PDA

View Full Version : Key Evidence Faked!!!


cookie
01-10-2004, 10:25 AM
Well, that probably got your attention, didn't it? The whole sentence read "Key Peterson evidence faked". This is just a sample of what one can do with a few words. The so-called evidence was actually the jury survey the expert turned in about the change of venue for the Peterson case, and has nothing to do with what you would think about as real evidence about the murder itself. Not exactly true and not exactly false!This type of headline is exactly the type of actions that create so much confusement in any case. It certainly happened in the JonBenet murder and ALL the others too. Too bad that there just can't be a reporting of the facts without all the stupid, childish, wordplay!!! I'm sure the lawyers love it though -- shows that they aren't the only ones who can and do twist and play around with wordings. And, it also provides grounds for suits for money for some of their clients. Leaves me disgusted and very very angry! :doh:

Nehemiah
01-10-2004, 10:39 AM
I posted this on another thread, but didn't get any comments. It seems appropriate here, Cookie, because I'd like to know if this is a play on words or the real deal.

"The DNA was extracted from a blood spot in 1999, two years after the six-year-old beauty queen was strangled and bludgeoned in her parents' home in Boulder, Colo...

But Ramsey attorney Lin Wood says it sat overlooked until two months ago...Attorney Lin Wood charged that police ignored the DNA sample-which does not match any Ramsey family member - for nearly four years because they were convinced the Ramseys killed their daughter. Now Keenan has done what the cops failed to do, Wood is convinced it will solve the crime."

Can someone answer this for me:
Wood is saying that the BPD knowingly ignored the DNA sample, so that they could continually go after the Rs. I thought that it was not submitted because the testing at that time was not as sophisticated as now (markers, etc). What is the truth here? Did the BPD withhold the DNA, or is Wood playing with words to make the BPD the scapegoats? What is the real deal?
__________________

BrotherMoon
01-10-2004, 10:45 AM
Ya, I hate it too when people make up words like confusement. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Kill all the lawyers.

BrotherMoon
01-10-2004, 10:49 AM
The BPD was actually withholding the panties for sniffing.

Maxi
01-10-2004, 10:58 AM
This is just a guess, but I think the second bloodspot was probably saved for later testing when DNA technology improved. Wasn't it a big deal that the testing on the first sample would destroy it? I think that's why the Ramseys were allowed to have a witness to the procedure.

cookie
01-10-2004, 11:04 AM
I am totally confused also. I just keep telling myself, "consider who is doing the talking. If it is Wood, he is not telling everything just the way it is. He is probably word-twisting and trying to influence anyone who will listen." Then, if it is the other side, they are probably doing the same thing. So then, I discount a huge portion of what they say and go back to the original books and do some more searching to see if I can find what they originally put on paper way back then. I hope you can figure out my thought processes in this post. Sometimes the thoughts in my brain are lost on their way to my fingers trying to type them.

Sabrina
01-10-2004, 11:13 AM
I agree that it was with held awaiting for improved DNA technology.

The sample was so minute and degraded that even with the latest technology only 10 markers can be extracted--this speaks volumnes. There was not enough to perform several tests.

Wood as usual, is twisting facts to sway public opinion. He knows the BPD will not issue a statement disputing what he claims. Lawyers don't have to tell the truth, even in court.

Toth
01-10-2004, 11:36 AM
No new, improved, exotic dna techniques were used on the second blood spot.

The information from that dna test was ignored by the BPD.

The test results were not submitted to CODIS and the BPD had given no statement explaining the years of failure to submit it to CODIS.

Barbara
01-10-2004, 11:49 AM
No new, improved, exotic dna techniques were used on the second blood spot.

The information from that dna test was ignored by the BPD.

The test results were not submitted to CODIS and the BPD had given no statement explaining the years of failure to submit it to CODIS.

How do you know? (rhetorical as always, as we won't get a source)

THE BPD HASN'T ISSUES ANY STATEMENT IN MANY YEARS!

The BPD no longer is involved, so where are the other statements besides Lin Wood supporting your claims?

(again rhetorical, as you cannot back up any of your statements)

Nehemiah
01-10-2004, 11:52 AM
Cookie, amazingly I can figure out your thought processes; they seem to be mine also! Don't know what that says about us...LOL Wasn't trying to hijack your thread but I thought this DNA info was a good place to try to decipher what is really being said, or not said.

Toth, you are saying that the BPD totally sat on the DNA and squashed the heck out of all that evidence, just because it didn't implicate the Rs? Therefore, are you saying that Wood's statements are entirely truthful...and not twisting words?