It also matches the DNA on the longjohns, something known to be handled by her parents. If they got those skin cells on their own hands and it transferred to the longjohns, it could have gotten on the panty crotch when they put them on her.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why would the Ramseys need to stage?
- Thread starter BBB167893
- Start date
It also matches the DNA on the longjohns, something known to be handled by her parents. If they got those skin cells on their own hands and it transferred to the longjohns, it could have gotten on the panty crotch when they put them on her.
Plenty to satisfy a judge and a jury.
Then why didn't that happen? Because it wouldn't have been enough- without the donor being identified.
This Touch DNA is "new" isn't it? Not that the evidence is new, but the discovery of it is recent. I say lets convene another Grand Jury and put it all out there again. Patsy isn't here, but there are other family member around who could be called as well as plenty of others.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
Plenty to satisfy a judge and a jury.
You can argue the value of the DNA till you're blue in the face, but a jury would see it in black and white.
Then why didn't that happen? Because it wouldn't have been enough- without the donor being identified.
This Touch DNA is "new" isn't it? Not that the evidence is new, but the discovery of it is recent. I say lets convene another Grand Jury and put it all out there again. Patsy isn't here, but there are other family member around who could be called as well as plenty of others.
The R's were not involved, so they exonerated them.
The R's were not involved, so they exonerated them.
According to LE, not exactly. Not returning an indictment isn't the same as an exoneration. It could be because the evidence was deemed insufficient or (some think) the person that would have to be indicted was under age for Colorado's prosecution (or the perp committed the crime in association with an underage person).
Too bad the GJ info is sealed. It should really be a law that when an indictment is not returned, the public should know why, because it doesn't always mean they were innocent.
According to LE, not exactly. Not returning an indictment isn't the same as an exoneration. It could be because the evidence was deemed insufficient or (some think) the person that would have to be indicted was under age for Colorado's prosecution (or the perp committed the crime in association with an underage person).
Too bad the GJ info is sealed. It should really be a law that when an indictment is not returned, the public should know why, because it doesn't always mean they were innocent.
Wrong word I guess. But, they got a letter of apology and they are no longer suspects. John set up a website for taking clues.
One could devise countless theories based on the same types of "evidence" and arrive at a multitude of different outcomes.
You don't say! (Said the man who's been here four years!)
It punishes further a tortured soul and his loved ones.
Fang, are you a religious man?
It is grandiose speculation without substance.
Ah-ah! If not for what Kane said, I wouldn't have gone down that path to begin with.
Then how were they capable of doing all the other horrible things only to cover up an accident.
Because at that point, it was just a body to them. Blood made it too "real." Or haven't you noticed that the cord was applied from behind so the killer didn't have to look at her face? That one leaped out at me from Day One. I wish I'd listened earlier.
I still wonder about the "semen,no semen" issue.Wasn't Meyer able to tell the difference between smeared blood and semen,hard to believe.Maybe someone told him to leave that out of the report.And I am not talking about the blood in her vagina(which they first thought was semen) but about the findings on her thigh(where she was cleaned)
I know what you mean. If memory serves, Meyer did know the difference and it was someone else who said "semen" prematurely.
Bias perhaps? I mean, we know there was at least one investigator who was biased.
You got THAT right! And I devoted an entire chapter to him!
Joni was dead. Unknown male DNA found on her clothing where it did not belong. Proof.
Not even close until there's an identified donor.
And let's be fair. Based on the volume of speculation which often evolved into some contorted form of unconfirmed truth, they were convicted of this murder hundreds of thousands of times in books, tabloid garbage, mainline media, television, broadcast and transmitted, magazines, internet, etc.
And the worst is yet to come.
You can argue the value of the DNA till you're blue in the face, but a jury would see it in black and white.
Yes, they probably would. And that's bad, because it isn't. DNA is only part of establishing a nexus.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
It also matches the DNA on the longjohns, something known to be handled by her parents. If they got those skin cells on their own hands and it transferred to the longjohns, it could have gotten on the panty crotch when they put them on her.
That is the most awesome circular reasoning I've ever seen in my life. I am beside myself.
How on Earth can anyone make additional unknown male DNA work to further incriminate the R's; you know they handled the longjohns and you know the same unknown male was found there, so they could have transferred it to the panty crotch. Maybe you should write a book too?
But we know the longjohns were handled by a criminal as well.
But, they got a letter of apology and they are no longer suspects.
According to Mary Lacy. That tells me pretty much all I need to know.
I'd like to thank everyone who voted so far, just so we can FOCUS on what this thread is about.
There you go. Like you stay on topic!
Perfect, According to Lacy. that is funny. When someone has a good point, you take a cheap shot like that.
The legal system sucks.
Their lawyers were crooks.
The DA was a bum.
The cops were idiots.
their friends knew the truth.
the neighbors were blind.
The family wanted their inheritance.
The news media were swell.
ST was a genius.
On and on and on.
Someone disagrees with you and you might lose it.
Your pain?
According to Mary Lacy. That tells me pretty much all I need to know.
Me, too.
SuperDave;5312290]Not even close until there's an identified donor.
Tell that to the authorities.
And the worst is yet to come.
The worst happened long ago.
There you go. Like you stay on topic!
Perfect, According to Lacy. that is funny. When someone has a good point, you take a cheap shot like that.
Cheap shot, my butt.
Tell that to the authorities.
They could use an education, given what I've seen.
The worst happened long ago.
I wonder. Are you a religious man?
They could use an education, given what I've seen.
I wonder. Are you a religious man?
Are you?
The pain. The pain.
DNASolves
Online statistics
- Members online
- 199
- Guests online
- 4,494
- Total visitors
- 4,693
Totals may include hidden visitors.