Comments
1 - 20 of 80 Comments Last updated Feb 11, 2013
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 31, 2013
 
Check out the great shows Peter Boyles did on Monday, January 28 and Tuesday, January 29th on the Ramsey case grand jury.

http://www.khow.com/main.html
Heloise

Manchester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Intriguing snippet about someone sitting on evidence that is damning to the Ramseys and that this person may come forward now a Grand Juror has come forward...

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Boyles said there is a source "sitting on" a piece of evidence that has never been disclosed to the public.

Add it to all the other information and evidence the internet sleuths have uncovered about what transpired with Jonbenet's death and the hoax may start to finally unravel.

Alex Hunter needs to be held morally accountable.

The Ramseys need to be held financially accountable for the taxpayer's wasted money.
Steve Eller

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 2, 2013
 
moonjack wrote:
Boyles said there is a source "sitting on" a piece of evidence that has never been disclosed to the public.
Add it to all the other information and evidence the internet sleuths have uncovered about what transpired with Jonbenet's death and the hoax may start to finally unravel.
Alex Hunter needs to be held morally accountable.
The Ramseys need to be held financially accountable for the taxpayer's wasted money.
The only thing left that needs and MUST be explained in this case is the foreign trace DNA matching the underwear and longjohns. If not for that John Ramsey should be arrested immediately.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Incomplete degraded DNA can never be a match. A complete profile has to match a complete profile exactly to be viable.

The touch DNA is just another red herring paraded out by people trying to protect the truth from being exposed.

Alex Hunter was a shyster, a wimp, plus so inept and corrupt his son paid the price.
Steve Eller

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

moonjack wrote:
Incomplete degraded DNA can never be a match. A complete profile has to match a complete profile exactly to be viable.
The touch DNA is just another red herring paraded out by people trying to protect the truth from being exposed.
Alex Hunter was a shyster, a wimp, plus so inept and corrupt his son paid the price.
I am not saying it should be matched, but if we definitively account for its existence I would personally be leading protests outside of the DA's Office is John Ramsey wasn't arrested. It is the only thing preventing us from completely and UNEQUIVOCALLY exposing the IDI theory for the farce that it is. Unfortunately the DNA issue still resonates with the public and even Carol McKinley seems to act as if it is the 800 pound guerilla in the room.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Feb 2, 2013
 
On the January 28, 2013 6:00 a.m. hour, Peter Boyles is speaking with Don Wrege. They talk about the DAMNING videotaped deposition of Patsy, John and Steve Thomas from the Wolf case. Don Wrege calls it a bootleg, it is not a bootleg, Jann Scott got it directly from Darnay to air on his show in Boulder. Darnay VERY MUCH wanted the people of Boulder to see the evidence for themselves. Wrege says that video got the station "shut down." There is NO legitimate reason for that to happen. I would check into who did that, if the RAMSEYS and/or their lawyers objected to that footage being used IN BOULDER COLORADO, SCENE OF THE CRIME, and used it to shut down the station. WHO ELSE WOULD GO TO SUCH EXTREME LENGTHS TO COVER UP THAT EVIDENCE? Lin Wood REFUSED to allow those handwriting charts to be filmed in the filmed depositions of both Gideon Epstein and Cina Wong.
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Feb 2, 2013
 
Blue Bottle wrote:
All of the DNA samples are artifacts and McKinley is a lightweight.
I don't consider Carol McKinley a lightweight, she is a good journalist and she beat the Ramseys in Court. And we have to account for the fact that the same DNA material in the crotch of the underwear and the waistband matches the DNA of the waistband on the longjohns--that is not something that we can dismiss due to it being artifact DNA. More information about the testing and possibility of contamination is needed. Even Jim Kolar admits that there is not necessarily an innocent explanation for that match. Of course, this does not even come close to exonerating the Ramseys or gainsaying any part of the enormous amount of evidence against the Ramsey but it is a legitimate talking point for their apologists.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Feb 2, 2013
 
