1088 users online (205 members and 883 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Cleared on DNA

    Here's something interesting. This was on Tracey's documentary. The camera panned a case document and it discussed who had been cleared if the foreign DNA was from a single person.

    There were three names blacked out and I think they were Fleet White, Priscilla White and Mervin Pugh. The third was wasn't blacked out as effectively as the other two and I'm 99% certain it's Mervin Pugh.

    Check these out. I have made a double graphic for each - one showing the blacked out portion and one showing how the names fit. I made the names in negative so that they stand out against the blacking out. I have lowered the names slightly because you can see the tops of the letters and how they match.



    Note the position of the comma after Fleet White. It delineates the end of the first person's name.

    [IMG][/IMG]
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,384

    100%

    I think youre dead on Jayelles!!
    The saints are the sinners who keep trying...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    Nice work Jayelles. I wonder who's hiding what, and for what reason.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    My guess

    Is that these names have been blacked because Tracey is only interested in showing that the Ramseys were cleared. Perhaps there was a thought that these people might not like it known that they were investigated or considered serious enough suspects to have their DNA tested?

    OTOH, a cynic might consider that as long as its not officially known that folks like the Whites and old Merv were also cleared, there will always be people who will suspect them - hold them up as viable suspects. It keeps the waters muddy if you like. Remember too that the RST mantra is that the police only focused on the Ramseys when clearly they WERE testing other suspects at a very early stage .....
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    OTOH, a cynic might consider that as long as its not officially known that folks like the Whites and old Merv were also cleared, there will always be people who will suspect them - hold them up as viable suspects. It keeps the waters muddy if you like. Remember too that the RST mantra is that the police only focused on the Ramseys when clearly they WERE testing other suspects at a very early stage .....
    It's like I heard on one of the morning shows a couple of weeks ago. A prominent defense lawyer was being interviewed regarding the Peterson case, and he said that the defense's best defense is to always cry that the police too quickly zoomed in on family, or whoever is on trial. He said that is now common and the best "defense". It worked so well with OJ, that they are all using it now. I see the Ramsey case as doing this, a la Haddon's strategy from the very beginning.

    IMO

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by Nehemiah
    It's like I heard on one of the morning shows a couple of weeks ago. A prominent defense lawyer was being interviewed regarding the Peterson case, and he said that the defense's best defense is to always cry that the police too quickly zoomed in on family, or whoever is on trial. He said that is now common and the best "defense". It worked so well with OJ, that they are all using it now. I see the Ramsey case as doing this, a la Haddon's strategy from the very beginning.

    IMO
    In the real world, the police are rewarded for years of experience and are commended when they focus on the person/s that they feel are responsible and prove it. That's what all the "experience" is for. Seasoned police investigators know what they are looking for, know what is hinky and what is suspicious from ALL THEIR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.

    In today's society, the police are now condemned for looking in the right place right away. This is not to say that other areas should not be explored or that the focus of an investigation should be exclusive, but what is wrong with the police getting it right the first time and not wasting the taxpayer's money by chasing leads that are bogus? How much money was wasted on frozen underwear or whatever was sent in on the Ramsey case?

    When legitimate leads have been followed, and it leads LE back to their original suspect/s, it is a GOOD thing.

    Despite what the RST and other defense lawyers like to spew, the police in the VAST majority of crimes, do NOT want to convict the wrong person. In real life, the VAST majority of LE are hard working, dedicated people who want to find the right perpetrator. They do NOT find a suspect and force the evidence to fit.

    Our LE in this country gets way too many black eyes by the likes of the RST, Lin Wood and others like him.

    This "rush to judgement" catch all phrase is terribly abused.
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514
    Again, just because there may be a teeny speck of some "unidentified" DNA in JonBenet's underwear does NOT equate to it belonging to some "intruder" that killed JonBenet!!
    You MUST look at the total picture and ALL evidence and circumstances in this case to evalutate whether or not this speck of DNA is related to the crime!!!
    It drives me crazy all this attention and focus just because it is "DNA."
    Like Dr. Henry Lee said - "This is NOT a DNA case."

    Were there some strange intruder that killed JonBenet and lingered in that house "for hours" as the Ramseys claim - his DNA would be EVERYWHERE.
    It is not.
    Get a clue!! This is nothing but a distraction concocted by the RST.
    This post is my opinion.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by K777angel
    Again, just because there may be a teeny speck of some "unidentified" DNA in JonBenet's underwear does NOT equate to it belonging to some "intruder" that killed JonBenet!!
    You MUST look at the total picture and ALL evidence and circumstances in this case to evalutate whether or not this speck of DNA is related to the crime!!!
    It drives me crazy all this attention and focus just because it is "DNA."
    Like Dr. Henry Lee said - "This is NOT a DNA case."

    Were there some strange intruder that killed JonBenet and lingered in that house "for hours" as the Ramseys claim - his DNA would be EVERYWHERE.
    It is not.
    Get a clue!! This is nothing but a distraction concocted by the RST.

    Angel,

    I agree the DNA has nothing to do with an intruder, because the Ramseys would not lie and cover up for an intruder. However, it IS foreign male DNA on JonBenet. It has to be fully investigated.

    My guess is the foreign male DNA is either from Burke (they've never released Burke's DNA analysis) or from a male friend Burke let into the house that night or a male the parents invited in as an overnight guest.

    JMO

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599

    Barbara

    I agree. It's no longer politically correct to be in LE.

    IMO

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053

    Burke's DNA

    Burke's DNA analysis has never been released.

    I'd like to expound on my comment about the DNA in JonBenet's underwear possibly being Burke's. The DNA elimination of "male Ramseys" could technically NOT include Burke Ramsey, despite tricky wording by the Boulder authorities to make it appear just the opposite.

    Some people say all Ramsey males have been excluded as the possible contributor of the degraded DNA in JonBenet's panties. But if the DNA extraction had used the mitochondrial (mtDNA) method, then Burke would technically be a "male Paugh", and not a "male Ramsey".

    The mtDNA method is from the mother's ancestral line only, and is used when only small or degraded samples are available, such as the DNA sample in JonBenet's panties. The mtDNA method would exclude John B. Ramsey and John Andrew Ramsey (who is not Patsy's child) as possible contributors, but would not exclude Burke as a possible contributor.

    So by saying all "male Ramseys" have been excluded, it would techically not include Burke if the mitochondrial method of DNA extraction had been used. Burke would be a "male Paugh" so to speak.

    If Boulder authorities used trick wording such as this to try to exclude Burke as the contributor of the DNA in JonBenet's panties, it would fall in line with some of the other tricks used, such as the fraudulent affidavit signed by Alex Hunter trying to make it appear that Burke had been cleared when he has never been cleared.

    It would also fit with Mark Fuhrman's off-the-cuff comment on nation-wide T.V., and tacitly approved by Dr. Michael Baden on the same show, that the DNA "has Ramsey family markers".

    By using trickery to shield Burke from suspicion only adds to the likelihood that Burke killed JonBenet or is deeply involved and therefore knows who killed her.

    JMO


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Burke's DNA analysis has never been released.

    JMO
    Au contraire my friend. Here is the result of Burke's DNA analysis showing that he has been cleared:-

    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911

    Smile

    Jayelles - Thank you so much for bringing us all of this information. Outstanding work. Please know how much your efforts are appreciated.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    An unidentified "case document" was flashed on the screen during a Tracey documentary on the Ramseys, the purpose of which was to make the Ramseys look innocent, which read:

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

    Several comments:

    1. Being a Tracey documentary with a goal of favoring the Ramseys, the authenticity of the "case document", conveniently flashed on the screen, is certainly in question.

    2. Even if the document is legitimate, the people excuded as a possible contributor of the DNA are dependant on the minor component coming from a single individual; otherwise they are not excluded.

    3. Why isn't Douglas Stine not listed as excluded? His DNA was analyzed.

    4. If the mitochondrial method of DNA extraction was used (which uses only the mother's ancestral line), then Burke Ramsey could be deceptively but nevertheless technically excluded as a male Ramsey contributor because technically he is a Paugh.

    JMO

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Got to give you 10/10 for trying Bluecrab.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    I will say that this does appear to be the Cellmark document that ST quotes from in his book. I think it is almost certainly authentic.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast