PARENTS KILLED AMBER ALERT ISSUED FOR 13-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER
---
POLICE NEED PUBLIC'S HELP IN FINDING MISSING AND PREGNANT KIERRA COLES

DNA solves Colorado girl's 1993 abduction/murder

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by freshwater, Sep 15, 2011.

  1. freshwater

    freshwater Member

    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    No, not THAT Colorado girl..........but this case proves that hope springs eternal, and advances in technology are solving cases like this every week.

    http://www.kold.com/story/15454202/colo-police-suspect-in-1993-girls-death-is-dead

     
  2. Roy23

    Roy23 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    :goodpost::goodpost:
     
  3. Junebug99

    Junebug99 New Member

    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's a matter of time until JBR's killer will be brought to justice, I cannot wait until that day, I even promise not to gloat;)
     
  4. Roy23

    Roy23 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I will not keep promises that I can't keep. But I agree they are gonna get him.
     
  5. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I hope so- I truly do. AND I hope I'm wrong. I would LOVE for it to NOT be a family member- to know that the last face JB saw as she died was not the face of someone she loved and trusted.
    But whichever of us is proved right, that is no time for gloating. How horrible to use the brutal death of a little girl as a means to enjoy proving other people wrong.
     
  6. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,357
    Likes Received:
    426
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Roy23,
    How do you know it is a him? One of the principle suspects is dead!

    .
     
  7. Roy23

    Roy23 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    DeeDee,

    When people smear a family that clearly has a murdered daughter and the facts are right under your nose you get what you get. In your case, I am more sympathetic. It ain't about being right. It is about human decency and understanding the media for what they are.

    We disagree and thats cool. They are looking for an intruder and they have told you already.
     
  8. Roy23

    Roy23 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Caucasion male DNA in Codis that you guys discount after the investigators have in so many words deemed pertinent to exclude a bunch of folks.
     
  9. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's cool with me, too. But I do not think of it as smearing a family- they are suspects as far as I am concerned. There is evidence that points to them, more so than to an intruder, IMO. The ONLY "evidence" that hints of an intruder is the DNA and that is "touch" DNA- aka skin cells. Too easily transferable to be definitely linked to the crime without a known donor. That isn't "facts under my nose" as far as I am concerned. I would hope, though I am doubtful, that the "new DA" (aka same old, same old) would be looking at EVERYONE, "cleared" or not, until the case is solved. I like to think they are looking not only for an intruder, but for whoever did this, regardless of where the evidence leads. In the past, there was a definite polarity in the investigation. The police and detectives believed the family was responsible or knew who was. The DA may have agreed, but political pressure and ties to the defense lawyers prevented them from doing so publicly. ML had her own agenda- clear Patsy Ramsey at all costs and without regard to the plausibility of her "suspect"- that fool JMK she tried to pin this on.
    Believe me, I know exactly how the media can be- they can spin the most horrendous crime into a fairy story.
    But in this case, the lurid details of the crime, spilled all over the tabloids, had less to do with WHO killed her and everything to do with selling papers.
     
  10. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,357
    Likes Received:
    426
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Roy23,
    I do not discount it. Its just I do not make the elementary mistake of assuming it must belong to JonBenet's killer!

    There will be foreign touch-dna, from other sources, to be found on JonBenet's person. Have all these been ruled out as being connected with her death?

    Until the touch-dna is matched and this person is not eliminated due to accidental transfer, the touch-dna is simply that touch-dna, just like leaves that fall from a tree are leaves, but to which tree do all belong, or were they blown to there location by the wind or trasferred by friction.

    The touch-dna is just touch-dna e.g. it is not semen or blood dna which is proof an intruder was at the crime-scene. The touch-dna just represents the possibility, out of thousands, that it might have originated from an intruder?

    But then there is no other similar touch-dna anywhere else at the crime-scene, but there is plenty Ramsey forensic evidence as yet unexplained. Did this assist in their exclusion as suspects, if so, why?



    .
     
  11. Roy23

    Roy23 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I think there is plenty of evidence of an intruder besides DNA. With that said, LE's handling of the crimescene I am sure they destroyed even more. And sometimes it is not what evidence you find at a crimescene but what you don't. Many things source with this murder are conveniently missing from the house. RDI just likes to add another conspiritor to answer this question but things are missing.
     
  12. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I've got some bad news for ya, Roy. When someone finds a little girl's murder as cause to gloat, they're not ALLOWED to lecture the rest of us on human decency.
     
  13. Roy23

    Roy23 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Think you might be being a little strong there Dave. And Gloat is very poor word choice. What's so ironic is you tried to rub my nose in a thread about poor Caylee Anthony. And, unfortunately, she is a dead little girl. So loosen up a little, Francis.
     
  14. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Firstly, the "Caucasian" angle was purely a construct of Team Ramsey spin artists. Not even the media reports it as being any specific ethnicity anymore.

    Secondly, if you'd done some research, you'd know that the DNA being in CODIS isn't quite what you make it out to be: it had to be rammed in because it didn't fit the criteria for admission.

    Thirdly, if you'd done MORE research, you'd know that we have good reason not to but into it. I shouldn't HAVE to tell you this, pilgrim, but that radio special we did wasn't for OUR benefit. It was for YOURS. Unfortunately, one the iron laws of this case is that those most in need of truth are least likely to benefit from it.

    Finally, (that darn research thing again), it's been established that the DNA was never used by itself to exclude anybody. That's another myth the Ramseys have stuck on us. "Oh, it's good enough to exclude other people, but not us." Bulls***!
     
  15. Roy23

    Roy23 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Trust me on one thing. I seriously doubt you have more truths than I do.
     
  16. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Such as? (I admit this is slightly rhetorical. I just want to see what nonsense your new friends have filled your head with.)

    IDI makes a big deal out of that. Much bigger than it really is, and that's not just my opinion. A lot of the police agreed.

    Well, number one, RDI doesn't "like" to "add conspirators." I've never been of the mind that there necessarily was another person who removed anything, since there were so many ways of disposing of these things you mention (provided there was any LEFT to dispose of. I'm not sure that there WAS). But just because I don't necessarily believe that Pam Paugh (I'm guessing that's who you mean) had a hand in it, I don't dismiss it out of hand, either. Neither should you. The fact that she was there at all when she should not have been opens the door for that line of thinking, but for me it's more than that. I've heard IDI express the idea that Pam would have refused any request to be a "mule" for them, but it just doesn't wash. You'd have us believe that she'd just throw (or leave) Patsy to the dogs. Well, I guess you don't have any siblings, because if you did, you'd know it doesn't WORK that way. You don't just turn your back on the person who came from the same womb as you did, especially after they'd already been through what Patsy had survived.

    Take me for example. My brother's hard to get along with and easy to worry about. But he's all I've got. If he committed TEN murders, I'd do my best to see he didn't hang for them.

    Is any of this making sense, or am I just talking to myself?
     
  17. Roy23

    Roy23 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38


    UGh, what friends? I think you are a little paranoid. I treat you with the respect just as you give me.
     
  18. Jaxson

    Jaxson Your barkin' up the wrong tree

    Messages:
    1,416
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shoot! is this another JBR thread? I thought it was about someone else...
     
  19. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Only a LITTLE? Guess I'll have to try harder!

    I'm hard-pressed to think of a better one for what you're planning to do. (And if I were in your position, I wouldn't hold my breath.)

    You got me all wrong, Roy.

    Number one, I wasn't trying to rub anybody's nose in anything over Caylee Anthony. "Rubbing their nose in it" implies that I WANTED Casey to be acquitted and was doing exactly what we're talking about: gloating. I certainly was not doing that. But you said it best: everyone should get what they deserve. And that's my mission in life, why I was put on this Earth: making sure they DO! And the way I saw it at the time was that the Florida jury had applied classic IDI logic and had provided a verdict commensurate with it. And in so doing, they validated my worst fears. I merely wished to see if there were any IDIs who were willing to express regret or take responsibility for whatever role they may have had in bringing such a travesty about. That's a far cry from gloating over it.

    Number two, as I look back on it, I'm man enough to admit that my anger was misdirected. It was wrong of me to try and blame you and the other forum IDIs for it. It wasn't YOU who came up with the arguments that set Casey Anthony free. That dubious "honor" goes to the Ramseys and their spinmeisters like Hal Haddon, Lou Smit and John Douglas (to name a few). They're the ones I hold responsible, not the regular people who believed and believe in them--in that regard, I'm no one to talk, because for a time even I was taken in by them.

    But I HARDLY see where I rubbed anybody's nose in anything over CA.

    Damn right! And as far as I'm concerned, my worst fears have been realized.

    Who the hell is Francis?
     
  20. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm pretty sure I do. You may think that to be arrogance, but let's not forget: I'm familiar with IDI "truths." And IDI "truths" are the "truths" of kooks pushing an agenda like Mary Lacy, cranks looking to make names for themselves like Lou Smit, and hired guns who will pull any dirty trick they need as long as their client stumps up the moolah like Hal Haddon, John Douglas, and a whole laundry list of others I can think of. That's not even including the "truths" of the prime suspects (that is to say when they can AGREE on one)!

    Whereas RDI truths are the truths of people who actually KNOW something about the case because they gave up so much of their lives for it. People who would walk through HELLFIRE to get justice and were subjected to threats, scare tactics, bully politics, and in at least one case, prosecuted for a crime he didn't commit so he couldn't testify against Patsy!

    I think the Chuck Green article cynic provided says it best. Yessirree, Bob!
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice