PDA

View Full Version : Questions about Dr. Meyer


Arielle
12-31-2003, 02:18 PM
I was just reading on the stungun thread and I noticed that some people refer to Dr. Meyer as the coronor and some refer to him as a forensic pathologist. Does anyone know for sure which he is? A coronor is an elected official, not always even an MD. A forensic pathogist has degrees in medicine and a specialty in pathology with a subspecialty in forensics. There is a huge difference between the two. IF he is indeed, the coronor and not a forensic pathologist, it would put a whole new spin on the autopsy findings, at least for me. I would have to rethink everything he said.

tipper
12-31-2003, 03:20 PM
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/bios/witnesses/meyer.html
Boulder County Coroner John E. Meyer
Age: 52


Dr. John Meyer was elected coroner in 1986 — the first time a physician was actually picked to hold that post in Boulder. Trained as a forensic pathologist, Meyer quickly revamped the coroner's office, which previously had been run by morticians.
In the Ramsey case, Meyer ruled the slain girl's death a homicide — more specifically, asphyxia due to strangulation. The coroner's findings, including any estimated time of death, will be crucial to any prosecution in the Ramsey case.

Imon128
12-31-2003, 03:28 PM
From what I know, Dr. Meyer's title is/was Medical Examiner (coroner). Perhaps that gives us a clue?

Arielle
12-31-2003, 04:09 PM
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/bios/witnesses/meyer.html
Boulder County Coroner John E. Meyer
Age: 52


Dr. John Meyer was elected coroner in 1986 — the first time a physician was actually picked to hold that post in Boulder. Trained as a forensic pathologist, Meyer quickly revamped the coroner's office, which previously had been run by morticians.
In the Ramsey case, Meyer ruled the slain girl's death a homicide — more specifically, asphyxia due to strangulation. The coroner's findings, including any estimated time of death, will be crucial to any prosecution in the Ramsey case.


Thanks Tipper. That answers my question. He is both coroner and a trained forensic pathologist. Therefore, he probably knows what he is talking about when it comes to this case. That is not necessarily true because there are incomptetent people in all fields, but I am not going to assume that he is incompetent. So, I will take what he says in the autopsy report at face value.

Shylock
12-31-2003, 05:59 PM
He is both coroner and a trained forensic pathologist. Therefore, he probably knows what he is talking about when it comes to this case. That is not necessarily true because there are incomptetent people in all fields, but I am not going to assume that he is incompetent.Wrong assumption! Meyer is an incompetent buffoon. Many of the case problems that exist today were caused by Meyer. The man didn't even know enough to use a separate clipper on each fingernail to avoid cross contamination. He should have done a microscopic examination of EVERY mark on that girls body--he didn't. If he had, there would probably be no stungun debate. Maybe the marks on her back contain evidence that would reveal what caused them, like a splinter if they were caused by jabs from the paint stick.

Even Meyer's cause of death makes no sense at all. How can you "associate" strangulation with head trauma? When you associate one thing with another it means they are related, like dying of "blood loss associated with gunshot wound".

As far as this case goes, Meyer shares the same boat as Arndt.

Toth
01-01-2004, 05:55 AM
As far as this case goes, Meyer shares the same boat as Arndt. No, he is not quite that bad. For a case that would obviously be scrutinized closely, he sure did a very-much less than thorough job though.

Imon128
01-01-2004, 07:19 PM
Given his situation, I think Dr. Meyer did the best he could under the circumstances. Cyril Wecht, if I recall correctly, even said he agreed with his work. If I had to fault Meyer, I only wish he'd have got to the place sooner (or had a replacement for himself) and that he'd done a temperature probe. So many faux pas in this case. I do hope that one day, something will show up that lets us know what happened to our precious child that fateful night.

Kathleen
01-02-2004, 09:09 PM
I have always wondered why it took the coroner so long to get to the scene. Was there ever any explanation given for this?? Kathleen

Toltec
01-02-2004, 09:23 PM
Between the time JonBenet's body was found and when Dr. Meyer showed up around 8:30, her body was guarded by one of Meyer's assistants.

We must remember that Dr. Meyer also took notes...which we are not privy to. He goes into much more detail of JonBent's autopsy...notes he said he would use should this case go to a court of law.

TLynn
01-02-2004, 10:06 PM
Here, here, Shylock -

Meyer was incompetent.

BlueCrab
01-02-2004, 11:30 PM
I have always wondered why it took the coroner so long to get to the scene. Was there ever any explanation given for this?? Kathleen


Pg 28, PMPT pb:

Meanwhile, Detective Jim Byfield had obtained a search warrant, and by 8:00 P.M. the police were allowed to begin searching the crime scene. Twenty minutes after they began, coroner John Meyer arrived.

Just my opinion.

LovelyPigeon
01-06-2004, 09:16 PM
Dr Meyer is a forensic pathologist and hardly a buffon. He's done thousands of autopsies and well trained for what he does.

Toth
01-06-2004, 09:55 PM
I would never say he was a bufoon and I don't doubt his credentials or training, but I do think his performance in this case may have been less than stellar.

LovelyPigeon
01-06-2004, 10:00 PM
I would never say he was a bufoon and I don't doubt his credentials or training, but I do think his performance in this case may have been less than stellar.

I think his testimony at trial might exceed his written autopsy report. I hope we find out some day.

Shylock
01-07-2004, 12:16 AM
Dr Meyer is a forensic pathologist and hardly a buffon. He's done thousands of autopsies and well trained for what he does.I guess you must be impressed by titles. Meyer made more mistakes on the case then can be counted. The man didn't even have the common sense to use a separate clipper on each fingernail to avoid cross contamination. Would you like to bet he didn't have the brains to use a CLEAN clipper either? That's probably where the DNA contamination came from.
You want to find the donor of the "mysterous DNA" under JB's fingernails?--Check the janitor who cleans up in Meyer's lab. He probably spotted the clippers on a bench one night while cleaning and used then to trim a hang-nail.

Meyer is an embarrassment to the field of forensic pathology.

LovelyPigeon
01-07-2004, 10:16 AM
And who would you quote for this "information" about clippers?

Contamination? what contamination? Have you not heard that the testing of the 2nd spot of blood on JonBenét's panties yielded a male DNA sample complete enough for CODIS comparison?

Those old rumors about clippers and contamination are way lame.

Imon128
01-07-2004, 10:31 AM
Off the top of my head, I can't give you the exact book reference, but it is in a book that hasn't been disputed about this fact, that the ME used clippers, during the autopsy/death investigation on his part, on JB's fingernails.

BlueCrab
01-07-2004, 11:34 AM
It seems to me to be unfair to pick on John Meyer, especially since we don't know the whole story. All of the information he obtained from the body of JonBenet is not in the autopsy report.

For instance, there's been criticizm about him not taking the body temperature of JonBenet as soon as arrived at the scene. This of course might of helped estimate time of death. But perhaps he did get the temperatures and the information has been withheld from the public. Meyer entered the house at 8:20 P.M. on the 26th and left 10 minutes later. However, his assistant, Patricia Dunn, stayed after Meyer left, and perhaps she obtained the body temperatures.

Just my opinion.

LovelyPigeon
01-07-2004, 11:50 AM
Imon, I think the clippers story has never been confirmed. I'm not of a mind to look it up right now, but I think it's in PMPT and the source of the story not named.

I'm also not inclined to search ST's book at the moment, but I don't think he made any such claim in his book.

The male DNA sample obtained from the first spot of blood tested (and the nail clippings too, I'd guess) apparently gave an incomplete *read* and therefore speculation began that it must have been contaminated somehow. The unknown, mysterious "somehow" led to more speculation.

The testing of the 2nd drop of blood yielded a more complete read of male DNA, which we have only recently learned about.

Ivy
01-07-2004, 01:26 PM
Maybe Pam Paugh was the source of the nail clipper info. Here's an excerpt from her 12/30/98 WROW interview:

Question: Does the DNA under those fingernails actually match the DNA that was found in the panties?

