View Poll Results: Who owns the smoke and mirrors?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • PR and/or JR

    9 90.00%
  • RDI

    1 10.00%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 54

Thread: Who owns the smoke and mirrors?

  1. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    Whatever you say, cowboy. I sympathize. It's a horrible thing to consider.



    Well, it's just that listening to some IDIs, one gets the feeling that they're not really interested in finding the real killer, just as long as the Rs aren't inconvenienced. Like I said, I could make that accusation, but I won't.
    The real killer, if an intruder, is safe.

    The real killer is safe because RDI is still looking at the parents, and spinning every bit of information, now even 'unknown male DNA,' into an RDI scenario.

    The real killer is safe because IDI sits and waits for a DNA match for someone who is certainly not subject to arrest in any jurisdiction.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 11-09-2009 at 10:01 PM.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,757
    The real killer is safe because she's dead. So...safe from prosecution, yes. Safe from justice? I wouldn't bet on it.
    Last edited by DeeDee249; 11-09-2009 at 10:31 PM.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  4. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    The real killer is safe because she's dead. So...safe from prosecution, yes. Safe from justice? I wouldn't bet on it.
    Well, at least we agree the real killer is safe from prosecution.

  5. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    The real killer, if an intruder, is safe.

    The real killer is safe because RDI is still looking at the parents, and spinning every bit of information, now even 'unknown male DNA,' into an RDI scenario.

    The real killer is safe because IDI sits and waits for a DNA match for someone who is certainly not subject to arrest in any jurisdiction.
    Oh really.
    If IDI, the real killer is safe because ML made sure that every person whose DNA didn't match is no longer called a suspect.

    If IDI,the real killer is safe because the R's probably knew exactly who was involved and decided to keep their mouths shut,remember,they didn't believe it was a SFF from second one.

    If IDI,the real killer is safe because some incompetent DA people didn't test evidence ,following B.Morgan's instructions.

    And the list goes on....

    So if you wanna blame all this on someone look closer to "home".
    Last edited by madeleine; 11-10-2009 at 03:56 AM.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to madeleine For This Useful Post:


  7. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    The real killer, if an intruder, is safe.

    The real killer is safe because RDI is still looking at the parents, and spinning every bit of information, now even 'unknown male DNA,' into an RDI scenario.

    The real killer is safe because IDI sits and waits for a DNA match for someone who is certainly not subject to arrest in any jurisdiction.
    You surprise me, HOTYH. That was fair. (Though you might as well be talking to yourself with that crack about RDI "spinning")
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  9. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    You surprise me, HOTYH. That was fair. (Though you might as well be talking to yourself with that crack about RDI "spinning")
    Fair and balanced?

    Statistics don't lie.

    Where is that item of evidence that hasn't been spun away from what it appears to be?

    Here are the spinnings:

    Ransom note on the stairs: not a ransom note. Instead framing of a foreign faction AND an insider, pointing two fingers at once. Clever idea PR or JR had to claim it was found on the rear stairs. Nobody would suspect it would be left on JBR's bed. You know, where most people would find their kid missing. That wouldn't fool anybody.
    Garrote around the neck: not a garrote. A mere prop. Forget about that hemorrhaging. Clever idea PR or JR had breaking it on both ends because it looks more sinister.
    2nd ligature loose on one wrist: merely a prop. wouldn't harm a fly (although I could use it to hold up an axle to change my brake pads). Not sure why PR and JR didn't tie it tight, though, to complete the picture. Lets call it incomplete staging, they probably ran out of time. Nobody's perfect. Or maybe JR and PR didn't want it to look too good.
    Duct tape over the mouth: not really functional. Merely more prop. It just fell off.
    Unknown male DNA in the underwear: Actually this is evidence that PR and JR handled the underwear and longjohns. Thats because PR DNA mixed with JR DNA looks just like the CODIS DNA.

    Now if this isn't spinning, nothing is spinning. What do you call it instead? Creative investigation? That is, the ideas of what these items are seen as by RDI involve some creativity. I highlighed creativity in red. One definition of creativity: YOU MADE IT UP.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 11-10-2009 at 09:29 PM.

