Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 63

Thread: Do you think this case will ever be solved?

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Solace
    JMO,

    Can you direct me to the evidence that Mark Fuhrman released. Really appreciate it. Thanks, Solace
    I would love to be directed to this source too...should be quite interesting.
    "This time we get it right."

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,402
    Quote Originally Posted by hipmamajen
    I think that the case has already been solved, but that no one will ever be formally charged or imprisoned for the crime.
    Me too.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Solace
    JMO,

    Can you direct me to the evidence that Mark Fuhrman released. Really appreciate it. Thanks, Solace

    Solace,

    I don't think JMO meant that literally. I don't know of any significant evidence that Mark Fuhrman released on the Ramsey case. However, a long time ago on a panel show he did say something about Ramsey DNA markers, not JonBenet's, being in the sample from JonBenet's panties. When he said it the camera swung over to Dr. Michael Baden who was caught shaking his head silently in the affirmative.

    BlueCrab

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,393
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Solace,

    I don't think JMO meant that literally. I don't know of any significant evidence that Mark Fuhrman released on the Ramsey case. However, a long time ago on a panel show he did say something about Ramsey DNA markers, not JonBenet's, being in the sample from JonBenet's panties. When he said it the camera swung over to Dr. Michael Baden who was caught shaking his head silently in the affirmative.

    BlueCrab
    I'd not heard that.....please Blue Crab explain further. Ramsey DNA markers, not JonBnet's being in the sample from JonBenet's panties?!?!?!?!? Do you have any way that you can think of to verify that. Such as a transcript of that panel show. I respect Dr. Micheal Baden.......

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Solace
    JMO,

    Can you direct me to the evidence that Mark Fuhrman released. Really appreciate it. Thanks, Solace
    he didn't release any that I know of,what I'm saying is that based on what has been publicly released...I think he likely has it figured out.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,555
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Solace,

    I don't think JMO meant that literally. I don't know of any significant evidence that Mark Fuhrman released on the Ramsey case. However, a long time ago on a panel show he did say something about Ramsey DNA markers, not JonBenet's, being in the sample from JonBenet's panties. When he said it the camera swung over to Dr. Michael Baden who was caught shaking his head silently in the affirmative.

    BlueCrab
    I forgot about that,yes,I think they both said they thought it was 'stutter DNA'.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,808
    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778
    I forgot about that,yes,I think they both said they thought it was 'stutter DNA'.
    What is stutter DNA?

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Solace
    What is stutter DNA?
    I think it's just duplicate dna of what's already been tested.Like when it's amplified,some of it duplicates more than once,so it isn't really an accurate dna profile at all.I *think it results from weak,artifact dna being amplified,but I'll do a search to see if I can find out more.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,713

    stutter

    Quote Originally Posted by Solace
    What is stutter DNA?
    I found this on the web. I hope it helps.

    . . .Spurious Peaks. An additional complication in STR interpretation is that electropherograms often exhibit spurious peaks that do not indicate the presence of DNA. These extra peaks are referred to as "technical artifacts" and are produced by unavoidable imperfections of the DNA analysis process. The most common artifacts are stutter, noise and pull-up.

    Stutter peaks are small peaks that occur immediately before (and, less frequently, after) a real peak. Stutter occurs as a by-product of the process used to amplify DNA from evidence samples. In samples known to be from a single source, stutter is identifiable by its size and position. However, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish stutter bands from a secondary contributor in samples that contain (or might contain) DNA from more than one person. . .
    http://bioforensics.com/articles/cha...champion1.html

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,808
    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778
    I think it's just duplicate dna of what's already been tested.Like when it's amplified,some of it duplicates more than once,so it isn't really an accurate dna profile at all.I *think it results from weak,artifact dna being amplified,but I'll do a search to see if I can find out more.
    But what would there DNA be doing mixed in with the sample found in JonBenet's underwear?

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Solace
    But what would there DNA be doing mixed in with the sample found in JonBenet's underwear?
    It's speculated the male dna is not from the killer,since it's older and degraded,unlike JB's,which was fresh and complete..sounds likely.Even Mary Lacy said the dna may not be the killers.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,220
    So,they spent all that money on Mark Karr,for a charade?
    I'm sorely tempted to agree with that assessment.

    John Mark Karr? It appears he was deliberately used to further confuse the case and divert attention from the truth. Incidentally, the evidence reveals there was likely more than one perp involved in the killing of JonBenet. Thus, Karr's DNA simply not matching the DNA in JonBenet's underwear does not automatically clear him as one of the perps.
    BC, you had me in your corner up to that.

    I think that the case has already been solved, but that no one will ever be formally charged or imprisoned for the crime.
    I agree.

    I don't think JMO meant that literally. I don't know of any significant evidence that Mark Fuhrman released on the Ramsey case. However, a long time ago on a panel show he did say something about Ramsey DNA markers, not JonBenet's, being in the sample from JonBenet's panties. When he said it the camera swung over to Dr. Michael Baden who was caught shaking his head silently in the affirmative.
    I don't know if this was the same one, but a few days after Karr was cut loose, Fuhrman and Baden were interviewed on "Hannity & Colmes." Both agreed: the majority of evidence pointed to an inside job.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave
    ... but a few days after Karr was cut loose, Fuhrman and Baden were interviewed on "Hannity & Colmes." Both agreed: the majority of evidence pointed to an inside job.

    I too agree that it was an "inside job". But that doesn't exclude the evidence that points to a fifth person having been invited into the house by a Ramsey that night -- and that person being the killer.

    For instance, how did all of that missing crime scene evidence (black duct tape, white nylon cord, nine notebook pages, tip of the paintbrush handle, a stun gun, etc.) get out of the house? How did the ransom note get written in the house, yet the handwriting of no one living in the house can be positively matched to the writing in the note?

    And why was the outside security light turned off that night (for the first time in years)?

    BlueCrab

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,808
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    I too agree that it was an "inside job". But that doesn't exclude the evidence that points to a fifth person having been invited into the house by a Ramsey that night -- and that person being the killer.

    For instance, how did all of that missing crime scene evidence (black duct tape, white nylon cord, nine notebook pages, tip of the paintbrush handle, a stun gun, etc.) get out of the house? How did the ransom note get written in the house, yet the handwriting of no one living in the house can be positively matched to the writing in the note?

    And why was the outside security light turned off that night (for the first time in years)?

    BlueCrab
    Maybe John put the evidence in his golf bag.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Solace
    Maybe John put the evidence in his golf bag.
    Solace,

    The golf bag was taken in as evidence by the cops.

    BlueCrab

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,808
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Solace,

    The golf bag was taken in as evidence by the cops.

    BlueCrab
    Okay, then with some of the things that the sister picked up and filled up the trunk of the car with.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    40

    Dna

    Does anyone know if there's a list of names who's DNA was taken?
    Also, did they take DNA from children of the R's friends?

    Thanks For Any Help,

    kaykay

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Solace
    Okay, then with some of the things that the sister picked up and filled up the trunk of the car with.
    Solace,

    Possibly. Pam Paugh carried out her police-sanctioned raid on the evidence on the 28th. The cops had searched much of the house by then for the obvious items of evidence. However, Pam, with directions from John and Patsy, knew where to look for the less obvious items of evidence.

    BlueCrab

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by kaykay
    Does anyone know if there's a list of names who's DNA was taken?
    Also, did they take DNA from children of the R's friends?

    Thanks For Any Help,

    kaykay
    kaykay,

    I'm sure there is a list of names, but I doubt if it's been made public. And yes, there were children who were friends of the Ramseys whose DNA was taken. There have been well over 100 DNA samples taken, but that's only half of the story. What's more important is: How many have been tested?

    DNA samples are quick and inexpensive to take, but are expensive to have tested. So I wonder how many samples are sitting in storage untested since there's no money in the Boulder budget to pursue an active investigation in the Ramsey case.

    Remember, there were two blood stains in the crotch of JonBenet's underwear, but only one spot, the largest, had been tested by the BPD, apparently for cost reasons. The second, smaller, male, foreign, mixed blood stain was tested years later and yielded more evidence than the first one. It helped give up enough DNA markers (10) to finally enter the sample into the FBI's CODIS system (even though 13 markers are preferred).

    BlueCrab

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,393
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    I too agree that it was an "inside job". But that doesn't exclude the evidence that points to a fifth person having been invited into the house by a Ramsey that night -- and that person being the killer.

    For instance, how did all of that missing crime scene evidence (black duct tape, white nylon cord, nine notebook pages, tip of the paintbrush handle, a stun gun, etc.) get out of the house? How did the ransom note get written in the house, yet the handwriting of no one living in the house can be positively matched to the writing in the note?

    And why was the outside security light turned off that night (for the first time in years)?

    BlueCrab
    OK I'll help you out on this. There was no evidence anyone but the four were there at all. Not even an small foreign faction behind the drapes. As to the evidence they had all night to stash a few items after staging was complete before they called 911.....Then Aunt Pam comes to retrieve funeral clothes and out goes a few items along with the kitchen sink. I think someone living in the house wrote the ransom note and I think we all know who it is. If we don't we are grabbing at straws from experts without anymore expertise than pfffft paid for by team Ramsey.

    I think you'd have to ask them why they turned the light out. Whoever you might think they is. I know who I'd ask.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,393
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Solace,

    The golf bag was taken in as evidence by the cops.

    BlueCrab
    One golf bag left with Aunt Pam.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,393
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    kaykay,

    I'm sure there is a list of names, but I doubt if it's been made public. And yes, there were children who were friends of the Ramseys whose DNA was taken. There have been well over 100 DNA samples taken, but that's only half of the story. What's more important is: How many have been tested?

    DNA samples are quick and inexpensive to take, but are expensive to have tested. So I wonder how many samples are sitting in storage untested since there's no money in the Boulder budget to pursue an active investigation in the Ramsey case.

    Remember, there were two blood stains in the crotch of JonBenet's underwear, but only one spot, the largest, had been tested by the BPD, apparently for cost reasons. The second, smaller, male, foreign, mixed blood stain was tested years later and yielded more evidence than the first one. It helped give up enough DNA markers (10) to finally enter the sample into the FBI's CODIS system (even though 13 markers are preferred).

    BlueCrab
    I'd like to know how you know it was budgetary reasons. I don't think us taxpayers would like to pursue that statement to find out it was not the gospel. Have you got something that proves these were budgetary line item exclusions in this investigation or is this an opinion you hold. I always felt if there was evidence not processed it was cause they know the facts .....

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,808
    Quote Originally Posted by coloradokares
    One golf bag left with Aunt Pam.
    I thought so Colorado. But I was not positive. Thank You.

    You know Colorado I was thinking again about this case and all the theories going around. The Ramsey Team did an excellent job in putting doubt in people's minds. I mean we have people questioning why they are going to Michigan, and I understand the questioning, but it shows just how much one can get away from the truth, imo. I really believe this is a rage crime and Patsy did it and John helped her. I do not think too many others know about the actual happenings (meaning family members). John is not stupid. He did not get where he is by being stupid. He is very good at manipulating interviewers and wins most of the time. I do not think John and Patsy are going to elicit conspiracy from anyone else - it makes them too vulnerable.

    I just don't believe that John would compromise himself by strangling his daughter in a sex act. I believe he would help Patsy - I am sure she was insane in eliciting his help and he felt for her. One detective I watched recently said crime scenes are 90% of the time usually what they seem. Sometimes there is an "out there" reason for the crime, but most of the time, it is what it seems.

    It has been 10 years and no evidence of an intruder. We see that Patsy lied, John lied and Berke changed his story. Why, because something awful happened that night and in their minds, there is no reason to make it worse by taking Patsy away from Berke.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by coloradokares
    I'd like to know how you know it was budgetary reasons. I don't think us taxpayers would like to pursue that statement to find out it was not the gospel. Have you got something that proves these were budgetary line item exclusions in this investigation or is this an opinion you hold. I always felt if there was evidence not processed it was cause they know the facts .....

    coloradokares,

    The cops likely thought they had the facts since the two blood stains were both in the crotch, so they tested just one of them.

    I have no information about line-item exclusions in regard to processing evidence in the Ramsey case, but my common sense tells me they don't have an endless amount of money to throw at just one murder case. Boulder hasn't budgeted as much as a nickel on an active investigation in the Ramsey case for about the last five years. In fact, Boulder has been in financial peril for years now and I doubt if an active investigation will ever be launched again.

    Here's how Boulder police spending on the Ramsey murder unfolded during the height of the investigation:

    1996: $21,000
    1997: $531,000
    1998: $631,000
    1999: $238,000
    2000: $146,000
    2001: $41,000

    BlueCrab

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Solace
    I thought so Colorado. But I was not positive. Thank You.

    You know Colorado I was thinking again about this case and all the theories going around. The Ramsey Team did an excellent job in putting doubt in people's minds. I mean we have people questioning why they are going to Michigan, and I understand the questioning, but it shows just how much one can get away from the truth, imo. I really believe this is a rage crime and Patsy did it and John helped her. I do not think too many others know about the actual happenings (meaning family members). John is not stupid. He did not get where he is by being stupid. He is very good at manipulating interviewers and wins most of the time. I do not think John and Patsy are going to elicit conspiracy from anyone else - it makes them too vulnerable.

    I just don't believe that John would compromise himself by strangling his daughter in a sex act. I believe he would help Patsy - I am sure she was insane in eliciting his help and he felt for her. One detective I watched recently said crime scenes are 90% of the time usually what they seem. Sometimes there is an "out there" reason for the crime, but most of the time, it is what it seems.

    It has been 10 years and no evidence of an intruder. We see that Patsy lied, John lied and Berke changed his story. Why, because something awful happened that night and in their minds, there is no reason to make it worse by taking Patsy away from Berke.
    I think that is when you separate the wheat from the chaff..and blow the rest away, what remains. Only it is possible that John or Patsy herself realizing that a coroner would take possesion of JonBenets lifeless body and do and autopsy would uncover sexual abuse or corporal wiping abuse or even a few too many times of the kids playing doctor.... and made some effort through staging to obscure it. There are more twists and turns to this whole thing than my current screen saver. (Pipes) I can never forget Holly Smith the sexual abuse officer relating how nearly every pair of underwear in the drawers was soiled. That is a RED FLAG like you cannot believe to sexual abuse. And that just can't be dismissed. JonBenet was acting out cause JonBenet was being hurt. And that makes me sooooooo ill its hard to even describe. My grandaughter was only a few months older than JonBenet. If I ever thought for a moment someone had hurt her. Well it would not go well for them ......lets just put it that way.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •