2010.09.28 Levi P. Show: JonBenet Case Heats up! Tricia from WS weighs in

[KoldKase]

the DNA may be a very important clue but i would be more swayed by just the DNA alone if it was either a seamen,blood or saliva sample than touch .
If i understand correctly the origanal samples had to be manipulated using modern technics to get a vaiable number of markers i would love to see an offical list of chain of evidence on the long johns.
if the DNA at the time had been taken and had a full profile i would believe that someone other than a ramsey was the main person involved but there are just to much unanswered problems with the DNA for it to be the be all and end all.

There is also a lot of questioning about the "touch" DNA techniques now used by labs like Bode because they're so sensitive, contamination is a huge problem. In a sub-molecular world, we simply aren't capable of tracking how particles get here and there beyond a reasonable doubt.

Last I heard, "touch" DNA wasn't even accepted at trial in this country yet because of the questions regarding collection, contamination, processing, and also interpretation of the lab results. Has that changed since Bode's big brouhaha? It's been a while....

 

[Dear Prudence]

There is also a lot of questioning about the "touch" DNA techniques now used by labs like Bode because they're so sensitive, contamination is a huge problem. In a sub-molecular world, we simply aren't capable of tracking how particles get here and there beyond a reasonable doubt.

Last I heard, "touch" DNA wasn't even accepted at trial in this country yet because of the questions regarding collection, contamination, processing, and also interpretation of the lab results. Has that changed since Bode's big brouhaha? It's been a while....

Earlier this year "touch" DNA and the LCN method of testing was deemed acceptable in a Frye hearing in New York State.

Here's an article about it: http://newyorkcriminallawyersblog.com/2010/02/ny-judges-first-to-allow-touch-dna.html

Here's the actual court opinion: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2010/2010_20037.htm

Here's a few excerpts from the opinion:

LCN testing allows for a DNA profile to be obtained from physical evidence extracted from skin cells left on an object when an individual merely touches the object or some physical item. The LCN DNA technique or method of DNA analysis sensitizes the standard HCN DNA analysis that has been used by forensic scientists and admissible in court for more than 20 years.

Here, the court finds that the People clearly demonstrated, through sufficient credible evidence presented at the Frye hearing, that LCN DNA testing as performed by the New York City OCME, is generally accepted as reliable in the forensic scientific community and meets the standard as enunciated in Frye.

Therefore, based upon all of the evidence presented to the court during the hearing, the court finds that the People have demonstrated by ample credible evidence that LCN DNA testing with its increased amplification cycles as performed by the New York City OCME clearly passes the standard enunciated in Frye and is therefore admissible at trial.

I highly recommend reading the whole opinion though, it's very interesting.

 

[DeeDee249]

Though I feel he is NOT involved in the crime, I'd like to see police question FW, too. While the threat of having his family destroyed if he accused the Rs may still hold, I am wondering if he CAN be sued for telling what he known to police. Just like the opinions of forensic experts were not challenged, I don't believe you can sue to prevent someone from telling police what you observed or know about a crime or the suspects.
Or maybe the RST has other ways to keep his mouth shut.

 

[CathyR]

Then why would Patsy lie about the size-12's saying she had put them into JonBenet's panty drawer when none were found there at all, or even in the whole house?



.

I thought the rest of the underwear was found in the basement along with some unwrapped packages. I'll have to go hunt the threads but I thought someone else posted they were in the basement.

 

[Ames]

What is so hard about opening a dryer door? They were in there for hours--you don't think they'd get curious about what was in the dryer?

LOL...no.

 

[Ames]

don't all kidnappers?! ::rolling eyes::

Yeah, really. I know that if I were a kidnapper/murderer....I would want to know what was in the dryer of the house that I had just broken into. Me...after breaking into a home, and murdering someone..."Gee...oh wow...there is a DRYER....I wonder what is in it. Let me just take a look...there may be CLOTHES in it!!"

 

[Ames]

No, just kidnappers looking for a blanket to conceal a small child. Duh.

Is this before or after the kidnapper sat down and with the child and fed them pineapple, so that they wouldn't "get hungry on their trip out of the country". (Yes, you actually posted that at one time...do you STILL believe that?? )

 

[DeeDee249]

I thought the rest of the underwear was found in the basement along with some unwrapped packages. I'll have to go hunt the threads but I thought someone else posted they were in the basement.

No. No Bloomies panties of any kind were found in the basement or anywhere else in the home. Those panties came in a set of 7 pairs, so there should have been 6 more brand-new Bloomies size 12 panties in the house. 5 YEARS later, the Rs claimed to have found the package, and gave them to their lawyer LW who gave them to ML.
This proves Patsy was lying when she said she put the set of size 12s (bought for her niece) in JB's panty drawer. The police removed all the panties from JB's panty drawer and there were no size 12s anywhere. The checked the basement, too.
Y'know, one of the things I would have done of I were LE was to actually LOOK inside the "partially wrapped" gift boxes in the wineceller to see if any of the gifts were intended for a girl who would wear those size 5 panties.

