grand jury voted to indict!

Since: Mar 07

Detroit, MI

#25 Jan 28, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
DNA is artifact, it IS a 'brainer', if they had prosecuted for the child abuse charges they would have gotten a conviction, but you go on believing your GARY KILLED EVERYONE theory.
<quoted text>
Impossible for DNA to be artifact. DNA was comingled with Jonbenet`s own blood showing that it was deposited at her death and that DNA was some form of liquid, probably saliva. Then years later DNA was scraped from Jonbenet`s long john waistband. This DNA consisted of small pieces of skin shed by the killers hands, called touch DNA found by Bodie technologies. Touch DNA would have been removed in the washing machine. Both DNA allegedly match and neither matches a Ramsey. RDI try to lie and say that the DNA from the waistband is the same DNA that`s comingled with Jonbenet`s blood. They fail to realize that years ago microacopes could see the blood and DNA mixed because it was saliva and large enough to be seen BUT THE TOUCH DNA IS MUCH SMALLER AND COULD NOT BE SEEN. BY SCRAPING THE WAISTBAND THEY COLLECTED ENOUGH OF IT TO TEST AND THAT DNA MATCHES THE SALIVA DNA. NONE MATCHES A RAMSEY AND TRANSFER OF LARGE LIQUID INTO SMALL TOUCH DNA IS IMPOSSIBLE. YOU LOSE.

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#26 Jan 28, 2013
Please provide your source of information?
There is no official report on the DNA findings as to what it was "co-mingled" with, or when it was deposited, or whether the source of DNA was solid or liquid. Me thinks you are making these things up.
CC
DETROIT wrote:
<quoted text>Impossible for DNA to be artifact. DNA was comingled with Jonbenet`s own blood showing that it was deposited at her death and that DNA was some form of liquid, probably saliva. Then years later DNA was scraped from Jonbenet`s long john waistband. This DNA consisted of small pieces of skin shed by the killers hands, called touch DNA found by Bodie technologies. Touch DNA would have been removed in the washing machine. Both DNA allegedly match and neither matches a Ramsey. RDI try to lie and say that the DNA from the waistband is the same DNA that`s comingled with Jonbenet`s blood. They fail to realize that years ago microacopes could see the blood and DNA mixed because it was saliva and large enough to be seen BUT THE TOUCH DNA IS MUCH SMALLER AND COULD NOT BE SEEN. BY SCRAPING THE WAISTBAND THEY COLLECTED ENOUGH OF IT TO TEST AND THAT DNA MATCHES THE SALIVA DNA. NONE MATCHES A RAMSEY AND TRANSFER OF LARGE LIQUID INTO SMALL TOUCH DNA IS IMPOSSIBLE. YOU LOSE.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#27 Jan 28, 2013
You are wrong.
Do you still have those "bloody" gloves, LOL?
DETROIT wrote:
<quoted text>Impossible for DNA to be artifact. DNA was comingled with Jonbenet`s own blood showing that it was deposited at her death and that DNA was some form of liquid, probably saliva. Then years later DNA was scraped from Jonbenet`s long john waistband. This DNA consisted of small pieces of skin shed by the killers hands, called touch DNA found by Bodie technologies. Touch DNA would have been removed in the washing machine. Both DNA allegedly match and neither matches a Ramsey. RDI try to lie and say that the DNA from the waistband is the same DNA that`s comingled with Jonbenet`s blood. They fail to realize that years ago microacopes could see the blood and DNA mixed because it was saliva and large enough to be seen BUT THE TOUCH DNA IS MUCH SMALLER AND COULD NOT BE SEEN. BY SCRAPING THE WAISTBAND THEY COLLECTED ENOUGH OF IT TO TEST AND THAT DNA MATCHES THE SALIVA DNA. NONE MATCHES A RAMSEY AND TRANSFER OF LARGE LIQUID INTO SMALL TOUCH DNA IS IMPOSSIBLE. YOU LOSE.
Steve Eller