Carol is not a lightweight. She's a great journalist. If she's talking about the other side of not indicting the case like a laywer, that's just showing both sides of the story AND I believe her husband is a lawyer, so she probably hears it at home. All the Scams want is ALL CROCUMENTARIES LIKE TRACEY AND APHRODITE JONES AND NOTHING ELSE EVER.
learnin

Topeka, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't consider Carol McKinley a lightweight, she is a good journalist and she beat the Ramseys in Court. And we have to account for the fact that the same DNA material in the crotch of the underwear and the waistband matches the DNA of the waistband on the longjohns--that is not something that we can dismiss due to it being artifact DNA. More information about the testing and possibility of contamination is needed. Even Jim Kolar admits that there is not necessarily an innocent explanation for that match. Of course, this does not even come close to exonerating the Ramseys or gainsaying any part of the enormous amount of evidence against the Ramsey but it is a legitimate talking point for their apologists.
I agree that the DNA needs to be addressed and that, in the media's eye , it gets the Ramseys off the hook.

I was extremely leery when that touch DNA report first surfaced.
What's the chances of scraping around on a garment, 12 years after the fact, and coming up with a DNA profile gleaned from a few skin cells left by the same individual that left degraded DNA in the victim's panties? When you realize that the panty DNA had to be amplified (and amplification lends to subjectivity), then, I'm even more leery.

Now, we find the Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramseys and this important tidbit was kept from the public by the same DA's office that found this touch DNA 12 years after the fact and called it a match. Something's rotten in, not Denmark, but Boulder if you ask me.

I'm of the opinion that, if you want to find something bad enough, you'll find it whether it's a ghost, a UFO, or a DNA strand that just happens to match some degraded DNA 12 years after the fact.
And, make no mistake about it, Mary Lacy wanted to find something to exonerate the Ramseys. Why else would you go scraping around
on waistbands 12 years later to try and match some DNA? What does it accomplish other than Ramsey exoneration? It isn't like they had a suspect that matched the degraded panty DNA and they needed one more nail in his coffin. The scraping didn't lead us to a suspect so what good did it accomplish? It still doesn't match any known person.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

The most interesting thing I heard on Boyle's show was from Carol McKinley. She said that JonBenet's teacher (or teachers) said that JonBenet sometimes showed up for school unfed and disheveled.

While I'm often unfed and disheveled when I drop her off, my kid is always fed and heveled no matter what's going on.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that the DNA needs to be addressed and that, in the media's eye , it gets the Ramseys off the hook.
I was extremely leery when that touch DNA report first surfaced.
What's the chances of scraping around on a garment, 12 years after the fact, and coming up with a DNA profile gleaned from a few skin cells left by the same individual that left degraded DNA in the victim's panties? When you realize that the panty DNA had to be amplified (and amplification lends to subjectivity), then, I'm even more leery.
Now, we find the Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramseys and this important tidbit was kept from the public by the same DA's office that found this touch DNA 12 years after the fact and called it a match. Something's rotten in, not Denmark, but Boulder if you ask me.
I'm of the opinion that, if you want to find something bad enough, you'll find it whether it's a ghost, a UFO, or a DNA strand that just happens to match some degraded DNA 12 years after the fact.
And, make no mistake about it, Mary Lacy wanted to find something to exonerate the Ramseys. Why else would you go scraping around
on waistbands 12 years later to try and match some DNA? What does it accomplish other than Ramsey exoneration? It isn't like they had a suspect that matched the degraded panty DNA and they needed one more nail in his coffin. The scraping didn't lead us to a suspect so what good did it accomplish? It still doesn't match any known person.
You have to read her exoneration letter to the Ramseys, here, and this copy, because it's a complete copy, info about the autopsy being checked is not in many copies of the letter online:

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/07/09/1652...

You see what got her in trouble with Karr, she sees the Ramsey case through the prism of the intruder theory ONLY.