Pam: "Well, from what I know, the DNA under the fingernails, when it was collected, and ummm, I saw JonBenet's body (obviously) -- her fingernails had been removed fairly deeply into the nail bed ummm I would say about, oh on a child about an eighth of an inch from what we would call the half moon... ummm.. and later to find out though that when the fingernails were being removed the instruments that were used were not clean and nor were they taken out of a sealed sanitized package. They actually used previously used clippers and files and so forth so it was not known if THEY contaminated them or what--- so that had to be put aside as not useable.

http://webdollie.tripod.com/pressrelease1.htm

Obviously, desperation drove the Ramseys to insist that the "not useable" be declared "useable."

Jayelles
01-07-2004, 01:50 PM
Quote of the day :-)

Check the janitor who cleans up in Meyer's lab. He probably spotted the clippers on a bench one night while cleaning and used then to trim a hang-nail.

Maxi
01-07-2004, 01:53 PM
Carol McKinley reported the clipper story way back when. I think Pam Paugh may have been her source. I think it was around the same time she broke the story about the crescent marks on JBR's neck.

LovelyPigeon
01-07-2004, 01:55 PM
I think Pam is a nice person but I think she was never clued into this case. She was naive enough to pick up on suggestions made to her by people like Carol McKinley and extrapolate into "facts".

Toth
01-07-2004, 02:02 PM
She was naive ... .Precisely. Never really understood that if people were saying something to her it was for a reason and they would be using her for their own agenda rather than trying to solve the case.

Jayelles
01-07-2004, 02:20 PM
Always the snide little remarks about anyone who doesn't blindly support the Ramseys 100% or who dares to suggest they were less than perfect.

Pam Griffen isn't just a high calibre seamstress who was adored and admired by Patsy - she is also a trained nurse.

Imon128
01-07-2004, 02:25 PM
There is info in PMPT that Pam was close enough to Patsy to allow Patsy to discuss JB's bedwetting and didn't Pam's daughter babysit JB? That makes it appear that Patsy trusted and confided in Pam, IMO. And didn't Pam go to Patsy and help her wash her hair, bathe, etc., during Patsy's first days after JB's death? Smacks of closeness to me, but that's JMO. I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong. :)

Jayelles
01-07-2004, 02:36 PM
You are quite correct. Pam's daughter Kristine was JonBenet's babysitter and pageant coach. Pam herself had a workshop in her basement which Patsy described in glowing nostalgic terms as being filled with haberdashery of every colour. Patsy loved the buzz and atmosphere of Pam's workshop and would often buy snacks to take there on her visits. She appeared to just like hanging out there.

When the Ramseys were at the Fernie house in the aftermath of the murder, Pam was there and it was Pam who assisted Patsy with her showering and hair washing. Pam was concerned that Patsy was getting de-hydrated.

Pam has only ever been kind in her words about the Ramseys. I didn't get the impression she was an idiot. Her achievements would tend to suggest she isn't an idiot.

I think she may now be a realtor. I think this is the same person in these photos:-

http://www.pamgriffin.net/
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/extra/1221jon2.gif

tipper
01-07-2004, 03:43 PM
Always the snide little remarks about anyone who doesn't blindly support the Ramseys 100% or who dares to suggest they were less than perfect.

Pam Griffen isn't just a high calibre seamstress who was adored and admired by Patsy - she is also a trained nurse.

Are we talking Pam Griffin or Pam Paugh. Ms. Griffin seems to be a nice person, Ms Paugh seems to be something of a flake.

tipper
01-07-2004, 03:49 PM
LP
ST's book claims Meyers used the same clipper for all fingers. He also says the clippers should have been "sterile."

Jayelles
01-07-2004, 03:55 PM
Are we talking Pam Griffin or Pam Paugh. Ms. Griffin seems to be a nice person, Ms Paugh seems to be something of a flake.

Pam Griffin. The costume maker/nurse/realtor. Yes, I thought she seemed like a nice, caring person.

I've never seen Pam Paugh on tv. Just a rather horrid photo of her with her mouth open! I got the impression that she was traumatised by her niece's murder. She does appear to have spoken out of turn on a number of occasions and I would consider her postig on forums/chats to be rather inappropriate.

Maxi
01-07-2004, 10:48 PM
I think LP was referring to Pam Paugh.

cookie
01-08-2004, 08:42 AM
There is reference to the contaminated nail clippers on page 42 of the Steve Thomas book.
"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."

