I am waiting for at least some of the IDIs to admit they were mistaken.

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 60 of137
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Anti-K wrote:
No, the DNA is not my main interest, and Topix is pretty much the only place where I even bother to discuss it. I have come across DNA discussion on IDI forums, but I rarely join in on those discussions.
Since it seems to be ALL you post on here, you surely can see how I came to that conclusion.
Anti-K wrote:
The panty/leggings DNA is exculpatory for the Ramseys because it is not Ramsey DNA and because it is found in (three) incriminating locations. It really is that simple, and BPD and the DA realize this.
It is never that simple unless you believe the samples, processes, and storage were pristine.
Anti-K wrote:
They certainly wouldn’t put so much time, effort and money, etc. into trying to identify it.
The lion’s share of level-of-effort was in obtaining the DNA profile. The level-of-effort in weekly submissions against CODIS is minimal, and I believe that is all that is going on with the case.

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Hi Folks,
To use DNA as "evidence" in the Jonbenet case, is like trying to put a horse before the cart. Even if they did find any unknown DNA, which is doubtful to me, there still is the fact that there is no evidence of an entry, exit, or stay by any intruder in the Ramsey home. SO, IF they found any unknown DNA, how can we say that it came from an intruder, when we cannot provide any reasonable evidence of an intruder?

Cam anyone see any disadvantage or problem with releasing the official DNA reports from Bode Technologies, or anywhere else? Why is this information being withheld? As I see it, either there is no such report, or those in office supporting the Ramsey family are resisting the releasing of the documents because it would embarrass a lot of pro Ramsey people.
CC
Marleysghost

Glasgow, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

If touch DNA can attach to a pair of longjohns it can attach to human hands and clothing worn by, let's say Patsy. Many people were said to have visited or slept in JonBenet's bedroom such as John Andrew's college friends, JonBenet's friends, and others. The touch DNA could have been left on the toilet or other fixture. Speculation is almost unlimited. It takes little thought to see how touch DNA can transfer.

I don't think it's Bode Technologies who are the holdup. Patsy and probably John and Burke's touch DNA have a high probability of being on the longjohns too.

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Marleysghost wrote:
If touch DNA can attach to a pair of longjohns it can attach to human hands and clothing worn by, let's say Patsy. Many people were said to have visited or slept in JonBenet's bedroom such as John Andrew's college friends, JonBenet's friends, and others. The touch DNA could have been left on the toilet or other fixture. Speculation is almost unlimited. It takes little thought to see how touch DNA can transfer.
I don't think it's Bode Technologies who are the holdup. Patsy and probably John and Burke's touch DNA have a high probability of being on the longjohns too.
I agree. That should be a given assumption, being that they lived in the same house. I think ALL of the Ramsey DNA was discounted.
CC
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Bakatari wrote:
Hi AK,
Again, you have been had. First of all, there is no official DNA report available to us, but even IF there was, there is no time stamp on the DNA, While you may think it came from an intruder, it could have come long before, or long after the murder of Jonbenet.
Being that there is no evidence of an intruder, you are buying the findings of Lou Smit, who claims there was no snow on the ground, while he went by photographs taken hours after, and possibly days after the incident.
The indictment by the Grand Jury proves the point, that they do not buy the BS theory of an intruder.
CC
The grand jury proved the point that they believed there was sufficient cause for an indictment and hence, a trial where the evidence would be presented and contested. Those grand jurors presented in the Brennan article all seemed to understand Hunter’s decision to not indict because of insufficient evidence to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The current DA says that the case is actually equivocal, pointing in both directions. So, what’s your point?

One of the guiding principles behind the search for, collection and analysis of trace evidence is that it is the result of most recent contact. That’s your date stamp. If this wasn’t true than they wouldn’t even bother looking for this kind of evidence. it would be a waste of valuable time and resources.

Your claim that I am “buying the findings of Lou Smit, who claims there was no snow on the ground” are ludicrous and in founded and I have never posted anything anywhere at any time that would support this claim.