She talks about becoming aware of touch DNA technology "last summer" (summer, 2007) and she contacts BODE, to use the scraping method for touch DNA on the long johns that JonBenet wore and that WERE PROBABLY HANDLED BY THE PERPETRATOR DURING THE COURSE OF THIS CRIME."

So she tests that hypothesis and that ONE item of clothing and DOES find a touch DNA match on where a perp OR ANYONE would pull down the longjohns, on BOTH sides of the waistbands.

WHAT ELSE WAS HAPPENING AT THE TIME LACY CLEARED THE RAMSEYS? First and foremost, Lacy was leaving office at the end of 2008. Well, earlier that year, Tim Masters was released from prison based on touch DNA evidence matching someone else.(Who it matched WAS KNOWN to LE, a boyfriend of the victim, who passed a polygraph and HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED FOR THE CRIME EITHER). So the touch DNA in the Masters case has not SOLVED the case. Then, a book came out by Joyce Carol Oates (there were other books that came out the Ramseys could ignore), but she was a known author, offering a BDI theory of a Ramsey like crime. I believe Lin Wood, who had been applying pressure on her since the Carnes WRONG verdict, was putting pressure on her to clear the Ramseys and stop authors from using the family as possible perps. More, next post
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Lacy used the opportunity from the ONE touch DNA finding, it's now July, 2008, and she's only in office until January, 2009, basically after the election in November, 2008, the DA is a lame duck and there is a transition to a new DA, so she cleared them with approximately three months left of her active term.

In her letter, she makes another INTRUDER ONLY ASSUMPUTION that "THERE IS NO INNOCENT EXPLANATION for its incriminating presence" in 3 locations. OH YES THERE IS, transfer of skin cells. I immediately asked a DNA expert if saliva when it dries in the crotch of the panties can be transferred as skin cells if you touch it and then pull up the longjohns by the waistband and was told YES. And she says the profile of the unsourced DNA IS the perp of the cirme.

Making a bad situation even worse in her exoneration letter, she LIES and says vindicating the Ramseys was based on ALL THE EVIDENCE, and NO IT WASN'T, especially not the grand jury indictment of both parents for child abuse leading to death that she knew full well about.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Feb 3, 2013
 
candy wrote:


So she tests that hypothesis and that ONE item of clothing and DOES find a touch DNA match on where a perp OR ANYONE would pull down the longjohns, on BOTH sides of the waistbands.
Or hold them to visually inspect and foreniscially examine them.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

moonjack wrote:
<quoted text>
Or hold them to visually inspect and foreniscially examine them.
Yes, and then to SCRAPE them to obtain the evidence that is not able to be seen.

All this is why I post on the probablities in Colorado of a cold case hit TO ANYTHING and the pro-Rams are at a loss why this case with a RANSOM NOTE they don't want to talk about, that the writer obviously knows A LOT about the family, including John's bonus that year, narrows the field as to who could have possibly written it and anyone's involvement in the murder.

They knew this case IS NOT like the Susannah Chase case, even though they questioned Chris Wolf about that case too. Susannah Chase was killed on the street walking home from a party after a fight with her boyfriend. It was a crime of opportunity, AND they had SEMEN from the offender.

They know it's not like the Tim Masters case because the touch DNA linked IMMEDIATELY to someone KNOWN to the investigation. Same with the Allie Berrliz case, the hit on the DNA was KNOWN to the investigators.

That's why Kolar talks about the TOTALITY of the evidence, not just an isolated piece or two.
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

This is to no one in particular, but addresses various concerns raised by several in posts above.

Amplification of DNA is routine and standard and shouldn’t be a concern here. According to BODE there was sufficient material recovered to allow for processing in the normal fashion. There has been some concern raised over the use of LCN, but you don’t really see too much of that with the “normal” process. This is just the way that it’s done.

If someone wants to argue that an error was made because of subjectivity or sample size or quality or something, fine, but then I think you need to explain how that error results in a match to the panty DNA.

Someone asked, what are the chances that 12 years after the crime examiners could find a DNA profile? Well, if the garment was adequately stored and the DNA was present, then the chances are probably pretty close to a hundred percent. If it’s there and if they look there, they’ll find it. This is just how it works.

