arguments with more validity than most. If you can't understand them or don't like them thats your problem not mine. Feel free to start your own thread, something like 'arguments that I like'

Here's an idea: that two intruders carried JBR to their boss waiting in the basement, spent as many as two or three hours there doing who knows what, JBR wouldn't acquiesce, so they killed her and then walked out the front door.

At least that fits the known evidence.

Here is an Idea...your idea makes NO sense. There is NO FIBER evidence that points to ONE intruder, MUCH LESS three of them. You still haven't answered this question that I have asked you at least three times. How...in YOUR opinion....did the fibers from Patsy's jacket..that she wore that night...end up in the paint tote? She said that she never, ever painted while wearing that jacket. I can understand the fibers being on JB....now THAT makes sense. What doesn't make sense, is her jacket fibers...being inside the paint tote, AND entwined in the garotte.

And WHY would two intruders lead JB down to the basement...where their "boss" was waiting..to do who knows what to JB, when it would have been so much easier and safer (as far as getting caught goes)...to take her out the front door....(which was alot closer than the basement)....to their boss waiting in the get away car....to take her to another location, to do who knows what to JB??

 

[JMO8778]

Here is an Idea...your idea makes NO sense. There is NO FIBER evidence that points to ONE intruder, MUCH LESS three of them. You still haven't answered this question that I have asked you at least three times. How...in YOUR opinion....did the fibers from Patsy's jacket..that she wore that night...end up in the paint tote? She said that she never, ever painted while wearing that jacket. I can understand the fibers being on JB....now THAT makes sense. What doesn't make sense, is her jacket fibers...being inside the paint tote, AND entwined in the garotte.

IDI has quite a simple explanation for that,one that defies all logic,not to mention all means of scientific analysis...and we are just supposed to believe THEM over what forensics tells us... JB had Patsy's fibers on her because Patsy was her mom,they spent the evening together and so her fibers would be on her from that.
It's your basic 2+2 =5 logic.
So I guess JB must have already been wearing the cord around her neck that evening,and she must have carried that paint tote to the party.

 

[JMO8778]

.to take her to another location, to do who knows what to JB??

to feed her that pineapple that IDI has to account for..
..the one that matched the rind in the bowl that had Patsy's fingerprints on it...opps.well,maybe Patsy was kind enough to take it downstairs for the SFF to give to her.

 

[DeeDee249]

The only fiber evidence found AT ALL was linked directly to the parents. There is no way that any number of intruders, especially more than one, would not leave any fibers at all, when the fibers of the parents are there. With an IDI theory, the intruders were the last ones to be with JBR. If IDI is to have any credibility, it is intruder fibers that would be there. Parent fibers, maybe. NO INTRUDER FIBERS were found, not on JBR, not in her room, on her body,on the blanket, on her clothes, in the basement or any other room. This is not possible.
There would have to be something.
What WAS found were PR Christmas Day jacket fibers on the inside of the tape, in the garrotte, in the paint tote. PR arm (ancillary) hair on the blanket. JR Christmas Day fibers in the panties and on the genital area of the body itself! JR underwear fibers in her room.
Secondary transfer would occur possibly on clothes JBR was wearing, but for JR's shirt fibers to be on her naked body means he was close to/touched the body when she was naked. But JR CLAIMS to have pulled off only her shoes that night and then never saw her again till he "found" her. When he "found her" she was clothed, or so we think. There is a possibility that it was a naked and bloody JBR that was locked in the wineceller, and that JR wiped and redressed her when he went to the basement that morning, during his "disappearance" of well over an hour.
In any and every crime, something is brought with the perp and something leaves with the perp. EVERY time.

That RN, BTW, if a real one, would read something like this:
Got your daughter. Don't call anyone or she dies. We'll call you.