AK
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the complete DNA report has not been made public. Does that mean I think this information was being kept secret somehow, by someone? No, I believe, at face value, we don’t have all the facts.
<quoted text>
So would that be your assumption for his DNA anywhere on the cord, or just in the wrist area?
<quoted text>
Then by that same token:
JR’s DNA should not be on the long johns anywhere
PR’s DNA should not be anywhere on the cord
JR’s should not be on the Barbie nightgown
PR’s should not be on the tape where her fibers were found
I agree that we don’t have all the facts.

I don’t think there is one DNA report. I think there is a CBI report and a Cellmark report and a BODE report and one for this fingernails and one for that stain and another for this ligature, etc.

What I don’t understand is why some people think that Horita would give a summary of the DNA to the cold case panel that Kolar took part in, and while Ramsey DNA would be mentioned (on the night gown) and various unidentified samples would be mentioned, etc., but somehow other Ramsey DNA found was excluded from that presentation. How do we explain that?

If DNA transfer occurred as simply as some posters seem to believe than Ramseys DNA could be anywhere and everywhere. Mr Ramsey touches the ligature, the coroner touches the ligature and picks up Mr Ramsey’s DNA and transfers it to the panties, etc.; Mr Ramsey touches Mrs Ramsey and her DNA transfers to him and he touches the ligature and transfers her DNA, etc.

Lucky for us, for forensics, for investigators, for the falsely accused, etc., DNA does not transfer this easily.

If Mr Ramsey had contact with the leggings when he carried Jonbenet up the stairs then his DNA could be on the leggings, but it might not be.

IIRC, the tape was tested for DNA and the victim’s was found but none other. This is part of the screen capture, isn’t it? We know that Mr Ramsey touched the tape and we know that White touched the tape. No Ramsey or White DNA (or fingerprints) found there. Why? Because DNA transfer does not occur as simply as some seem to believe.


AK
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
Since it seems to be ALL you post on here, you surely can see how I came to that conclusion.
<quoted text>
It is never that simple unless you believe the samples, processes, and storage were pristine.
<quoted text>
The lion’s share of level-of-effort was in obtaining the DNA profile. The level-of-effort in weekly submissions against CODIS is minimal, and I believe that is all that is going on with the case.
Legal_Eagle, I completely understand why you would think that the DNA is my main interest. There is no one to blame for this, but me.

It is that simple. The DNA results can be challenged, but the challenge is only going to come from the person identified, or rather form that person’s lawyer(s). it seems to me that what RDI are doing – Kolar Thomas, et.al – is making up excuses for this guy without even knowing who he is or anything about him.


AK

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Hi AK,
Lou Smit claimed that there were areas like the sidewalks and places where there was no snow on the ground, going by photographs, because he came to the case weeks after the incident. The claim of "No footprints in the snow" was an observation by the police first at the scene, which was slightly after 5AM that morning. The photos were obviously taken during daylight, and we really don't know which day they were taken.

The Grand Jury voted to indict. The charge was NOT murder, but child abuse, which was a very winnable charge, which Alex Hunter refused to pursue. Instead, Hunter made a very deceiving statement, which made everyone believe that the Grand Jury failed to indict, which was NOT true. Now that the truth has been exposed, you should realize that you, being an IDI, have been had.

There was no intruder. There was no footprints in the snow, and one of the Ramseys committed the crime. What we don't know, is which one, UNLESS, you can create an intruder who could enter the house, not leave a trace of his entering, leaving, or stay, who can go to the home without leaving footprints in the snow.

Again, you bought the snow job by the Ramsey propaganda. Again, you have been had in this case.
CC
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The grand jury proved the point that they believed there was sufficient cause for an indictment and hence, a trial where the evidence would be presented and contested. Those grand jurors presented in the Brennan article all seemed to understand Hunter’s decision to not indict because of insufficient evidence to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The current DA says that the case is actually equivocal, pointing in both directions. So, what’s your point?
One of the guiding principles behind the search for, collection and analysis of trace evidence is that it is the result of most recent contact. That’s your date stamp. If this wasn’t true than they wouldn’t even bother looking for this kind of evidence. it would be a waste of valuable time and resources.
Your claim that I am “buying the findings of Lou Smit, who claims there was no snow on the ground” are ludicrous and in founded and I have never posted anything anywhere at any time that would support this claim.

