The DNA...

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
That's a very broad and unfair statement Aussie. I know of only a few who just dismiss the DNA in total; actually only one poster that I can see dismisses it totally.
Most RDI posters as well as most posters in total would love nothing more than to see it matched and to see the full report.
What we dismiss is it's importance at the MOMENT without the full report. It becomes a red herring when you only have a partial report as well as something to make the Ramseys look totally innocent. Why not release all of the report?
I am of the belief that there is also other DNA there
What will you think if the full report is released and there is other DNA present that can be matched to either the Ramseys or others who have been cleared?
You will likely say it was transfer. If not, what will you think?

I don’t think I accused RDI’s of dismissing just the DNA evidence. I actually listed a whole lot of other evidence that RDIs don’t have good explanations for.

I’ll list them again
the 3 pairs of marks on JonBenet's body - unusual in that the marks in each pair were all 1.5 inches apart, the out of place suitcase under the basement window, the broken glass on the out of place suitcase, the scuff mark on the wall below the basement window, the unsourced animal hairs on her hands, the pineapple in her intestinal tract, unsourced brown paper sack in guest bedroom, unsourced brown cotton fibres on the paintbrush handle, the ligature and the duct tape, unsourced dark fibres on her top and in her crotch area

I honestly don’t think I have ever seen one single good RDI explanation for any one of these items of evidence. For example - the RDI explanation for the strange marks on JonBenet’s body is that they were made by clothing clips or something. What I would like to know is how they came to be in made in pairs with identical spacings between them if that was the case. It is clearly a ridiculous explanation but you all just seem to accept this explanation even so.

WRT the DNA, I know you have mentioned before about wanting a full report (or maybe it was L_E) but i don't see how that would change anything. Foreign DNA was identified mixed in with her vaginal blood. What sort of full report do you want that could possibly give this evidence more significance? Put this another way - what could possibly be said in any sort of full report that could show that this DNA got there by innocent means?

Quite likely there will be Ramsey DNA on her clothing. That could easily be explained away. Maybe you think they will find Patsy's DNA on the ligatures. Don't you think they wouldn't have tried to find this? And do you really believe we wouldn't know about it if we had?

I'm not sure that I completely understand your post so i probably haven't answered it properly but i tried

aussiesheila wrote:

<quoted text>I don’t think I accused RDI’s of dismissing just the DNA evidence. I actually listed a whole lot of other evidence that RDIs don’t have good explanations for.

Your first mistake is that RDIs and IDIs don't HAVE to have good explanations for everything you question. We are not the investigators and our explanations are for speculation and discussion. However, that said, you still have to use the FACTS of the case to discuss it intelligently and making stuff up is not a good tool for discussion. There are still many unexplained things in this case that we may never know the truth about and that is a FACT sadly

I've already explained what I feel about the DNA and its dismissal. Nobody, save for a few, dismiss it entirely and the differences lie with its importance and relevance to the crime without knowing all the details of the report and other tests
As for the marks, I've explained countless times for those who have never taken a logic course, that just because you don't know what made those marks, doesn't automatically mean it must be a stun gun. The manufacturer and the tests show that they don't line up to the Air Taser and the only explanation from the IDI is that Air Taser doesn't want their product connected to the crime, which is pure nonsense. It is touted as the explanation Air Taser made that statement and with all due respect, anyone who believes Air Taser is lying is naive at best. If that wasn't true, so many people would have gone public to say it wasn't true

Logic 101 does not dictate that if not A then it MUST be B. The simple answer is that nobody knows what made those marks unless the police do and they aren't telling. That's the simple answer. There will never be an answer for everything and since nobody knows who did this, how and what things were around, we may never know. Just because there is no answer doesn't mean that you must fit one in to suit your theory.....and it was not a stun gun according to the medical experts who saw the abrasions and according to the pig experiments, the manufacturer, etc.