 

[Ames]

Unless they were looking for stuff. Like paintbrushes, pen, paper, clothes, blanket, and so on.

Yeah, all of those things that a real/serious kidnapper would have brought with him. You don't break into a home to kidnap a child intending to wrap her in a blanket, and sneak her to your car to take her out of the country....and NOT bring it with you.

 

[Ames]

They were there for hours and hours that day.

Really? What time did they get there?? And how long were they there before the Ramsey's arrived home???

 

[Ames]

its always nice how RDI chooses to characterize these events as if its all factually known, put it in some ridiculous context, and then blame IDI as if we came up with it. Thats just too funny.

You're making yourself sick with YOUR OWN characterization, not mine, based on what you think you know but really don't. This is true because your sources are hearsay: the tabloids and books written clearly before all the facts were in.

I'm told by several not over-the-edge RDI that the DNA "could" belong to an intruder. DNA is very important evidence in any crime, therefore the opinions you cling to so much are largely obsolete because they were formed before important evidence was known.

This coming from a poster who actually believes that an intruder belonging to a SFF, (actually from a foreign country), broke into the Ramsey home, intent on kidnapping JB, because they wanted to take her to their country, and keep her there until she reached marrying age. But they wanted a REAL blonde hair little girl...and when they took JB from her room they realized that (GASP!), blonde was not her natural color. So, they decided to just kill her. Or, have you changed your theory?

 

[Ames]

To KoldKase
I followed your underwear link to your experiment. I am relieved as I thought what is wrong with that child's legs they are so red and pimply looking. Who would post such a photo. After I went to your bloomies link I had to laugh at myself.

Thanks for my laugh of the day!!! Hilarous!!! :crazy:

 

[JMO8778]

I recall Hold said JB had the wrong color of eyes they wanted,too. o my.

 

[Ames]

I recall Hold said JB had the wrong color of eyes they wanted,too. o my.

Yep, he did. He said that the SFF wanted a TRUE blue eyed, blonde...and they killed her when they realized that her eyes were really green, and her hair wasn't really blonde...instead of kidnapping her to take to a foreign country...for her to reach marrying age. And he thinks that WE are nuts for being RDI!!!!

 

[BBB167893]

another scenario is utter and complete denial, the child is lying, making it all up.

I tend to lean toward that one, for now. Linda, have you read the first post of "Ask Super, Part 2?" Let me know, okay?

Perhaps that's why Patsy kept taking her to the pediatrician. If the doctor didn't say so, it was more conformation that it never happened. Maybe she discovered the truth and became enraged. or maybe not...just guessing.

That's what Wendy Murphy said as well. Often it's a subconscious plea for help.

 

[BBB167893]

There's absolutely no proof that the fibers in the garrotte were from Patsy's jacket. Her jacket was red and black--why would only red fibers be stuck in the garrotte? The only similarity is the fibers were red...that's it.

Oh, gods...do we have to go through that AGAIN??

(Take the tablets, Super.)

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

This coming from a poster who actually believes that an intruder belonging to a SFF, (actually from a foreign country), broke into the Ramsey home, intent on kidnapping JB, because they wanted to take her to their country, and keep her there until she reached marrying age. But they wanted a REAL blonde hair little girl...and when they took JB from her room they realized that (GASP!), blonde was not her natural color. So, they decided to just kill her. Or, have you changed your theory?

Maybe you're sore about how ST got treated for his absurd beliefs and are now taking it out on fellow posters by ridicule?

I fully understand now why some RDI in LE quit and are no longer involved in the investigation on a professional level. They were ridiculed out. Don't take my word for it, AH was fairly specific.

My theory hasn't changed much. All you need to do is read the paper to know that kidnapping and slavery aren't impossible. Its a better motive than RDI has because it incorporates all known evidence without being absurd or lofty. RDI is in no position to be lofty these days because its not getting any media support. Cooler heads have prevailed.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Really? What time did they get there?? And how long were they there before the Ramsey's arrived home???

Probably shortly after the R's left.

 

[RiverRat]

Though I feel he is NOT involved in the crime, I'd like to see police question FW, too. While the threat of having his family destroyed if he accused the Rs may still hold, I am wondering if he CAN be sued for telling what he known to police. Just like the opinions of forensic experts were not challenged, I don't believe you can sue to prevent someone from telling police what you observed or know about a crime or the suspects.
Or maybe the RST has other ways to keep his mouth shut.

Maybe?! That one word isn't necessary after witnessing the evil that has already assaulted the White's. They both stand by their prior statements, so I do not see them avoiding further questioning unless they feel that the Athorities they speak to are connected in any way to the former administration at the District Attorney's office after Hunter's shady actions gave them No Choice to speak out about the way they were treated while fully cooperating as opposed to The Ramseys VIP treatment...IMO. Talk Show or anything along those lines, I'd be very surprised - while enjoying it immensely!

 

[Tadpole12]

Google Image Results: Asian man holding pinapple


http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:265&biw=1148&bih=662