United States

#28 Jan 28, 2013
DETROIT wrote:
<quoted text>Impossible for DNA to be artifact. DNA was comingled with Jonbenet`s own blood showing that it was deposited at her death and that DNA was some form of liquid, probably saliva. Then years later DNA was scraped from Jonbenet`s long john waistband. This DNA consisted of small pieces of skin shed by the killers hands, called touch DNA found by Bodie technologies. Touch DNA would have been removed in the washing machine. Both DNA allegedly match and neither matches a Ramsey. RDI try to lie and say that the DNA from the waistband is the same DNA that`s comingled with Jonbenet`s blood. They fail to realize that years ago microacopes could see the blood and DNA mixed because it was saliva and large enough to be seen BUT THE TOUCH DNA IS MUCH SMALLER AND COULD NOT BE SEEN. BY SCRAPING THE WAISTBAND THEY COLLECTED ENOUGH OF IT TO TEST AND THAT DNA MATCHES THE SALIVA DNA. NONE MATCHES A RAMSEY AND TRANSFER OF LARGE LIQUID INTO SMALL TOUCH DNA IS IMPOSSIBLE. YOU LOSE.
Stop contaminating this forum with you whole cloth bs fabrications!

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#29 Jan 28, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
No, I didn't think I was misinterpreting the position. I was not referring to whether or not Hunter would or should prosecute. I was referring to having NO sympathy for LYING about what the GJ decided in order to take the onus off of him for a lack of prosecution. Instead of being a man and more important, A DISTRICT ATTORNEY, stating the truth, he chose to put the blame on the GJ not indicting.
I think everyone would understand his position had he stated it. He chose to hide behind the GJ secrecy instead of letting the public know the truth....
But I *was* referring to Hunter's decision not to prosecute and my "sympathy" remark was limited to that.

Even Michael Kane who I think you will agree is a good guy refused to say what the grand jury decided even though he must have been sorely tempted to do that:

"When Wood asked him to explain why no indictments were issued after the grand jury's term ended, Kane responded:'I can absolutely not talk about what went on in the grand jury, and you know it, and you know it, Lin.'

Wood then asked, according to a transcript of the broadcast:'Mr. Kane, why don't you just tell us why the grand jury didn't take any action. It's a fair question. The public is entitled to know. This is not.. . .' Kane:'No, I'm not. I'll tell you what, Mr. Wood, I'll tell you what: If you will go to court with me and ask the (presiding) judge to authorize a release of that information, I will release it.'"

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon090100.h...

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#30 Jan 28, 2013
You may have meant the prosecution of the case, and I may have misunderstood but regardless, it was Hunter's decision overall in all the aspects of the GJ and he ruined the case from Day One being corrupt, so if you are sympathetic, it is your right.

As for me, he gets not even an iota of my sympathy for anything in this case. It is primarily his fault that it was never solved

I do however, feel extremely sympathetic about the loss of his son. That's where my sympathy ended

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#31 Jan 28, 2013
And of course he (Wood) wouldn't do that because he knew all along he was bluffing, the same way he has released untruths throughout this whole case, one sound byte at a time ~ whenever he feels he can have the 'last' word.
Fr_Brown wrote:
Wood then asked, according to a transcript of the broadcast:'Mr. Kane, why don't you just tell us why the grand jury didn't take any action. It's a fair question. The public is entitled to know. This is not.. . .' Kane:'No, I'm not. I'll tell you what, Mr. Wood, I'll tell you what: If you will go to court with me and ask the (presiding) judge to authorize a release of that information, I will release it.'"
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon090100.h...