  10. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Fair and balanced?
    Close enough.

    Statistics don't lie.
    AHEM! Have you forgotten who you're talking to?

    Where is that item of evidence that hasn't been spun away from what it appears to be?
    Just off the top of my head, JR trying to flee the state less than an hour after the discovery...

    Here are the spinnings:

    Ransom note on the stairs: not a ransom note. Instead framing of a foreign faction AND an insider, pointing two fingers at once.
    Yup.

    Clever idea PR or JR had to claim it was found on the rear stairs. Nobody would suspect it would be left on JBR's bed. You know, where most people would find their kid missing. That wouldn't fool anybody.
    No point in going over what didn't happen, HOTYH.

    Garrote around the neck: not a garrote. A mere prop. Forget about that hemorrhaging.
    AGAIN you oversimplify the issue.

    Clever idea PR or JR had breaking it on both ends because it looks more sinister.
    We've been over that.

    2nd ligature loose on one wrist: merely a prop. wouldn't harm a fly
    Yup.

    (although I could use it to hold up an axle to change my brake pads).
    Respectfully HOTYH, a car is not a 6-year-old child. (Though it may sometimes ACT like one!)

    Not sure why PR and JR didn't tie it tight, though, to complete the picture. Lets call it incomplete staging, they probably ran out of time. Nobody's perfect.
    Good enough for me! Thanks!

    Duct tape over the mouth: not really functional. Merely more prop. It just fell off.
    Hey, you're getting good at this!

    Unknown male DNA in the underwear: Actually this is evidence that PR and JR handled the underwear and longjohns. Thats because PR DNA mixed with JR DNA looks just like the CODIS DNA.
    I couldn't hazard a guess as to that one. Though, given the history involved, it wouldn't surprise me if that's a misunderstanding. I wouldn't mind a simple explanation to that one myself.

    Now if this isn't spinning, nothing is spinning.
    Hmph.

    What do you call it instead? Creative investigation?
    I don't know about anyone else, but I call it cutting through the smokescreen that was thrown up. In other words, the very investigative tactics Gregg McCrary specified. If you have a problem, I suggest you take it up with him. Good luck with that!

    One definition of creativity: YOU MADE IT UP.
    You just described the crime scene to a T.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  12. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post

    I don't know about anyone else, but I call it cutting through the smokescreen that was thrown up.
    OK what I call spinning the evidence into something else, you call cutting thru the smokescreen that was thrown up. Please note that 'the smokescreen that was thrown up' is casually stated as fact.

    The premise by which you cut thru the smokescreen relies on the existence of a smokescreen. Yet there is no proof that a smokescreen exists, insofar as the items of evidence are concerned.

    IOW you've decided there was a smokescreen without basis or cause to do so, and then applied the smokescreen theory to all the evidence.

    The foundation for your argument doesn't even exist.

  13. #34
    Whereas you really DON'T know if a smokescreen exists or not, I really DO know that the items of evidence are converted from prima facie using fiction.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 11-10-2009 at 10:20 PM.

  14. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    OK what I call spinning the evidence into something else, you call cutting thru the smokescreen that was thrown up. Please note that 'the smokescreen that was thrown up' is casually stated as fact.
    Perhaps I should have categorized that. But that's as far as I'm going.

    IOW you've decided there was a smokescreen without basis or cause to do so, and then applied the smokescreen theory to all the evidence.
    Wrong on both counts. I have plenty of cause and basis. Not only me There were quite a few who beat me to it. And they're the ones you should be concerned with.

    The foundation for your argument doesn't even exist.
    Try. Me.

    Whereas you really DON'T know if a smokescreen exists or not, I really DO know that the items of evidence are converted from prima facie using fiction.
    Your feeble insults are wasted on me. Let's not forget: YOU asked the question at the beginning of the thread. And I couldn't have phrased it better myself:

    PR and/or JR owns the smoke and mirrors: PR and/or JR in less than 8 hours made many of these items look like the work of an intruder

    RDI owns the smoke and mirrors: RDI over years and years has made actual criminal acts by an intruder appear to be the work of PR and/or JR.


    Well, I KNOW which side of that I'm on. And if what I've heard back is true, pretty soon a lot of other people will be faced with that question for themselves. I wonder which side they'll come down on...
    Last edited by SuperDave; 11-10-2009 at 11:11 PM.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  16. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Unknown male DNA in the underwear: Actually this is evidence that PR and JR handled the underwear and longjohns. Thats because PR DNA mixed with JR DNA looks just like the CODIS DNA.
    HOTYH, we have gone over this ad infinitum in my DNA Revisited thread. If you accept that the lab report is indicating at least the possibility that a JR and PR mix is the “unknown” DNA in the bloodstain, then it is not spin – unless you are accusing the lab of being the author of the spin.

    Once again:
    “The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey.
    If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits.”
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to cynic For This Useful Post:


  18. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    HOTYH, we have gone over this ad infinitum in my DNA Revisited thread. If you accept that the lab report is indicating at least the possibility that a JR and PR mix is the “unknown” DNA in the bloodstain, then it is not spin – unless you are accusing the lab of being the author of the spin.

    Once again:
    “The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey.
    If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits.”
    The spin I've been referring to is where prima facie evidence that indicates IDI is mirrored into RDI thru the use of fiction.

    The fiction is that both PR DNA and JR DNA are present, are mixed, and were not recognized as mixed by Bode, and matched previously mixed and misprofiled DNA that was reported to CODIS. This is heavy fiction.

    There is no more basis to believe the DNA belongs to JR and PR than it belonging to, say, intruder #2 and intruder #3 since you wouldn't know who they are and don't know what markers they have.

  19. #38
    The whole RDI 'what if' reasoning is this: What if the R's did it? Then we would need to explain the evidence another way because prima facie says an intruder did it. RDI has no shortage of explanations for everything.

    A better illustration of what I'm saying is this: If the crime scene is truly staged, then how do you know PR and JR did the staging? Does PR and JR have exclusive staging rights? Is it impossible for an intruder to do staging?

    What is inherent in the items of evidence that proves there was staging? That is, forgetting RDI, can we prove there was staging?

  20. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    A better illustration of what I'm saying is this: If the crime scene is truly staged, then how do you know PR and JR did the staging? Does PR and JR have exclusive staging rights? Is it impossible for an intruder to do staging?

    What is inherent in the items of evidence that proves there was staging? That is, forgetting RDI, can we prove there was staging?
    This may surprise you, HOTYH, but those are questions I can get my head around, and indeed, are worth gnawing over.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  21. #40
    You do that, SD.

    Meanwhile, I can take being shut out 7-0. Its no problem. However, I will point out that while RDI can't prove PR and JR used smoke, I can prove RDI used mirrors.

  22. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    The fiction is that both PR DNA and JR DNA are present.
    The report is plain that it was too close to call. Again, it’s clear that the lab is providing the so called “spin”. I am merely giving the flip side of the report. A great many people have been excluded, interesting that JR and PR were not.
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cynic For This Useful Post:


  24. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    The report is plain that it was too close to call. Again, it’s clear that the lab is providing the so called “spin”. I am merely giving the flip side of the report. A great many people have been excluded, interesting that JR and PR were not.
    Its a flip side alright. And its your theory.

    Just remember how many things had to happen for this to be the case.

    1. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the underwear.
    2. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns.
    3. JR and PR were both involved in murder.
    4. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA looks like unknown male DNA.
    5. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA was mistaken for unknown male DNA by 2 independent labs.
    6. A profile of a nonexistent person was provided to CODIS.
    8. The mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns was identical to the mix in CODIS.
    9. The DNA in the underwear and on the longjohns are both skin cell DNA.
    10. Bode touch DNA has no more markers than CODIS DNA.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 11-11-2009 at 11:28 AM.

  25. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Its a flip side alright. And its your theory.

    Just remember how many things had to happen for this to be the case.

