Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would have been happy to attempt to answer your question, but I was certainly not going to guess. Especially with a person who still thinks that more members of the Ramsey family was somehow involved in Jon Benet's death -- even though they have been formally exonerated.
That does not evidence much in the way of an IQ, nor can it in any way be considered to be maze bright.
On the other hand, I've recently posted five direct and super clear questions to you twice. And you've refused to answer.
I suspect that was because the answers may well have been embarrassed instead of entertained you.
So much for who is playing games.
You've just jerked me around for nearly 10 posts. I've lost count on the number.
How many times is it necessary to give explanation on the same, Wudge. Clearly, you don't read posts and here for argument.
Frankly, from this point, I don't care what your opinion. Is that clear enough for you, or do I need to explain again.
Now they have enough markers to amke a match. The DNA evidence is good.
So the DNA is good, perfect, but the police and everyone else who investigated this case messed it up entirely. How do we know the DNA is good? How do we KNOW the first autopsy wasn't processed correctly? There were questions raised regarding the stun gun, which the first coroner seemed to think was good evidence, but questions were raised later to make sure, and JonBenet's exhumation would have solved those questions. John Ramsey refused. I wonder if he would still refuse today? Doesn't he want to know the identity of the killer?
Several posts ago (the one I made just previous to this), I asked you to provide proof to back up one of your statements. That is exactly what I meant -- just a link, or source material with which to base/prove what you stated. Wudge took that question and turned it around to say (correctly) that out of all my posts, I haven't provided this kind of source material. I've stated many opinions. Opinions do not require backup because they are original and unique to the person who opines.
I now direct this statement to Wudge, who asked how I could prove that the Ramseys are guilty. I can't prove that, just like you can't prove they aren't.
I think we can all agree that we hope our searches, our questions, disagreements, and different theories will get "out there" and stir someone up, whether to confess, renew the investigation, nudge someones memory, ANYTHING to find this killer.
I'm not bloodthirsty for the Ramseys; I just tend to think there's more smoke, fire, and circumstantial evidence around and against them than anyone else.
But I don't really care WHO killed her; I just want that person or those people to be found -- dead or alive, some way, somehow -- as I would think ANY parent would, and would go to any lengths to find out.
I hope I've cleared up what I meant by backup information, i.e., proof.
At any rate, here is the quote from the link above:
Quote:
From the ABC program 20/20 transcript March 17, 2000:
BARBARA WALTERS: Why wasn't the body exhumed?
JOHN RAMSEY: (PAUSE) Don't know why the police didn't consider that. Uh, we were asked… when this theory first surfaced about a stun gun that if the body were exhumed… it could be proved conclusively but it had to be done fairly quickly. This was… within months of when we'd just buried JonBenet. And I, as her father, could not bring myself to do that. I had laid my child to rest. She was at peace. And that was, ah, that decision I couldn't make.
BARBARA WALTERS: Even though it might have cleared you?
JOHN RAMSEY: It wasn't… that was not the priority. The priority was my child was at rest.
From the 48 hours interview with Erin Moriarty. Oct. 4th 2002 CBS:
Erin Moriarty: “Wouldn’t that have been or the best way to know or coming the closest to knowing is if you could have exhumed the body and line up a stun gun and see it matches those injuries?”
Lou Smit: “Sure, I believe that would have been the most accurate way to do it.”
Erin Moriarty: ( Voice over) Lou Smit admits that in the months following JonBenet’s death, investigators considered going to court to have her body exhumed but decided against it.
John Ramsey: “We buried our child, she was in peace, that was just a horrid thought.”
Erin Moriarty: “But, John that might have been the one way to know for sure, that could have resolved the whole issue, because if a stun gun was used, then it was not the parents.”
John Ramsey: “Certainly, and we’ve got people who told us, who know what they are doing, that with 95 percent medical certainty that a stun gun was used. No question.
Erin Moriarty: “But you would have known with 100 percent, with certainty, if you had exhumed the body, as tough as that would have been”.
John Ramsey: “That’s my child you’re talking about, not a body, it’s different.”
You've just jerked me around for nearly 10 posts. I've lost count on the number.
How many times is it necessary to give explanation on the same, Wudge. Clearly, you don't read posts and here for argument.
Frankly, from this point, I don't care what your opinion. Is that clear enough for you, or do I need to explain again.
You're wrong, yet again. Not only do I read posts. I answer questions if I can.
Moreover, a good ways back in this thread, someone brought up the subject of the likelihood of attorneys coaching witnesses in reference to the possibility that they might tell a witness how they should answer a particular question.