If you stop and think; only ONE person said it could be a stun gun and that was Dr. Doberson (we've been down this road several times already). He is the ONLY person willing to state that it could be a stun gun and has made the disclaimer that he can't be positive judging from a photo. He would not be able to testify about this with any confidence in a court of law. He is the ONLY one, other than posters on the internet and Smit who ever threw that red herring out there. It didn't fit then and it doesn't fit now
It was just one of the many things Smit threw out to see what would stick. Propaganda, is all this is and there is plenty of it in this case

As for the rest, the suitcase, glass and everything else has been done to death

aussiesheila wrote:

<quoted text>I donÂ’t think I accused RDIÂ’s of dismissing just the DNA evidence. I actually listed a whole lot of other evidence that RDIs donÂ’t have good explanations for.

IÂ’ll list them again
the 3 pairs of marks on JonBenet's body - unusual in that the marks in each pair were all 1.5 inches apart, the out of place suitcase under the basement window, the broken glass on the out of place suitcase, the scuff mark on the wall below the basement window, the unsourced animal hairs on her hands, the pineapple in her intestinal tract, unsourced brown paper sack in guest bedroom, unsourced brown cotton fibres on the paintbrush handle, the ligature and the duct tape, unsourced dark fibres on her top and in her crotch area

I honestly donÂ’t think I have ever seen one single good RDI explanation for any one of these items of evidence. For example - the RDI explanation for the strange marks on JonBenetÂ’s body is that they were made by clothing clips or something. What I would like to know is how they came to be in made in pairs with identical spacings between them if that was the case. It is clearly a ridiculous explanation but you all just seem to accept this explanation even so.

WRT the DNA, I know you have mentioned before about wanting a full report (or maybe it was L_E) but i don't see how that would change anything. Foreign DNA was identified mixed in with her vaginal blood. What sort of full report do you want that could possibly give this evidence more significance? Put this another way - what could possibly be said in any sort of full report that could show that this DNA got there by innocent means?

Quite likely there will be Ramsey DNA on her clothing. That could easily be explained away. Maybe you think they will find Patsy's DNA on the ligatures. Don't you think they wouldn't have tried to find this? And do you really believe we wouldn't know about it if we had?

My thoughts exactly... LE did all that they could to tie the Ramseys to the murder of their daughter. The evidence didn't fit the theory.

RDIs here can choose to ignore all the evidence presented and mistakenly refer to it as "logic", when in fact it's the antithesis. Pure ignorance.

Fortunately, LE is held to a much higher standard and is also forced to surmise a logical explanation for any evidence that deviates substantially from their theory.

deb wrote:

<quoted text>
rofl - I copied Cappy's reply to mama - those were Cappy's words, not mine. I agree - CAPPY never sources much of anything.

Maybe so but if the shoe fits.....(and it does.)
You are absolutely famous for stating things as facts and failing to provide a source.
Look at that! You did it again with the "womans softball bat" claim.
Nice diversionary tactic, by the way. ;)

The Truth Hurts wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe so but if the shoe fits.....(and it does.)
You are absolutely famous for stating things as facts and failing to provide a source.
Look at that! You did it again with the "womans softball bat" claim.
Nice diversionary tactic, by the way. ;)

A picture is worth a thousand words - do your home work and look at the picture of the bat, then google softball bats vs baseball bats.

And after that, remember that Patsy was on the women's softball team

Why do you keep leaving that out?

Capricorn wrote:

And after that, remember that Patsy was on the women's softball team
Why do you keep leaving that out?

No one is leaving anything out; most r aware she was on a softball team. The topic was to clarify baseball vs softtball bat.