Some have questioned, perhaps on a different thread, why the examiners didn’t look for DNA on the ankles of the long johns. With resource (lab time and backlog) and money issues to consider, they simply went with the best shot. If the killer’s DNA was going to be anywhere, it would be on the waistband. An aside: on this side of the fence, there is a tendency to believe that the killer did not remove the long johns. He simply pulled them down far enough to do whatever it is that he wanted to do.

Sometimes I see the Masters case mentioned and I think that the important thing to take away from that case, as far as DNA goes, is that the identification of that DNA had nothing to do with Masters release. Masters was released because the DNA was not Masters DNA. It is the same with the Ramsys, as far as any supposed exoneration goes, it doesn’t matter that the DNA isn’t identified. What matters is that isn’t Ramsey DNA.

Of course, if it had been Ramsey then I suppose someone could argue innocent explanation. All parties involved would love to identify this stuff and all parties recognize that they MUST identify it, and they’ve tried. Innocent explanations could exist. But, they’ve been tested; they’ve been actively sought out and have failed to be found time after time after time. This minimizes the chances that this DNA has an innocent explanation.


AK
learnin

Topeka, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Fr_Brown wrote:
The most interesting thing I heard on Boyle's show was from Carol McKinley. She said that JonBenet's teacher (or teachers) said that JonBenet sometimes showed up for school unfed and disheveled.
While I'm often unfed and disheveled when I drop her off, my kid is always fed and heveled no matter what's going on.
That is very interesting, Fr. Brown.
learnin

Topeka, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

candy wrote:
Lacy used the opportunity from the ONE touch DNA finding, it's now July, 2008, and she's only in office until January, 2009, basically after the election in November, 2008, the DA is a lame duck and there is a transition to a new DA, so she cleared them with approximately three months left of her active term.
In her letter, she makes another INTRUDER ONLY ASSUMPUTION that "THERE IS NO INNOCENT EXPLANATION for its incriminating presence" in 3 locations. OH YES THERE IS, transfer of skin cells. I immediately asked a DNA expert if saliva when it dries in the crotch of the panties can be transferred as skin cells if you touch it and then pull up the longjohns by the waistband and was told YES. And she says the profile of the unsourced DNA IS the perp of the cirme.
Making a bad situation even worse in her exoneration letter, she LIES and says vindicating the Ramseys was based on ALL THE EVIDENCE, and NO IT WASN'T, especially not the grand jury indictment of both parents for child abuse leading to death that she knew full well about.
Good points, Candy. I wouldn't trust anything that came out of that office.
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

The DNA results didn’t come out of “that office.” They came from BODE. The conclusion drawn from these results are questioned by some, but the results themselves are accepted as being true by investigatiors.


AK

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anti-K wrote:
The DNA results didn’t come out of “that office.” They came from BODE. The conclusion drawn from these results are questioned by some, but the results themselves are accepted as being true by investigatiors.

AK
The reality is that while BODE issued a report, it was INTERPRETED and "that office" decided what was going to be released to the public AND offered their own interpretation of what the report meant without offering up the report

IMO, that tells me that keeping yet another SECRET shows that what we DON'T know inside that report is evidence of Ramsey DNA in places that it shouldn't be plus plenty of IDENTIFIED DNA

The Ramseys and their spinners have shown time and time again that anything "secret" thus far, means that it is incriminating to the Ramseys and there is no reason to believe the DNA report is any different or they would release it

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
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.

9 Users are viewing the JonBenet Ramsey Forum right now

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
"Mr Ramsey Listen Carefully!" New book released... 19 min Spike 15
Before I Die 20 min Guilty 6
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) 11 hr JTF 7,454
Note-odd detail? 22 hr Undrtheradar 221
I know what really happened to JoneBEnnet Tue Biz 69
Snow Prints? Tue Biz 34
Sid Wells mother complains (Mar '08) Mon candy 26
•••
•••