I noted that there are all types of attorneys, such as they who defend mob figures and those who would not. And I noted too that attorneys are Officers of the court and are expected to meet and maintain certain ethical standards.
But there are things a good attorney can do to aid their client that would not be, in any way, questionable in that regard. And one thing that quality counsel will tell their client(s) is not to answer a question they do not understand, and that if they are in any way uncertain as to what was meant, they should never guess they think they know and then answer based on their guess, ever. Moreover, if they do not understand the context of the question, they should not guess then either. Guessing is simply not maze bright, and it doesn't take a maze bright client to understand that truth.
Further, questions are not hard to form, and It doesn't take a maze bright person to ask one either. And based on that truth, my recommendation is for you to quit jerking yourself around.
I've read this online also. Can someone address this? Why isn't more made of all this DNA evidence that supposedly belongs to other people? Is it true? Or is this just another book by yet another person who wants to frame the Ramseys or is it at all credible?
And how a coroner could use unsterilized equipment in an autopsy....just hard to comprehend.
Yes, (everyone) PLEASE re-read and look over what Kolar writes in this section of the book! I had only "heard" or "read somewhere" (don't have the links) that the autopsy was inexpertly performed, as in certain things were not noted or categorised completely, exactly, or correctly.
Here is the quoted material:
Quote:
Originally posted by Virgode: Kolar’s book confirmed the speculation that the profile from one of the blood spots that eventually ended up in CODIS originally had only 9 markers.
The male DNA sample, subsequently identified as Distal Stain 007-2, only contained 9 genetic markers, and like the DNA collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails, was of insufficient strength to be entered into the state and national databases. Moreover, the sample was so small that technicians were not able to identify the biological origin of the exemplar. Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 140
Eventually a 10th marker was identified which then met the minimum standard for entry into CODIS:
DNA replication technology was utilized in the Denver Police Department’s crime lab, and the 10th marker was eventually strengthened to the point that the unidentified male sample discovered in JonBenét’s underwear was able to be entered into the state and national databases. This laboratory success didn’t take place until 2002, nearly 6 years after the murder of JonBenét Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 140
I met with the man who had worked so diligently to enhance the DNA sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2. Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg Laberge met me for lunch in early December 2005 and advised me that the forensic DNA sample collected from the underwear was microscopic, totally invisible to the naked eye. So small was it in quantity, consisting of only approximately 1/2 nanogram of genetic material, equivalent to about 100 – 150 cells, that it took him quite a bit of work to identify the 10th marker that eventually permitted its entry into the CODIS database. Foreign Faction, Who Really
Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 303 - 304
The profiles found from the fingernail clippings of JonBenet were presumably not from the non-sterile nail clippers that the coroner was in the habit of using. (However, to the best of my knowledge, clippers are not used in medical autopsies, only in autopsies performed for legal reasons. I don’t know the reasons for those eight prior autopsies. Therefore, as an example, if the last time the clippers were actually used was 10 autopsies ago it would have missed by this screening process.) Investigators were able to obtain the DNA samples from eight (8) of the autopsy examinations that preceded that of JonBenét. These samples were analyzed, but none of these matched the unknown male and female samples collected from JonBenét’s fingernails. Perhaps more disappointing, was the fact that the unknown samples lacked sufficient identifying markers that permitted their entry into the state and national DNA databases. Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 137 - 138
Amylase or something else? Laberge indicated that the sample had flashed the color of blue during CBI’s initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva, and it had been theorized by other investigators in the case that someone involved in the production phase of this clothing article could have been the source of this unknown DNA sample. It was thought that this could have been deposited there by coughing, sneezing, or spitting or through a simple transfer of saliva on the hands of a garment handler. Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 137 - 138
The only test that “flashes blue,” in the presence of amylase is the Phadebas test. Take note of some of the things which can produce a false positive:
What is the Phadebas Press Test? How specific is it and what can cause a false positive result?
The Phadebas Press Test uses a filterpaper “test sheet” impregnated with an insoluble starch-dye complex. The test sheets are moistened with sterile water and then laid on an article of evidence. Saliva present on the item being examined will contain α-amylase that will hydrolyze the starch in the overlying area of the test sheet. This process releases a blue dye to form a blue stain that co-localizes with the position of the saliva stain. Areas of the evidence that do not contain α-amylase should not show the presence of a blue stain. Phadebas Press Test provides only a presumptive indication of saliva and is not human specific. This test is known to yield false positive results with fecal samples and some investigators have reported positive results with vaginal swabs, human milk, some plant materials and the saliva of animals including dogs and cats. Positive results have also been reported as very likely resulting from secondary transfer of saliva (e.g., from the hands to an article of clothing). ForSci Associates, LLC.