    1. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the underwear.
    2. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns.
    3. JR and PR were both involved in murder.
    4. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA looks like unknown male DNA.
    5. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA was mistaken for unknown male DNA by 2 independent labs.
    6. A profile of a nonexistent person was provided to CODIS.
    8. The mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns was identical to the mix in CODIS.
    9. The DNA in the underwear and on the longjohns are both skin cell DNA.
    10. Bode touch DNA has no more markers than CODIS DNA.
    Flip, as in flipping the two headed coin that the DA used to decide what to do with lab report.
    “Heads” it’s an intruder, “tails” it’s a mix. Well, what do you know; it came up “heads”.

    The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey.
    If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits.”

    1. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the underwear. As per the lab report, yes
    2. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns. They both contacted the long johns. JBR's, PR's, and JR's skin cells would be present.
    3. JR and PR were both involved in murder. I believe that is not in serious dispute.
    4. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA looks like unknown male DNA. As per the lab report. you will have to contact them to plead your case.
    5. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA was mistaken for unknown male DNA by 2 independent labs. No, the lab report gives two possibilities; the DA chose the one that would keep them on the Ramsey payroll. Bode simply looked for and found the CODIS profile.
    6. A profile of a nonexistent person was provided to CODIS. As per the lab report. you will have to contact them to plead your case.
    8. The mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns was identical to the mix in CODIS. The lab report makes this a possibility, like it or not.
    9. The DNA in the underwear and on the longjohns are both skin cell DNA. No evidence whatsoever that it is not. (Presumptive tests for saliva have been around for a long time.)
    10. Bode touch DNA has no more markers than CODIS DNA. As I said before, it is hardly likely if they had more that it would not be announced. I doubt ML would have been able to control herself.
    Last edited by cynic; 11-11-2009 at 01:43 PM.
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cynic For This Useful Post:


  27. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    You do that, SD.
    Don't patronize me, HOTYH. You brought it up, and for what it's worth, they're good questions and I'm willing to hear it out with you. But if you don't want to play your own game, there's no point in me wasting any time on it.

    Meanwhile, I can take being shut out 7-0. Its no problem.
    I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific.

    However, I will point out that while RDI can't prove PR and JR used smoke, I can prove RDI used mirrors.
    Well, it's your right to feel that way, HOTYH. The way I look at it is, the only people who are fooled by the R's smoke and mirrors are the people who WANT to be fooled. I can't put it any plainer than that. And I ought to know. I resembled that remark for a long time.
    Last edited by SuperDave; 11-11-2009 at 03:20 PM.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  29. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Flip, as in flipping the two headed coin that the DA used to decide what to do with lab report.
    “Heads” it’s an intruder, “tails” it’s a mix. Well, what do you know; it came up “heads”.

    The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey.
    If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits.”

    1. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the underwear. As per the lab report, yes
    2. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns. They both contacted the long johns. JBR's, PR's, and JR's skin cells would be present. JR grabbed JBR by the waist. The longjohns didn't necessarily have to reach that high at that time. That JR contacted the longjohns is an assumption on your part, stated as fact.
    3. JR and PR were both involved in murder. I believe that is not in serious dispute. Yes it is. RDI believes there was NO MURDER.
    4. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA looks like unknown male DNA. As per the lab report. you will have to contact them to plead your case. I will? You're the one contesting the results, not me. You're the ONLY one, I might add.
    5. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA was mistaken for unknown male DNA by 2 independent labs. No, the lab report gives two possibilities; the DA chose the one that would keep them on the Ramsey payroll. Bode simply looked for and found the CODIS profile. Are you accusing the DA's office of a crime? Or is 'on the payroll' just a figure of speech?
    6. A profile of a nonexistent person was provided to CODIS. As per the lab report. you will have to contact them to plead your case. I will? You're the one contesting the results, not me. You're the ONLY one, I might add.
    8. The mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns was identical to the mix in CODIS. The lab report makes this a possibility, like it or not.
    9. The DNA in the underwear and on the longjohns are both skin cell DNA. No evidence whatsoever that it is not. (Presumptive tests for saliva have been around for a long time.) Aha! Your premise involves the assumption that both are skin cell DNA. Just as I suspected. Your argument is based on assumption not fact, that is the lab could simply blow it away in a word. Unless you wish to modify your theory that they mixed saliva with skin and came up with the same DNA match, you've no idea that this mix theory is even a remote possibility.
    10. Bode touch DNA has no more markers than CODIS DNA. As I said before, it is hardly likely if they had more that it would not be announced. I doubt ML would have been able to control herself. More assumptions. I'd say the reverse is more likely, based on the strength and wording of the exhoneration letter.
    I dunno, its like you're on a rampage on your theory and want me to call the lab to see if its true.