AK
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You write that the police arrived on the scene “slightly after 5AM that morning.” Mrs Ramsey called the police at 5:552, so the police didn’t arrive until an hour after you say. Perhaps this was a typo or other innocent error on your part.

Here are a couple of examples of sources I’ve used to draw conclusions regarding the “no footprints in the snow” story:
From the Thomas deposition we learn that Reichenbach told Thomas that “there was a fresh frost and maybe a light dusting of snow on some of the lawn areas, but on the sidewalks and walkways around the house, as he put in his report, as I may have put in one of my reports, as we presented to the VIP conference, that you could not tell whether somebody may have walked on those walkways in question.”

Not exactly an example of Ramsey propaganda or Smit talking here, is it?

Here’s another, this one from Julie Hayden, "We looked at the videotape once the footprints in the snow started becoming an issue and one of the things that I observed was, there did not seem to be snow going up to all of the doors. So, in my opinion, this thing about footprints in the snow has always been much ado about nothing because it seemed clear to me that people could have gotten in the house, whether they did or not, without traipsing through the snow."

Another story: Glick says he found a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who told him that there was little snowfall and that the temperature had been mostly above freezing in the week prior to the murder. Glick says he then deduced that because there were no leaves on the trees to block the sunshine from reaching the flagstone patio outside the broken window, there probably wasn't any snow on the ground outside the broken window -- even though there were patches of snow on the lawn. To confirm, Glick says, he contacted a "frost expert" who told him that scientifically one couldn't even determine whether or when frost would have been on the ground outside the window. In other words, the police notation of "no footprints" was meaningless; it certainly did not rule out the entrance of an intruder. http://www.acandyrose.com/02002000NEWS-jonben...

One more, this one from PMPT: Reichenbach told the detectives that there was light, crusty snow and frost on the Ramsey’s lawn and he had seen no fresh footprints in the snow. The brick walkways were clear of snow.” p. 225


AK
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Now, you can choose to dismiss all that and stick with your no one could have entered or left that house without leaving footprints in the snow story, if you like. It just isn’t supported by the evidence or reason.

Evidence was removed from that house and it was removed by an intruder or by a Ramsey. The entering/exiting could have been done when conditions were less amenable to prints. After all, conditions at six a.m. don’t tell us much about conditions at midnight, or at one or two in the morning. And, any signs that might have been left could have been obscured and covered up by the early morning frost and light dusting of snow that manifested hours later.

If some do not want to accept that evidence was removed from the house, fine. It still remains that conditions at six a.m. don’t tell us much about conditions at midnight, or at one or two in the morning. It still remains that the conditions at six a.m. could have covered up prints left before those conditions manifested.


AK

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Hi AK,
The Grand Jury proved a point that there was enough evidence to indict the Ramsey parents PERIOD.

What the Grand Jury did NOT do, nor did anyone explain, is the reason for Alex Hunter to make a very deceptive statement, making it LOOK LIKE the Grand Jury failed to indict.

Anyone who thinks that the Ramseys were innocent should be angry, that they were fooled by the Ramsey propaganda, thinking that they were innocent in spite of the evidence.
CC
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The grand jury proved the point that they believed there was sufficient cause for an indictment and hence, a trial where the evidence would be presented and contested. Those grand jurors presented in the Brennan article all seemed to understand Hunter’s decision to not indict because of insufficient evidence to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The current DA says that the case is actually equivocal, pointing in both directions. So, what’s your point?
One of the guiding principles behind the search for, collection and analysis of trace evidence is that it is the result of most recent contact. That’s your date stamp. If this wasn’t true than they wouldn’t even bother looking for this kind of evidence. it would be a waste of valuable time and resources.
Your claim that I am “buying the findings of Lou Smit, who claims there was no snow on the ground” are ludicrous and in founded and I have never posted anything anywhere at any time that would support this claim.

AK

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The "No footprints in the snow" statement was an observation by the police first at the scene, who were trained to look for such things.

The dispute came from Lou Smit, who came to the case weeks after the incident, claiming that by photographs, there was no snow in some areas. We discussed that claim on this very board. The photographs were taken in the afternoon, giving the snow enough time to melt, AND, we are not sure exactly what day it was taken on.