Pro and con for the “sweatshop” theory
Pro: The male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples of the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear. It was observed that these were areas of the clothing that would have been handled more strenuously during the production phase of the clothing article. Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 304
Con: Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in ‘off-the-shelf’ children’s underwear [SNIP] He indicated that DNA samples had been located on the articles of new clothing, but that they had been approximately 1/10 the strength of the unknown sample found in JonBenét’s underwear. Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 304 - 305
Conclusions (from the book.)
Laberge indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpetrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion. Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 305
The same theoretical principles of transfer thought to be involved in the DNA collected from beneath JonBenét’s nails could be applied to the transfer of genetic material from her underwear to the leggings. “Cloth to cloth” transfer could be responsible for this new evidence. Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 427
I believed, as did many of the other investigators working the case, that that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét. The presence of this DNA is a question that remains to be resolved, but it continues to be my opinion that this single piece of DNA evidence has to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that has been collected over the course of the investigation. Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 305
originally posted by cynic, special thanks.
Last edited by Tobiashen; 06-24-2015 at 01:43 PM..
So the DNA is good, perfect, but the police and everyone else who investigated this case messed it up entirely. How do we know the DNA is good? How do we KNOW the first autopsy wasn't processed correctly? There were questions raised regarding the stun gun, which the first coroner seemed to think was good evidence, but questions were raised later to make sure, and JonBenet's exhumation would have solved those questions. John Ramsey refused. I wonder if he would still refuse today? Doesn't he want to know the identity of the killer?
Several posts ago (the one I made just previous to this), I asked you to provide proof to back up one of your statements. That is exactly what I meant -- just a link, or source material with which to base/prove what you stated. Wudge took that question and turned it around to say (correctly) that out of all my posts, I haven't provided this kind of source material. I've stated many opinions. Opinions do not require backup because they are original and unique to the person who opines.
I now direct this statement to Wudge, who asked how I could prove that the Ramseys are guilty. I can't prove that, just like you can't prove they aren't.
I think we can all agree that we hope our searches, our questions, disagreements, and different theories will get "out there" and stir someone up, whether to confess, renew the investigation, nudge someones memory, ANYTHING to find this killer.
I'm not bloodthirsty for the Ramseys; I just tend to think there's more smoke, fire, and circumstantial evidence around and against them than anyone else.
But I don't really care WHO killed her; I just want that person or those people to be found -- dead or alive, some way, somehow -- as I would think ANY parent would, and would go to any lengths to find out.
I hope I've cleared up what I meant by backup information, i.e., proof.
At any rate, here is the quote from the link above:
Several posts ago (the one I made just previous to this), I asked you to provide proof to back up one of your statements. That is exactly what I meant -- just a link, or source material with which to base/prove what you stated. Wudge took that question and turned it around to say (correctly) that out of all my posts, I haven't provided this kind of source material. I've stated many opinions. Opinions do not require backup because they are original and unique to the person who opines.
I now direct this statement to Wudge, who asked how I could prove that the Ramseys are guilty. I can't prove that, just like you can't prove they aren't.
I think we can all agree that we hope our searches, our questions, disagreements, and different theories will get "out there" and stir someone up, whether to confess, renew the investigation, nudge someones memory, ANYTHING to find this killer.
SNIP
Under our system of jurisprudence, defendants are presumed innocent -- a long recognized and well understood Constitutional prejudice in their favor -- so defendants need prove absolutely nothing. The entire burden of proof rests with the prosecution, state or Federal. and in this case it's the state. However, the state prosecutor who has the jurisdiction in this case exonerated the Ramsey's in 2008 based on the absolute best evidence.
But you're correct, you can't prove that the Ramsey's did it via any highly reliable inculpatory case evidence that could come clear to hurdling our proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Nor can anyone else do that either. Because the evidence does not exist. But what does exist is evidence that exonerates them, and that evidence has already been used to do so.
What you and other "Ramseys did it" groupies have done is to deny the Ramsey's the legal prejudice that our system was set up to afford them. Even worse, after they were formally exonerated, you and other continued with your "Ramseys did it" charade.
I won't guess as to your particular motive for doing so. But I think all of the "Ramseys did it" groupie (Jamison prefers the term BORG, and it does fit well) charade nonsense is incredibly self serving and truly pathetic.