  30. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    I dunno, its like you're on a rampage on your theory and want me to call the lab to see if its true.
    1. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the underwear. As per the lab report, yes
    2. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns. They both contacted the long johns. JBR's, PR's, and JR's skin cells would be present. JR grabbed JBR by the waist. The longjohns didn't necessarily have to reach that high at that time. That JR contacted the longjohns is an assumption on your part, stated as fact. I see, so it’s a game of inches now?
    3. JR and PR were both involved in murder. I believe that is not in serious dispute. Yes it is. RDI believes there was NO MURDER.???
    4. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA looks like unknown male DNA. As per the lab report. you will have to contact them to plead your case. I will? You're the one contesting the results, not me. You're the ONLY one, I might add. Actually I’m not contesting the results at all. You are by refusing to acknowledge that various Ramsey family members are not excluded as donors as long as two are acting together. (One of which must be a male.)
    5. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA was mistaken for unknown male DNA by 2 independent labs. No, the lab report gives two possibilities; the DA chose the one that would keep them on the Ramsey payroll. Bode simply looked for and found the CODIS profile. Are you accusing the DA's office of a crime? Or is 'on the payroll' just a figure of speech? I will leave that to your imagination.
    6. A profile of a nonexistent person was provided to CODIS. As per the lab report. you will have to contact them to plead your case. I will? You're the one contesting the results, not me. You're the ONLY one, I might add. Actually I’m not contesting the results at all. You are by refusing to acknowledge that various Ramsey family members are not excluded as donors as long as two are acting together. (One of which must be a male.)
    8. The mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns was identical to the mix in CODIS. The lab report makes this a possibility, like it or not.
    9. The DNA in the underwear and on the longjohns are both skin cell DNA. No evidence whatsoever that it is not. (Presumptive tests for saliva have been around for a long time.) Aha! Your premise involves the assumption that both are skin cell DNA. Just as I suspected. Your argument is based on assumption not fact, that is the lab could simply blow it away in a word. Unless you wish to modify your theory that they mixed saliva with skin and came up with the same DNA match, you've no idea that this mix theory is even a remote possibility. My argument is based on the lab report which as I have said gave the DA two paths to follow. I am pointing out that PR and JR acting together and consequently leaving DNA behind is a possibility that was not excluded by the lab. I have read that some 200 people have been excluded on the basis of DNA, and yet in this lab report we find that JR and PR are not.
    10. Bode touch DNA has no more markers than CODIS DNA. As I said before, it is hardly likely if they had more that it would not be announced. I doubt ML would have been able to control herself. More assumptions. I'd say the reverse is more likely, based on the strength and wording of the exhoneration letter. If ML had a stronger profile available she would have flaunted it.

    BTW, I am not “on a rampage” with respect to this theory. If people didn’t grab the screen captures of the DNA report, I would not have considered this theory. The lab report exists, that is a fact. It is the only DNA lab report that anyone in the general public has ever seen (although we were probably not meant to see it).
    As I have said repeatedly, it does not exonerate PR and JR as long as they acted together. It also suggests that a single unknown donor may be responsible.