CC
Anti-K wrote:
Now, you can choose to dismiss all that and stick with your no one could have entered or left that house without leaving footprints in the snow story, if you like. It just isn’t supported by the evidence or reason.
Evidence was removed from that house and it was removed by an intruder or by a Ramsey. The entering/exiting could have been done when conditions were less amenable to prints. After all, conditions at six a.m. don’t tell us much about conditions at midnight, or at one or two in the morning. And, any signs that might have been left could have been obscured and covered up by the early morning frost and light dusting of snow that manifested hours later.
If some do not want to accept that evidence was removed from the house, fine. It still remains that conditions at six a.m. don’t tell us much about conditions at midnight, or at one or two in the morning. It still remains that the conditions at six a.m. could have covered up prints left before those conditions manifested.

AK

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The officer who made the observation about the snow also noted that walking on the sidewalk and driveway left no visible prints (_JonBenet_)
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Foreign Faction, by A. James Kolar:

p.30: "CSI's Barry Weiss and Sue Barcklow had arrived on the scene and began to look for a possible point of entry to the home"...

"Weiss observed that the balcony door of JonBenet's bedroom was closed and locked. He noted it had been a VERY COLD NIGHT and observed a light coating of frost on the exterior bedroom balcony floor and railings"...

"(Crime scene photos depicted before and after photos of the balcony floor with his footprints in the frost). Anecdotally, another officer reported that the outside temperature had been observed to be 9 degrees farenheit one hour earlier at Tebo Plaza, approximately 5 miles distant from the Ramsey home."
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

About 13 years ago, in the Fall of 2000, Bob C, Skydog and Masker all went to the Ramsey home, took photos and made observations. There's NOTHING like seeing a crime scene for yourself. ALL of them agreed the most LIKELY way for an intruder to enter that home was on the second floor balcony by JonBenet's bedroom described in the post above, it was very easy to hop up there, and it was locked and completely undisturbed with frost and NO FOOTPRINTS AGAIN until the CSI's. That grate Lou talked about is 20 feet away from the next house. The place was so quiet IN THE DAY, Bob C could hear the neighbor raking the leaves.

“Nothing is foolproof to a”

Since: Jul 10

sufficiently talented fool

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

I agree with this statement in general, however in 10 degree weather, they certainly could tell us a lot about what happened during the night.
Anti-K wrote:
After all, conditions at six a.m. don’t tell us much about conditions at midnight, or at one or two in the morning.
I don’t agree with this, because it was 10 degrees in Boulder, and nothing would have melted in 10 degree weather, by 6 am when it is said there was nothing on the walk so they couldn’t see prints.

I’m not sure what you are thinking here, because a light dusting of snow whould still be there at 6am in 10 degree weather.

Frost would still have remained in 10 degree weather.
Anti-K wrote:
And, any signs that might have been left could have been obscured and covered up by the early morning frost and light dusting of snow that manifested hours later.

“Nothing is foolproof to a”

Since: Jul 10

sufficiently talented fool

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

That balcony was too high to “hop” anywhere. I would seriously doubt a 6’ person standing on a 6’ ladder could have accessed it. It has to be 12-15 feet off the ground.

I remember when BobC went there, I am only arguing the “EASILY HOP UP THERE” part.

http://tinyurl.com/avloc2n
candy wrote:
About 13 years ago, in the Fall of 2000, Bob C, Skydog and Masker all went to the Ramsey home, took photos and made observations. There's NOTHING like seeing a crime scene for yourself. ALL of them agreed the most LIKELY way for an intruder to enter that home was on the second floor balcony by JonBenet's bedroom described in the post above, it was very easy to hop up there, and it was locked and completely undisturbed with frost and NO FOOTPRINTS AGAIN until the CSI's. That grate Lou talked about is 20 feet away from the next house. The place was so quiet IN THE DAY, Bob C could hear the neighbor raking the leaves.

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

DrSeussMd wrote:
I agree with this statement in general, however in 10 degree weather, they certainly could tell us a lot about what happened during the night.
<quoted text>
I don’t agree with this, because it was 10 degrees in Boulder, and nothing would have melted in 10 degree weather, by 6 am when it is said there was nothing on the walk so they couldn’t see prints.
I’m not sure what you are thinking here, because a light dusting of snow whould still be there at 6am in 10 degree weather.
Frost would still have remained in 10 degree weather.
<quoted text>
Hi DS,
The observation was made by the police who were first actually at the scene. The dispute of that observation was made by photographs months after the fact. In the photographs used, I determined that the photos were taken at around noon, by the shadows and reflection from the sun. That gave the snow a lot of time to melt.

The observation of no footprints in the snow by the police first at the scene must have been accurate.
CC
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

This is what Bob C told me, and yes, he is over 6 feet tall:

"The ceilings were really low--as big as that house looks on TV, it is not very tall. It is 3 stories but is actually the size of a 2 story house in Texas terms. I could almost touch the porch outside JBR's bedroom--so climbing up a pipe would have been simpler and easier that going through that idiot grate."

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Hi AK,
IT wasn't a typo on my part. I just got my times mentally mixed. At 6AM in December, the sun is not quite out yet in the northern hemisphere, so there was not enough time or sunlight for the snow to melt.

The phot0graphs that Smit used to dispute the "No footprints in the snow" observation was obviously taken during the hours of sunlight, because clearly visible, are the shadows. Going by the shadows, and the reflections of the photos, and knowing the directions it was taken from, you should be able to determine that the photos were taken in the afternoon.

Smit was obviously trying to create an intruder from nothing, and even months after he took on the case, he proved that entry through the basement window was possible by climbing in there himself. I think we all concluded, that even IF there was an intruder, the point of entry was NOT the basement window.

CC
Anti-K wrote:
You write that the police arrived on the scene “slightly after 5AM that morning.” Mrs Ramsey called the police at 5:552, so the police didn’t arrive until an hour after you say. Perhaps this was a typo or other innocent error on your part.
Here are a couple of examples of sources I’ve used to draw conclusions regarding the “no footprints in the snow” story:
From the Thomas deposition we learn that Reichenbach told Thomas that “there was a fresh frost and maybe a light dusting of snow on some of the lawn areas, but on the sidewalks and walkways around the house, as he put in his report, as I may have put in one of my reports, as we presented to the VIP conference, that you could not tell whether somebody may have walked on those walkways in question.”
Not exactly an example of Ramsey propaganda or Smit talking here, is it?
Here’s another, this one from Julie Hayden, "We looked at the videotape once the footprints in the snow started becoming an issue and one of the things that I observed was, there did not seem to be snow going up to all of the doors. So, in my opinion, this thing about footprints in the snow has always been much ado about nothing because it seemed clear to me that people could have gotten in the house, whether they did or not, without traipsing through the snow."
Another story: Glick says he found a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who told him that there was little snowfall and that the temperature had been mostly above freezing in the week prior to the murder. Glick says he then deduced that because there were no leaves on the trees to block the sunshine from reaching the flagstone patio outside the broken window, there probably wasn't any snow on the ground outside the broken window -- even though there were patches of snow on the lawn. To confirm, Glick says, he contacted a "frost expert" who told him that scientifically one couldn't even determine whether or when frost would have been on the ground outside the window. In other words, the police notation of "no footprints" was meaningless; it certainly did not rule out the entrance of an intruder. http://www.acandyrose.com/02002000NEWS-jonben...
One more, this one from PMPT: Reichenbach told the detectives that there was light, crusty snow and frost on the Ramsey’s lawn and he had seen no fresh footprints in the snow. The brick walkways were clear of snow.” p. 225

AK

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 60 of137
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

22 Users are viewing the JonBenet Ramsey Forum right now

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) 20 min JTF 7,391
Boulder in the 70s 9 hr gotgum 7
Been kinda quiet lately 13 hr Steve Eller 24
Similarities between the Ramseys and Jeffrey Da... 16 hr smashmk 1
JonBenet Investigation (Nov '11) Tue updates 1,595
Hair Apr 12 JimmyWells 5
Undisclosed crime scene images. Apr 11 candy 5
•••
•••
•••
•••