Comments
41 - 60 of 80 Comments Last updated Feb 11, 2013

Since: May 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Fr_Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that rhetorical because mine was.
I'm getting a different slant on the kind of care Patsy provided for her children. And I'm wondering how dysfunctional she was--at least on occasion.
In the past I assumed that Patsy was sitting at the table with JonBenet while she was eating pineapple. It seemed odd that Patsy failed to account for this event when she was talking to police. Maybe she wasn't there. The fingerprint could have been left earlier.
I doubt she was there, too. JR said more than once that he 'kept trying to get Burke to go to bed'..and Patsy and JB were already in bed, according to him. JR also said he was the last to see JBR alive, that everyone was in bed by the time he read 'a little' and popped (he didn't know how many) melatonin. According to JR, Patsy was already in bed, tho he also said she was getting ready for their trip and wrapping last minute gifts..so which was it? LOL they had two story lines going at once.
learnin

Lawrence, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Feb 5, 2013
 
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, as Iíve said before, we donít just assume human error, particularly in an industry with an estimated error rate <3> of only one percent. But, n sometimes I think that youíre suggesting something more nefarious then human error! Yikes!
Ö
<3> ďThe Drunkards Walk Ė How Randomness Rules Our LivesĒ L. Mlodinow; p. 36
...
AK
No, I'm not suggesting anything more nefarious. What I'm suggesting is that, when subjectivity is involved, human bias
enters the equation. Heck, human bias enters the equation even when something is, objectively, evident.

Let me give an example for any who happened to watch the SuperBowl.
San Francisco was close to the goal line with a chance to take the lead at the end of the game. A Baltimore defender, clearly, held a San Francisco receiver and, illegally, kept him from getting to the pass. No call was made. If you're a Baltimore fan, most likely, you will defend the ref and say: "That was not a hold."
If you're a San Francisco fan, most likely, you will say: "That was a hold, San Francisco should've won." Two groups of people see the same thing and judge it differently.

In this Ramsey case, we have degraded DNA which was mixed with the victim's blood. We have two profiles that are mixed. The interpreter has to separate the two profiles. The interpreter is subject to error here. Since the unknown profile is degraded, it has to be amplified and the interpreter can mistake artifact as a spike. Keeping this in mind, consider the following.

BODE is called in, by a DA who is hell-bent on finding an intruder.
BODE gets paid for this service and stands to get free publicity if BODE delivers a match. By scraping around on the longjohns, BODE is bound to come up with mixed samples of DNA and, because of Kolar, we now know that's the case. Since we know that subjectivity enters into the equation when one is interpreting mixed and amplified DNA samples, and since we know human beings can hardly avoid some kind of bias, it is not far-fetched to question whether or not bias entered into the interpretation.
It is even more right to question when we know that Lacy never revealed the full extent of the DNA testing but only that one finding which supported the result she was looking for!!

Had Lacy admitted that there were, at least, six other unknown DNA samples on the longjohns, garrote, etc., then, her Ramsey exoneration would have carried much less weight. She knew this and this is why she did not reveal the full report! Yes, I'm skeptical.
learnin

Onaga, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Capricorn wrote:
I don't believe that most people assume human error in the BODE report. I'm sure there are some that do, but most do not. While it is certainly feasible that human error exists, even in DNA reports, I don't think that many believe there were errors in the BODE report
The errors are in the selective tidbits released by Lacy, Wood, et al and taken out of context from the report itself. You can make a children's book seem laced with espionage if you take portions out of context and keep it incomplete, telling it like an espionage story
When you take a "bit" of a report, without a full knowledge of the rest of it, it becomes very suspect and one can only wonder and in my case, assume, that the parts omitted are very important, especially in a case such as this one
Good post, Cap, but, if you read the report Fr. Brown presented, there is quite a bit of error in the current state of DNA testing when degraded and mixed samples are interpreted.

This is not a surprise to me. In my profession, if one amplifies data (and sometimes one must in order to obtain diagnostic data), one, also, amplifies artifact (noise if you will). When this is done, a false diagnosis can be given if the interpreter is not aware of, or does not take into consideration, artifact.

Let me be even more specific. Let's say there is a surgeon who wants to operate (judging from a biased point of view). The surgeon might interpret the data as a solid, or complex cystic mass, instead of a simple cyst which would not need surgery.

