Jayelles said:
We don't know that it hasn't been tested any more than you know that it has! That is my point. It is an *advertiser censored*-u-mption to state that there was only foreign DNA in the bloodstain areas. What we DO know is that they hadn't tested the second bloodstain until 2/3 years after the murder :-
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html
Who's assuming guilt? I am interested only in facts.
I don't know where you are getting your figures from. I understand that there is a minimum requirement in law before they will assume a match. I also understand that requirement is for considerably more than 1/2 markers out of 13!
I see no reason to keep rehashing the shortfallings of the BPD. They have been off the case for 2 years now. The investigators have been successfuly silenced by TeamRamsey and only TR are talking (until Tom Bennett felt compelled to speak out this week to set the record straight).
I understand they did test unused panties and found traces of DNA.
actually, the 48 hours show claimed none had been found outside the blood. now, one could believe that bpd is still borderline retarded, but i think they probably did look - if only in a vain attempt to find patsy's dna on the underwear.
the issue of prior contamination was brought up - and it hasn't even been established to be possible. it shouldn't be repeated.
i'm on much safer ground saying "no dna was found outside the blood" than someone who says "a cough caused the contamination."
you see, there is no evidence to contradict what i've said and there is no supporting evidence to support the cough.
you guys just don't like the *evidence* being used against you ;-)
the ramseys can't silence the truth - just the admitted lies of bpd designed to pressure them and pollute the jury pool.
that stuff should be shut down - the system worked.
i think the underwear was tested in search to prove the cough theory and to find patsy's dna. i think nothing was found and that's one of the main reasons why the bda doesn't consider the ramseys good suspects.
i'm open to verifiable facts, but i don't think we'll get those until a trial.
i think you do understand what matching dna only in jbr's blood, under her nails and a few feet from her body would mean, if true.
a non ramsey was, in fact, involved in the crime and/or the cover up.
maybe that's why smits and the bda and about every rational person who looked at this case don't consider the ramseys serious suspects.