Shylock
01-08-2004, 08:59 AM
There is reference to the contaminated nail clippers on page 42 of the Steve Thomas book.
"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."
Thank you Cookie! And people wonder why we say this is NOT a DNA case...sheeesh.

Yo LP, there's your quote!

So now, not only do we have Sum Yung Gai in her panties, we have Janitor Joe under her nails...

BlueCrab
01-08-2004, 09:16 AM
There is reference to the contaminated nail clippers on page 42 of the Steve Thomas book.
"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."


I for one don't trust much of what Steve Thomas has said or written about. Steve was hell bent on proving his PDI theory and lied and misled trying to get his theory accepted. Do we have a better source about the possible contamination of the nail clippers?

Just my opinion.

cookie
01-08-2004, 09:21 AM
I certainly would think that there would be HUGE problems with Meyer's testimony about anything in a courtroom after doing something that seems to be so stupid. The prosecution could, and most likely would, jump on that and other things he apparently did way different than that of most other professionals. Such as, why did it take sooooo very long for a coroner to show up at a murder scene in the first place. Was he not called immediately, or was he called and he was just busy with it being the holidays and all?

tipper
01-08-2004, 09:26 AM
As I recall from the OJ case it seems the coroner does not hurry right out to the crime scene. It wasn't an issue that came up in trial particularly. Not sure why. Maybe because the drop in body temp is a mathematical calculation and time can be extrapolated. Course in this case she was in 2 different temperature zones.

Jayelles
01-08-2004, 09:35 AM
[quote]Such as, why did it take sooooo very long for a coroner to show up at a murder scene in the first place. Was he not called immediately, or was he called and he was just busy with it being the holidays and all?[/quote

It's funny you should mention it, but this very matter came up on a tv programme I watched just two evenings ago called "Real CSI". I don't normally watch TV at this time of night, but I was muddling about and it caught my attention.

The case was one of a man found shot in a building site in California. It explained that in the first instance, the scene of crime officers go in because they have such a very short period of time in which to collect evidence before the crime scene becomes contaminated. In this particular case, the body was found in the morning and the scene of crime officers worked all day and into the evening collecting evidence from the surrounding area. They took casts of footprints and tyre tracks and when it grew dark, they floodlit the area so they could keep working. Only when they had finished, did they call the coroner and tell him he could come to the body now. By that time, the body had been discovered for almost 24 hours.

I was surprised at this because I thought - surely it was important to determine TOD etc, however, I suppose a dead body isn't going anywhere, whereas microscopic evidence could be destroyed by a single person walking through the crime scene.

Shylock
01-08-2004, 09:36 AM
BLUECRAB:
Steve was hell bent on proving his PDI theory and lied and misled trying to get his theory accepted.BlueCrab, you're really stretching it to make your theory. Not a single person who worked on the case and actually knows the FACTS has ever stated that Steve Thomas lies about anything in his book. That includes Lou Smit. Thomas has said, both in chat and under oath, that he stands by every word in his book. Even Lin Wood couldn't trip him up and prove him to be a liar.

But notice how Lin Wood stayed away from specific topics (like the DNA clippers) when deposing Thomas. It's just too bad that Darnay Hoffman was such useless fool or we might know a few more real facts that point to the Ramseys.

LovelyPigeon
01-08-2004, 01:22 PM
Thank you, maxi--I was referring to Pam Paugh.

Meyer appears to have used sterile clippers for the autopsy of JonBenét. The male DNA found in her fingernail clippings obviously did not come from the clippers.

The complete male DNA profile (obtained in 1999) that has been submitted (2003) to CODIS is from a blood stain on JonBenét's panties.

I have not read a credible published source claiming that the male DNA from the nail clippings is either consistent with or inconsistent with the male DNA from the panties, but my own leaning is toward consistent--based on Smit's assertion that the DNA from the clippings was consistent with the DNA from the panties.

tipper
01-08-2004, 01:28 PM
BlueCrab, you're really stretching it to make your theory. Not a single person who worked on the case and actually knows the FACTS has ever stated that Steve Thomas lies about anything in his book. That includes Lou Smit. Thomas has said, both in chat and under oath, that he stands by every word in his book. Even Lin Wood couldn't trip him up and prove him to be a liar.