Since: May 11

AOL

#32 Jan 28, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
You may have meant the prosecution of the case, and I may have misunderstood but regardless, it was Hunter's decision overall in all the aspects of the GJ and he ruined the case from Day One being corrupt, so if you are sympathetic, it is your right.
As for me, he gets not even an iota of my sympathy for anything in this case. It is primarily his fault that it was never solved
I do however, feel extremely sympathetic about the loss of his son. That's where my sympathy ended
I don't feel that sorry for his loss, he should have known his pills were missing...or maybe Beuf stored them in his safe deposit box along with a six year old's medical records.
Hunter sold his soul, no telling what that costs;)

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#33 Jan 28, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't feel that sorry for his loss, he should have known his pills were missing...or maybe Beuf stored them in his safe deposit box along with a six year old's medical records.
Hunter sold his soul, no telling what that costs;)
LOL about Beuf

I do feel sorry and sympathy for the loss of a child at any age. The fact that his son took Alex Hunter's pills must be even rougher on a parent. As much as I hated Hunter's behavior, I feel bad for anyone who loses a child.

Heck, I even felt bad when Patsy passed away even though I thought she was NOT a good person.

Since: May 11

AOL

#34 Jan 28, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL about Beuf
I do feel sorry and sympathy for the loss of a child at any age. The fact that his son took Alex Hunter's pills must be even rougher on a parent. As much as I hated Hunter's behavior, I feel bad for anyone who loses a child.
Heck, I even felt bad when Patsy passed away even though I thought she was NOT a good person.
I feel sorrier for the child who must have had a miserable life in the first place. Happy, well adjusted kids don't take drugs. Hunter probably didn't see a lot of the kid to know things weren't sunny at the Pay-Ola Ranch.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#35 Jan 28, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
Bill Wise himself said that at least two prosecutors working on the case wanted to go ahead with the prosecution. Of course there were those in the Boulder DA's Office who were opposed to prosecuting the Ramseys a priori like Tripp DeMuth. I am not sure about the positions of his outside advisers but the evidence was there in abundance. The Grand Jury listened to the ever meretricious arguments of Lou Smit and still indicted, that says a lot.
Yeah, I agree about Lou Smit. I'd like to hear what they thought about him.
Steve Eller

United States

#36 Jan 28, 2013
Fr_Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I agree about Lou Smit. I'd like to hear what they thought about him.
Apparently they did not think much of his presentation. And that in itself is impressive because much of Smit's deceptive assembling of the case has been thoroughly discredited since.

Since: Mar 07

Detroit, MI

#37 Jan 28, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
Please provide your source of information?
There is no official report on the DNA findings as to what it was "co-mingled" with, or when it was deposited, or whether the source of DNA was solid or liquid. Me thinks you are making these things up.
CC
<quoted text>
BODE found touch DNA by scraping Jonbenet`s longjohn waistband. Touch DNA is from someones skin cells from their hand and is so fragile it would have been washed away if the longjohns had been washed. TOUCH DNA IS NOT VISIBLE WITH THE NAKED EYE. The two spots of jonbenet`s blood comingled with saliva ARE VISIBLE WITH THE NAKED EYE. SALIVA, EVEN IN THE FORM OF A SNEEZE IS VISIBLE WITH THE NAKED EYE. THAT`S WHY LEE TRIED TO SAY THAT THE SALIVA WAS CAUSED BY SOMEONE SNEEZING ON THE UNDERWEAR IN THE FACTORY. EVEN LEE SAYS IT`S SALIVA EVEN THOUGH RDI WON`T ADMIT THAT, YET THE CHANCES OF SALIVA FROM A SNEEZE ENDING UP ON IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT AS JONBENET`S BLOOD IS SLIM TO NONE.

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#38 Jan 28, 2013
DETROIT wrote:
<quoted text>BODE found touch DNA by scraping Jonbenet`s longjohn waistband. Touch DNA is from someones skin cells from their hand and is so fragile it would have been washed away if the longjohns had been washed. TOUCH DNA IS NOT VISIBLE WITH THE NAKED EYE. The two spots of jonbenet`s blood comingled with saliva ARE VISIBLE WITH THE NAKED EYE. SALIVA, EVEN IN THE FORM OF A SNEEZE IS VISIBLE WITH THE NAKED EYE. THAT`S WHY LEE TRIED TO SAY THAT THE SALIVA WAS CAUSED BY SOMEONE SNEEZING ON THE UNDERWEAR IN THE FACTORY. EVEN LEE SAYS IT`S SALIVA EVEN THOUGH RDI WON`T ADMIT THAT, YET THE CHANCES OF SALIVA FROM A SNEEZE ENDING UP ON IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT AS JONBENET`S BLOOD IS SLIM TO NONE.
Haha!
IF my Aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle...
There is no way to determine where the alleged DNA that was found, came from. It could have come from the factory that made the garment, it could have come from a store worker where the thing was purchased, or it could have come from contamination.
The alleged DNA IF ever matched, alone will not be enough to convict a pedophile without a valid confession. So, if it isn't enough to convict anyone, how is it good enough to exonerate anyone???