Yes, (everyone) PLEASE re-read and look over what Kolar writes in this section of the book! I had only "heard" or "read somewhere" (don't have the links) that the autopsy was inexpertly performed, as in certain things were not noted or categorised completely, exactly, or correctly.
Mentions made earlier by posters; I know both reading Schiller's book at the time, however, don't believe Schiller where the source. CA4Now familiar as well and would have affirmed it true.
This states Bonita Files not entirely truthful, other sources say about 99% truthful.
The "Bonita Papers" are the unedited "notes" of Bonita Sauer,
secretary/para-legal to Dan Hoffman who was an attorney working for the Boulder Police department.
The Boulder police gave a presentation to Hoffman and hoped he would support them in their quest for an arrest of Patsy Ramsey. Their presentation was, apparently, incomplete and not entirely truthful. Bonita "borrowed" the Ramsey files from her employer and made copies, intending to write a book from those notes. She showed them to family, and a nephew, following the example of his aunt, made a copy himself and sold them to the tabloids.
Bonita Files reports John Ramsey leaving the home for an hour and 20 minutes.
Soon the only police official remaining was Detective Arndt, along with John and Patsy and the family friends. T hen even John left to pick up the family's mail, and was gone approximately an hour and 20 minutes. When John returned Detective Arndt noted that he sat in the kitchen and opened the mail. John still remained in a room by himself not making contact with Patsy or any of the friends who stayed to console the family.
A total of eight detectives and two victims advocates during the course of the day, prior to discovery of JB
Det. Linda Arndt, a member of the Sexual Assault and Crimes
Against Children team of the Boulder police department, was
called at home, informed of the reported kidnapping
Det. Fred Patterson who would accompany her to the scene of the
crime. Arndt and Patterson stopped briefly at a local mall
parking lot to meet with Reichenbach, who had just left the
residence, to be briefed on the situation at the Ramsey house. Reichenbach told the two detectives that French, the first
officer on scene, said that "something didn't seem right".
Det. Robert Whitson arrived at the Ramsey residence at approximately 9:30 a.m. to inform John that the FBI had been notified and were assisting in the investigation.
Detective Jeff Kithcart. As Kithcart examined the notepad, he discovered among the pages a sheet of paper with the beginning of a note in a similar ink and handwriting style as the ransom note. This page,
Also already on the scene were Boulder Crime Scene investigators Barry Weiss and Sue Barcklow. Weiss was photographing the interior and exterior of the residence, and Barcklow was attempting to obtain latent finger prints.
Two victim advocates, dispatched from the Boulder police department, were with the Ramseys, trying to give comfort to the victimized
parents.
This obviously incorrect, is it the 1% As the vehicles proceeded on the drive to the Fernie residence, John related the morning’s events to his son, and stated that he had found JonBenet’s body around 11:00 a.m. that day.
So the DNA is good, perfect, but the police and everyone else who investigated this case messed it up entirely. How do we know the DNA is good? How do we KNOW the first autopsy wasn't processed correctly? There were questions raised regarding the stun gun, which the first coroner seemed to think was good evidence, but questions were raised later to make sure, and JonBenet's exhumation would have solved those questions. John Ramsey refused. I wonder if he would still refuse today? Doesn't he want to know the identity of the killer?
Exhuming her body would not have revealed the identity of the killer. It would have helped identify the marks on her body as stun gun marks. I can't imagine a parent of a murdered child wanting to exhume his or her child's body for a reason like this.
Also, JR's comments, when the media are telling him that exhumation may clear him, seem once again to point to his innocence--to me, anyway. Why would he want to exhume his child's body to prove something that he already knew? He wasn't the killer and neither was PR.
This states Bonita Files not entirely truthful, other sources say about 99% truthful.
Those are the files that Jameson said aren't truthful at all.
Quote:
Bonita Files reports John Ramsey leaving the home for an hour and 20 minutes.
He never left the home until ordered to by the Boulder PD after his child's body was found. Several posts on this thread about this, if it's in reference to arranging to pick up the ransom money.
Quote:
John left to pick up the family's mail, and was gone approximately an hour and 20 minutes. When John returned Detective Arndt noted that he sat in the kitchen and opened the mail.
He never went out to pick up the mail. As he said in his book, they had a mail slot through the front door, so there would be nowhere outside to go to pick it up. The mail was on the floor. He said that he thought possibly the kidnapper may have put some communication there, so he went through it.
Quote:
Det. Fred Patterson who would accompany her to the scene of the crime. Arndt and Patterson stopped briefly at a local mall...
Arndt left the house? I thought she said she was there all day until after 2 pm....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
to add attribution/quoted material for review