It's the same with this new touch DNA and DNA which is degraded or mixed. The interpreter has to be very experienced and objective or mistakes will be made.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Fr_Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that rhetorical because mine was.
I'm getting a different slant on the kind of care Patsy provided for her children. And I'm wondering how dysfunctional she was--at least on occasion.
In the past I assumed that Patsy was sitting at the table with JonBenet while she was eating pineapple. It seemed odd that Patsy failed to account for this event when she was talking to police. Maybe she wasn't there. The fingerprint could have been left earlier.
My point was/is, no one that posts on the boards would have that information. It would be LHP, friends of the children who had breakfast there, etc.

Why Patsy didn't account for the event of eating pineapple to me is that shortly thereafter, whatever event occured that caused JonBenet to sustain the massive head wound. The flashlight, pad of paper and ransom note are all in that area. Learnin said she was under attack within 20-30 minutes of eating that UNDIGESTED pineapple, FRESH pineapple, consistent down to the rind, said ST. She has to keep with her story, AND THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN THE PINEAPPLE. So it isn't in their "story". The enhanced 911 call is also not in their "story." They also can't explain why the two INDICTED FOR CHILD ABUSE LEADING TO DEATH said she fell asleep in the car, and was carried up to her room while SEPARATED FROM THEM, Burke said JonBenet WAS AWAKE upon arriving home and walked up the stairs to her room on her own FOLLOWED BY PATSY.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Feb 5, 2013
 
Re: Chief Kolar podcast. I only got to hear the podcast through the Bob C questions, I thought Chief Kolar was once again just great! He's such an intelligent man, and brings such intelligence to bear on the subject.

What was interesting to me is, he doesn't seem to have a set theory as to who did what either, and as we all know, that's a HUGE PROBLEM in charging anyone with a crime.
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61
Feb 5, 2013
 
Fr_Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
The link isn't working this morning, I'm afraid. I only skimmed it before I posted it. I first read it a few years ago.
Is your point that only having three loci (as opposed to ten(?) in this case) might allow for more bias-induced error? I think I would agree with that.
Yes, sure, but the strength (or weakness) of each marker also plays a role. Mostly I just wanted to point out that findings of this sort are not that unusual: as in many cases.
Ö

AK
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm not suggesting anything more nefarious. What I'm suggesting is that, when subjectivity is involved, human bias
enters the equation. Heck, human bias enters the equation even when something is, objectively, evident.
Let me give an example for any who happened to watch the SuperBowl.
San Francisco was close to the goal line with a chance to take the lead at the end of the game. A Baltimore defender, clearly, held a San Francisco receiver and, illegally, kept him from getting to the pass. No call was made. If you're a Baltimore fan, most likely, you will defend the ref and say: "That was not a hold."
If you're a San Francisco fan, most likely, you will say: "That was a hold, San Francisco should've won." Two groups of people see the same thing and judge it differently.
In this Ramsey case, we have degraded DNA which was mixed with the victim's blood. We have two profiles that are mixed. The interpreter has to separate the two profiles. The interpreter is subject to error here. Since the unknown profile is degraded, it has to be amplified and the interpreter can mistake artifact as a spike. Keeping this in mind, consider the following.
BODE is called in, by a DA who is hell-bent on finding an intruder.
BODE gets paid for this service and stands to get free publicity if BODE delivers a match. By scraping around on the longjohns, BODE is bound to come up with mixed samples of DNA and, because of Kolar, we now know that's the case. Since we know that subjectivity enters into the equation when one is interpreting mixed and amplified DNA samples, and since we know human beings can hardly avoid some kind of bias, it is not far-fetched to question whether or not bias entered into the interpretation.
It is even more right to question when we know that Lacy never revealed the full extent of the DNA testing but only that one finding which supported the result she was looking for!!
Had Lacy admitted that there were, at least, six other unknown DNA samples on the longjohns, garrote, etc., then, her Ramsey exoneration would have carried much less weight. She knew this and this is why she did not reveal the full report! Yes, I'm skeptical.
All DNA samples are amplified.

I donít recall anything being said about the samples processed by BODE being mixed samples. Iíd like to see where that is being said. Kolar? I donít remember him writing that.

I donít I donít recall anything being said about the samples processed by BODE being degraded samples. Iíd also like to see where that is being said. Kolar? I donít remember him writing that.
I think that BODE was/is well aware of all your concerns.

BODE claims that it is SOP to make two reads of each sample and that each one is looked at by a different analyst and then both results are compared.

I think that given the potential for media and other attention and scrutiny that BODE et.al would have used all due diligence to ensure that their findings were good findings, findings that would stand up in court or anywhere.

If any of your misgivings about BODE are true, then why did BODE reportedly present different results of the garrote and wrist ligature?
Ö

AK
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

candy wrote:
<quoted text>
My point was/is, no one that posts on the boards would have that information. It would be LHP, friends of the children who had breakfast there, etc.
Why Patsy didn't account for the event of eating pineapple to me is that shortly thereafter, whatever event occured that caused JonBenet to sustain the massive head wound. The flashlight, pad of paper and ransom note are all in that area. Learnin said she was under attack within 20-30 minutes of eating that UNDIGESTED pineapple, FRESH pineapple, consistent down to the rind, said ST. She has to keep with her story, AND THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN THE PINEAPPLE. So it isn't in their "story". The enhanced 911 call is also not in their "story." They also can't explain why the two INDICTED FOR CHILD ABUSE LEADING TO DEATH said she fell asleep in the car, and was carried up to her room while SEPARATED FROM THEM, Burke said JonBenet WAS AWAKE upon arriving home and walked up the stairs to her room on her own FOLLOWED BY PATSY.
So, who do you believe, Learnin <1> or Kolar? Kolar says two to five hours for that pineapple to get where it did.

Why couldnít the Ramseys just say, she must have got up and ate it herself! Or, make up any other story they wanted to. Even if no one believed them, who cares? I mean they could figure out how to create the perfect crime, all this elaborate planning and scheming and lying and whatever else, but they canít figure out how to explain the pineapple?
Ö

<1> no offence to Learnin intended; pardon me

AK

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Feb 5, 2013
 
candy wrote:
My point was/is, no one that posts on the boards would have that information. It would be LHP, friends of the children who had breakfast there, etc.
Why Patsy didn't account for the event of eating pineapple to me is that shortly thereafter, whatever event occured that caused JonBenet to sustain the massive head wound. The flashlight, pad of paper and ransom note are all in that area. Learnin said she was under attack within 20-30 minutes of eating that UNDIGESTED pineapple, FRESH pineapple, consistent down to the rind, said ST. She has to keep with her story, AND THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN THE PINEAPPLE. So it isn't in their "story".
So you're saying that she just forgot about the pineapple due to stress? It's possible. Or maybe you're saying that she didn't know that the pineapple would be discovered during autopsy and dated? That's also possible, I suppose.

I'm entertaining another possibility now.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Feb 5, 2013
 
candy wrote:
Re: Chief Kolar podcast. I only got to hear the podcast through the Bob C questions, I thought Chief Kolar was once again just great! He's such an intelligent man, and brings such intelligence to bear on the subject.
What was interesting to me is, he doesn't seem to have a set theory as to who did what either, and as we all know, that's a HUGE PROBLEM in charging anyone with a crime.
Mr. "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment."
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Quote: So you're saying that she just forgot about the pineapple due to stress?

No, she forgot about the pineapple left on the table, and so did John, in the CHAOS of staging a MURDER. When they found out about this HUGE OMISSION from their story, TOO LATE, they had to stick with their story that they kneew nothing about the pineapple, glass of tea "the set up", of the dishes NOTHING.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Feb 5, 2013
 
Bob C wasn't drunk. He was just having trouble finding the right words so Kolar would understand what he meant more. FOR EXAMPLE, Bob C talked about if the ransom note was EVER taken as a literal work by a real intruder, WHY was there no focus on the terrorism aspect, especially in the aftermath of 9/11? Kolar said the intruder theorists think the ransom note is the work of a sick person, not that it is all literally true. Bob C was trying to say that LE would NEVER ignore any "terror" aspect if ANYONE besides Team Scams thought there was anything to that angle, and there never was. ST talked about how Ramsey never contacted Lockheed Martin after this for security, etc.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob C was trying to take the focus off the tiny DNA the Scams want you to focus on and onto the ransom note, where it was when he started posting. ALL ABOUT THE NOTE.
learnin

Greeley, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Feb 5, 2013
 
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
All DNA samples are amplified.
I donít recall anything being said about the samples processed by BODE being mixed samples. Iíd like to see where that is being said. Kolar? I donít remember him writing that.
I donít I donít recall anything being said about the samples processed by BODE being degraded samples. Iíd also like to see where that is being said. Kolar? I donít remember him writing that.
I think that BODE was/is well aware of all your concerns.
BODE claims that it is SOP to make two reads of each sample and that each one is looked at by a different analyst and then both results are compared.
I think that given the potential for media and other attention and scrutiny that BODE et.al would have used all due diligence to ensure that their findings were good findings, findings that would stand up in court or anywhere.
If any of your misgivings about BODE are true, then why did BODE reportedly present different results of the garrote and wrist ligature?
Ö
AK
" donít recall anything being said about the samples processed by BODE being mixed samples. Iíd like to see where that is being said. Kolar? I donít remember him writing that. "