But notice how Lin Wood stayed away from specific topics (like the DNA clippers) when deposing Thomas. It's just too bad that Darnay Hoffman was such useless fool or we might know a few more real facts that point to the Ramseys.

He doesn't tell outright lies but he phrases things in such a way as to give one impression when that impression isn't exactly the truth. The most blatant example is his making it sound like Patsy is the only one whose handwriting couldn't be eliminated as the note writer.

Shylock
01-08-2004, 03:20 PM
Meyer appears to have used sterile clippers for the autopsy of JonBenét. The male DNA found in her fingernail clippings obviously did not come from the clippers. "Appears to" according to what source, LP? How did the DNA obviously not come from the clippers?

LP, you are obviously giving WAY to much credit to Meyer.
HIGH PROBABILITY: A man who did NOT know enough to use a separate clippers on each nail to avoid cross-contamination is also NOT going to know that he should be using a new/clean clippers in the first place.

When it comes to Meyer, it's a clear fact that he was lacking the most basic knowledge required when it comes to the collection of samples for DNA testing.

Barbara
01-08-2004, 04:13 PM
Thank you, maxi--I was referring to Pam Paugh.

Meyer appears to have used sterile clippers for the autopsy of JonBenét. The male DNA found in her fingernail clippings obviously did not come from the clippers.

The complete male DNA profile (obtained in 1999) that has been submitted (2003) to CODIS is from a blood stain on JonBenét's panties.

I have not read a credible published source claiming that the male DNA from the nail clippings is either consistent with or inconsistent with the male DNA from the panties, but my own leaning is toward consistent--based on Smit's assertion that the DNA from the clippings was consistent with the DNA from the panties.

How did it get from an unsterile clipper to a sterile clipper. Is there a source for either?

The DNA profile is from a blood stain? Lin Wood stated it is from saliva.

I have not read a credible published scientific source that states the DNA could not possibly be from a Ramsey, including Burke.

It ALL boils down to our "leanings"

BlueCrab
01-08-2004, 04:56 PM
BlueCrab, you're really stretching it to make your theory. Not a single person who worked on the case and actually knows the FACTS has ever stated that Steve Thomas lies about anything in his book. That includes Lou Smit. Thomas has said, both in chat and under oath, that he stands by every word in his book.


Steve Thomas blatantly lied at the June 1, 1998 presentation to the D.A. and to the nation while trying to get an indictment of Patsy Ramsey. Here's what Thomas said as he tried to pull it off:

"The CBI examiners explained that of the seventy-three persons whose writing had been investigated, there was only one whose writing showed evidence that suggested authorship and had been in the home the night of the killing and could not be eliminated by no less than six document examiners -- Patsy Ramsey."

That obfuscated sentence was pure deception. The truth of the matter is the CBI graded Patsy's handwriting as a 4.5 out of a possible 5.0, with 5.0 being a virtual impossibility as the writer of the ransom note. The CBI termed the 4.5 result "a very low probability" of Patsy being the writer.

Thomas also started the ludicrous statement that "24 out of 26" letters in the ransom note matched Patsy's handwriting. They didn't. Thomas could not provide a source for the statement -- which from a scientific standpoint didn't make any sense to begin with.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

LovelyPigeon
01-08-2004, 07:28 PM
Barbara, the male DNA was recovered from within the bloodspots on JonBenét's panties. The blood belonged to JonBenét.

As far as I know, the source of the male DNA--whether blood, saliva, sweat, skin cells, etc--has not been publically identified.

BPD has DNA from all the Ramseys. If there was a match, or the possibility of a match, to any of them the male DNA would never have been submitted to CODIS to search for a match.

Britt
01-08-2004, 07:56 PM
BPD has DNA from all the Ramseys. If there was a match, or the possibility of a match, to any of them the male DNA would never have been submitted to CODIS to search for a match.
It wasn't... not by the BPD.

It was submitted under the reign of Keenan and Wood as part of the continued PR-spinning, lawsuit-avoiding games between the prime suspects and the BDA's office.

Maybe, just maybe, the reason the BPD didn't submit it was because it DOES match Burke or JAR. And now with the BPD safely out of the picture, the Wood-Keenan-Ramsey show can proceed without interference.