You are guessing about the source of the alleged DNA. Obviously, without the official reports on it, you can guess that the DNA was co-mingled with blood, or that it was saliva, but no one knows.

The news about the Grand Jury voting to indict the Ramsey parents should be VERY embarrassing for the IDIs. It only goes to show, that the GJ viewed the evidence, and concluded that the parents were involved in the crime,and there are no IFs about it.

Hunter should have a LOT of explaining to do here!
CC

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#39 Jan 29, 2013
I totally agree CC

Hunter and Lacy should be called in front of a GJ to assess their role in the misdeeds in this case!

Here is where a really SPECIAL prosecutor is needed

But it's Boulder and it won't happen

At this point, the current DA should just release all the GJ stuff since it has been leaked anyway and once it is released, Hunter can explain himself and why he lied and in turn, others can explain why THEY lied
WV Sleuth

Winchester, VA

#41 Jan 29, 2013
JonBenet grand jury vindicates case's lead detective

Scott Shapiro opinion piece for Fox

http://tinyurl.com/aue7y3a

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#42 Jan 29, 2013
Thanks WVS!
WV Sleuth wrote:
JonBenet grand jury vindicates case's lead detective
Scott Shapiro opinion piece for Fox
http://tinyurl.com/aue7y3a

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#43 Jan 29, 2013
WV Sleuth wrote:
JonBenet grand jury vindicates case's lead detective
Scott Shapiro opinion piece for Fox
http://tinyurl.com/aue7y3a
Very good article, and very accurate.
As I pointed out, this case is very simple. The IDIs should be angry about being so foolish to become a part of the Ramsey publicity campaign, There were had!, While the RDIs knew better, even without knowing the GJ decision, or thinking it went the other way.

I think it was dishonest of Alex Hunter in not declaring that he was going against the GJ vote.
CC

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#44 Jan 29, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it was dishonest of Alex Hunter in not declaring that he was going against the GJ vote.
CC
I agree with you. I cannot imagine what the grand jury thought when that went down. They were painted as a failure basically. He implied that they voted against an indictment (or could not decide) by his actions. If he were transparent about their vote, this would not look as bad as it does now.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#45 Jan 29, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
.....I think it was dishonest of Alex Hunter in not declaring that he was going against the GJ vote.
CC
After all these years, it would be breaking news if anything that went on in the DA's office was HONEST!!!!!

All the IDIs that knew about this are also dishonest. There were quite a few IDIs that had to know about this besides Jameson and those are probably the same posters who kept chanting that the GJ didn't indict and therefore neither should the public, but none of that is surprising after all the years of spin and misinformation

What Alex Hunter did was inexcusable! He refused to take responsibility for not wanting to prosecute and blamed the jurors instead.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dean Ryan Investigation: The Letter 9 min heatherk79 2
THE STINES ~ Glen, Doug & Susan Stine (Jun '10) 3 hr heatherk79 77
Jameson, Sue Bennett, is STUPID (Aug '06) 3 hr heatherk79 88
Didn't the Ramseys recognize the note pad paper? (Jul '09) 5 hr KCinNYC 830
Fleet was a broke azz mooch (Apr '11) 5 hr Tex- 65
News JonBenet grand juror: I've seen secret evidence (Dec '16) 5 hr Tex- 23
WORDS to MONERATORS 5 hr KCinNYC 13
More from around the web