    If there is unknown male DNA present then there are a number of plausible “innocent” explanations.
    Just a sampling from your and perhaps an innocent explanation… thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    “The Ramseys had had huge exposure to stranger DNA that day; their clothes and hands and faces had not been washed; Patsy admitted to hating doing laundry and, in fact, JBR's bedroom floor was was scattered with dirty clothing (including undies with faecal matter on them) and no one knew when JBR had last been bathed or how freshly-laundered the LJs were; the Ramseys' clothes were not tested at the appropriate time to find whatever traces of DNA there were on them; this is touch DNA.” .
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    “Well, just off the top of my head, here's something. As you know, kids at that age get into a lot of trouble. I certainly did. When I was that young, we had Christmas parties at other people's houses too. During the evening, it was customary for the kids to be alone with the kids and the adults to be alone with the adults. This was usually just before dinner. It seems possible that this could have happened. So, JB and the other children are alone and they start getting ideas. Pretty soon one of the boys decides to see what makes a girl a girl. I don't know why, but that idea has always struck me.”
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    “Secondary transfer via hand contact by one or more of the following: JBR, PR, JR.
    Secondary transfer through use of a contaminated item such as a wash cloth or towel.
    Contamination and / or cross-contamination by someone involved in the collection, testing or storage of the long johns and panties.”
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    “IF one of her parents shook hands with the male donor at the White's (or touched something the male donor had touched) some of the donor DNA transferred to the parent(s) hands. When they pulled the long johns and panties on some of the skin cells got on those items.
    JB herself could also have touched those same surfaces at the White's, including toilet handles and surfaces. This could explain the long johns, but not the panties unless she wore those huge size 12s to the White's (as Patsy suggested) but I don't think she did.”
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    “WRT the DNA, JBR scratching (as we all do) could transfer a fair bit of DNA. I'd imagine that a child with chronic vaginitis who hadn't been bathed for a day or two and who had on brand new undies that hadn't been washed before being worn would do some scratching. I don't see why the DNA on the Bloomies coming into contact with the LJs during the redressing can't also be seen as a reasonable explanation for the DNA. Dr Lee demonstrated that unwashed, new Bloomies usually have DNA on them. The Bloomies obviously came into contact with the LJs. Also, the coroner touched both and could have transferred the DNA from one to another. I have actually today discussed this with someone, who, while not a forensic DNA expert, works on the Human Genome Project so knows more than most about it. Her biggest concern was contamination and lab procedure failure which are both more common than we'd like to believe. It's also common currency among DNA scientists that prosecutors aren't yet properly educated in interpreting DNA evidence.”
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cynic For This Useful Post:


  32. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    .....
    Posts
    3,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    I dunno, its like you're on a rampage on your theory and want me to call the lab to see if its true.
    Hi Hotyh.

    When you call the lab, I wouldn't mind knowing about the process of using a 'control' in the touch dna test of the longjohns, how do we know that the longjohns were not previously worn by the IDI dna source/donor?

  33. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Tadpole12 For This Useful Post:


  34. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Tadpole12 View Post
    Hi Hotyh.

    When you call the lab, I wouldn't mind knowing about the process of using a 'control' in the touch dna test of the longjohns, how do we know that the longjohns were not previously worn by the IDI dna source/donor?
    According to the Bode website, the simple washing of clothes removes touch DNA.

  35. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Tadpole12 View Post
    Hi Hotyh.

    When you call the lab, I wouldn't mind knowing about the process of using a 'control' in the touch dna test of the longjohns, how do we know that the longjohns were not previously worn by the IDI dna source/donor?
    Darn fine question.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoldontoyourHat
    According to the Bode website, the simple washing of clothes removes touch DNA.
    True, but do we know when they were washed last?
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  37. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Tadpole12 View Post
    Hi Hotyh.

    When you call the lab, I wouldn't mind knowing about the process of using a 'control' in the touch dna test of the longjohns, how do we know that the longjohns were not previously worn by the IDI dna source/donor?


    Great question...Now this is possible cause not every child are the same size..A boy can be 9 and fits smaller clothes...See all the time....And if a friend did stay a night with BR on a whim could had fit those longjohns and since they didn't look that girly....


    And can Bode tell us when things have been washed last...
    Last edited by Ravyn; 11-13-2009 at 10:35 AM.
    Knowledge of time is precious.Wisdom of truth is more precious than time..Opinions I write are mine..

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. "Smoke, Mirrors and Murder" by Ann Rule
    By oceanblueeyes in forum Archived Cases
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-06-2009, 07:42 PM
  2. Video - who owns the tape?
    By Chemaster in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 01-15-2009, 01:09 AM
  3. neon signs and mirrors
    By RElady in forum WS-BAY!
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-20-2004, 04:56 PM

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
  •