LovelyPigeon
01-08-2004, 08:01 PM
You think the male DNA found in JonBenét's panties matches either JAR or Burke?

In case you haven't noticed, both JAR and Burke are male Ramseys. The male DNA from JonBenét's panties does not match a Ramsey.

Britt
01-08-2004, 08:09 PM
You think the male DNA found in JonBenét's panties matches either JAR or Burke?

In case you haven't noticed, both JAR and Burke are male Ramseys. The male DNA from JonBenét's panties does not match a Ramsey.
Says who? Got a source?

To quote Barbara: I have not read a credible published scientific source that states the DNA could not possibly be from a Ramsey, including Burke. As for non-official sources, according to the Enquirer excerpt on the other thread, the only Ramseys mentioned are John and Patsy.

BlueCrab
01-08-2004, 08:34 PM
Says who? Got a source?

To quote Barbara: I have not read a credible published scientific source that states the DNA could not possibly be from a Ramsey, including Burke. As for non-official sources, according to the Enquirer excerpt on the other thread, the only Ramseys mentioned are John and Patsy.


And according to an off-the-cuff remark by Mark Fuhrman during a nationally broadcast panel show several years ago, and apparently endorsed by Dr. Michael Baden as the camera caught him nodding approval, THERE ARE RAMSEY FAMILY MARKERS IN THE FOREIGN DNA TAKEN FROM JONBENET.

Just my opinion.

MIBRO
01-09-2004, 01:57 AM
To quote Barbara: I have not read a credible published scientific source that states the DNA could not possibly be from a Ramsey, including Burke.


Many of us DID read it on the television screen captured DNA Report of early January 1997 shown on 48 Hours.

Shylock
01-09-2004, 12:03 PM
Steve Thomas blatantly lied at the June 1, 1998 presentation to the D.A. and to the nation while trying to get an indictment of Patsy Ramsey. Here's what Thomas said as he tried to pull it off:

"The CBI examiners explained that of the seventy-three persons whose writing had been investigated, there was only one whose writing showed evidence that suggested authorship and had been in the home the night of the killing and could not be eliminated by no less than six document examiners -- Patsy Ramsey."

That obfuscated sentence was pure deception. The truth of the matter is the CBI graded Patsy's handwriting as a 4.5 out of a possible 5.0, with 5.0 being a virtual impossibility as the writer of the ransom note. The CBI termed the 4.5 result "a very low probability" of Patsy being the writer.

Thomas also started the ludicrous statement that "24 out of 26" letters in the ransom note matched Patsy's handwriting. They didn't. Thomas could not provide a source for the statement -- which from a scientific standpoint didn't make any sense to begin with.
BlueCrab, I think it's YOU that is twisting Thomas' words. Look at what you just posted. You say "HE lied in the presentation to the DA", when Thomas clearly says the "CBI exhaminers" did the presentation--not he/himself.
I also don't find that sentence to be "pure deception" as you claim. It says that out of the people whose handwriting they tested, only Patsy had both handwriting that matched and the lack of a perfect alibi. (Maybe someone elses handwriting couldn't be eliminated, but they were cleared because they were proven to be in another state while the crime was taking place.) The "pure deception" is YOUR spin, not Thomas.

And the 4.5 out of 5 score for Patsy came from the hired Ramsey handwriting team, not from the CBI.

And I doubt anyone would have a problem with the statistic that Patsy matched 24 out of 26 letters after seeing the PDF file of what was submitted in the Wolf civil suit. The CBI has 10-years of Ramsey writing samples they took from the house--much more evidence that is shown in that PDF document. It's clear Patsy authored the ransom note just by what is available in the PDF file.

Britt
01-09-2004, 02:23 PM
Many of us DID read it on the television screen captured DNA Report of early January 1997 shown on 48 Hours.
January 1997?

Wood says this "new" DNA was "discovered" in 1999.

TLynn
01-09-2004, 07:36 PM
LovelyPigeon -

I must challenge the "sterile" clippers. Never have I heard that. NEVER.

Perhaps the panty DNA is a different story - but I don't think so. I remember reading if it was a mixture of two or more people - male Ramseys could not be eliminated.

Henry Lee said no DNA case. He saw the evidence first hand. He said it's the pineapple. He also said "rice cooked."