The mixed samples were from the panty DNA. There could've been error, years ago, from whomever separated the two profiles.
learnin

Greeley, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
So, who do you believe, Learnin <1> or Kolar? Kolar says two to five hours for that pineapple to get where it did.
Why couldnít the Ramseys just say, she must have got up and ate it herself! Or, make up any other story they wanted to. Even if no one believed them, who cares? I mean they could figure out how to create the perfect crime, all this elaborate planning and scheming and lying and whatever else, but they canít figure out how to explain the pineapple?
Ö
<1> no offence to Learnin intended; pardon me
AK
Two hours, offered by LE's experts, is given as a conservative and safe estimate and establishes that JBR ate pineapple at home that night. The fact is, however, that food begins emptying the stomach within minutes, 20 minutes at the latest. The only food contained in JBR's Upper G.I. tract was fragments of pineapple which means she had eaten no other solid food for several hours prior to eating the pineapple. These fragments, of pineapple, were located in her prox. small intestine which would be approximately 6 foot long in JBR. In gastric emptying studies, a meal can be seen well into the small intestines, of an adult, within 30 minutes.
If JBR was not sick, it is certain she ate pineapple anywhere from 15 minuts to one hour before peristalis stopped. I believe the head wound resulted in shock, and with shock, peristalsis ended.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

candy wrote:
No, she forgot about the pineapple left on the table, and so did John, in the CHAOS of staging a MURDER. When they found out about this HUGE OMISSION from their story, TOO LATE, they had to stick with their story that they kneew nothing about the pineapple, glass of tea "the set up", of the dishes NOTHING.
OK. But Patsy was engaged in the staging up to the last minute, for about 5.5 hours. She would have taken off her makeup and gotten into her pajamas otherwise.(That's why I don't think that John was involved; neither of them looked like they'd been sleeping when the cop arrived. Thomas suggests that John getting up forced Patsy's hand and that makes a lot of sense.)

I suppose she could have been frantic all of that time, but she did spend a long time on the ransom note. There was a practice note before the practice note and a total of nine pages missing from the middle of the tablet which suggests to me that she had enough self-possession to write legibly and to craft it carefully.

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Would you explain that logistically please? And Literally?
Blue Bottle wrote:
Sandy Stranger served the pineapple in cream.
With all due respect, he didn't mention Sandy Stranger either.
ZERO, ZILCH, NADA
Blue Bottle wrote:
YOu all should notice how many times Boyles says "Kolar" in all his recent shows: that would be ZERO.
The Truth Hurts

Walled Lake, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Blue Bottle wrote:
The ransom note begins "We are a group of individuals" it does not say we are a terrorist group.
The DNA is artifact, all of it.
There was no staging for police. Everything was done by Patsy for Patsy.
The Bible open to Psalms 35 with an initialism connection to the note, and the dictionary open dog-eard to the word incest were messages from Patsy to Patsy in the classic sense of DID, Dissociative Identity Disorder, as was the note itself.
She did not lie about not knowing about the pineapple in cream snack or anything else as she was dissociated when she did all of that.
The reason there is no evidence of John's involvement is he was not involved until Patsy screamed and handed him the note.
You need to explain why John would cover for Patsy. Thanks.
learnin

Greeley, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to explain why John would cover for Patsy. Thanks.
I'm willing to consider that PDI and John was not involved. But, if PDI, John had to know at some point. The only way he would cover for her is if Patsy had the goods on John which would indicate some kind of sexual or business criminal activity. You're simply not going to cover for someone who killed your daughter and then hand your son over to her.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Feb 7, 2013
 
learnin wrote:
I'm willing to consider that PDI and John was not involved. But, if PDI, John had to know at some point. The only way he would cover for her is if Patsy had the goods on John which would indicate some kind of sexual or business criminal activity. You're simply not going to cover for someone who killed your daughter and then hand your son over to her.
He might simply fear that she would say that he abused JonBenet and killed her. He wouldn't even have to be guilty of it. People are reluctant to consider women capable of these kinds of crimes. Witness the Casey Anthony verdict.

Your point about handing his son over to her is a good one, but you only get one of these.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Other Recent JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Note-odd detail? 3 hr Note 400
What kind of instrument yields this type of wound? 4 hr Undrtheradar 51
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) 4 hr JTF 7,467
Jonbenet's "Secret Santa..." 16 hr Note 23
Doc Miller to be on Boyles 2/1/13 (Feb '13) 23 hr Rupert 33
Jason Midyette (Dec '07) Aug 19 Legal__Eagle 1,320
The Jonbenet Ransom note and Dirty Harry Aug 18 Note 17

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
•••