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
Your first mistake is that RDIs and IDIs don't HAVE to have good explanations for everything you question. We are not the investigators and our explanations are for speculation and discussion. However, that said, you still have to use the FACTS of the case to discuss it intelligently and making stuff up is not a good tool for discussion. There are still many unexplained things in this case that we may never know the truth about and that is a FACT sadly
I've already explained what I feel about the DNA and its dismissal. Nobody, save for a few, dismiss it entirely and the differences lie with its importance and relevance to the crime without knowing all the details of the report and other tests
As for the marks, I've explained countless times for those who have never taken a logic course, that just because you don't know what made those marks, doesn't automatically mean it must be a stun gun. The manufacturer and the tests show that they don't line up to the Air Taser and the only explanation from the IDI is that Air Taser doesn't want their product connected to the crime, which is pure nonsense. It is touted as the explanation Air Taser made that statement and with all due respect, anyone who believes Air Taser is lying is naive at best. If that wasn't true, so many people would have gone public to say it wasn't true
Logic 101 does not dictate that if not A then it MUST be B. The simple answer is that nobody knows what made those marks unless the police do and they aren't telling. That's the simple answer. There will never be an answer for everything and since nobody knows who did this, how and what things were around, we may never know. Just because there is no answer doesn't mean that you must fit one in to suit your theory.....and it was not a stun gun according to the medical experts who saw the abrasions and according to the pig experiments, the manufacturer, etc.
If you stop and think; only ONE person said it could be a stun gun and that was Dr. Doberson (we've been down this road several times already). He is the ONLY person willing to state that it could be a stun gun and has made the disclaimer that he can't be positive judging from a photo. He would not be able to testify about this with any confidence in a court of law. He is the ONLY one, other than posters on the internet and Smit who ever threw that red herring out there. It didn't fit then and it doesn't fit now
It was just one of the many things Smit threw out to see what would stick. Propaganda, is all this is and there is plenty of it in this case
As for the rest, the suitcase, glass and everything else has been done to death

I agree with you Capricorn.
The marks, according to Air Taser EXPERTS say it isn't from a stun gun. Not only it doesn't fit, but it doesn't even look like stun gun marks, and they have seen MANY stun gun marks.

Also, I don't recall anything that said the blood mixture was vaginal blood, but at least she concedes that if vaginal blood, and a male DNA, it had to be a DNA mixture unless you can find a female with male DNA, or a male with a vagina.
CC

deb wrote:

<quoted text>
A picture is worth a thousand words - do your home work and look at the picture of the bat, then google softball bats vs baseball bats.

I asked you where I might find a picture of THE bat and you did not answer. Instead, you were a smart ass, as usual.

BTW, I know there is a difference between softball bats and regular baseball bats. Your claim is that the bat in question is a WOMANS softball bat. I asked you for a source for that and again, got none.

You know I pretty much always provide sources when asked. It would only be fair if you would do the same.

deb wrote:

<quoted text>
No one is leaving anything out; most r aware she was on a softball team. The topic was to clarify baseball vs softtball bat.

No. You claimed it was a WOMANS softball bat. Did you forget?

The Truth Hurts wrote:

<quoted text>
I asked you where I might find a picture of THE bat and you did not answer. Instead, you were a smart ass, as usual.
BTW, I know there is a difference between softball bats and regular baseball bats. Your claim is that the bat in question is a WOMANS softball bat. I asked you for a source for that and again, got none.
You know I pretty much always provide sources when asked. It would only be fair if you would do the same.

This rumor about a woman's softball bat at the crime scene has been around for years. Like everybody else on this forum, I have never seen the case notes, or the forensic reports, about the matter.

There used to be a sort of women's club, or team of softball bat players, which included Priscilla White and Patsy. There is a photo of the team still on the internet somewhere, which I think was taken by Judith Phillips.

This is an opinion, or perhaps wild speculation, about a softball bat, from the internet in 2003. I suppose it's not a source:

"I'm much more inclined to think the 'baseball bat' was the murder weapon. I put it in quotes because it looks like a softball bat to me; it's fatter than a baseball bat.
We know a few of Patsy's friends played in the Moms Gone Bad softball league. Any chance that the bat found outside belonged to someone on the team?

I assume the BPD looked into the whereabouts of Patsy's bat, if she owned one, and since the Ramsey's have said they don't recognize it and the BPD has never sourced it to the Ramseys...maybe it belonged to one of the Moms Gone Bad."

M Michigan wrote:

<quoted text>
It was a small child bat at 28 inches long thanks

It appears larger to me - how can you determine length from the picture?

deb wrote:

<quoted text>
It appears larger to me - how can you determine length from the picture?

Ok - I see - facing bricks and average bricks are 8.5 inches long, so 28 inches would be close. I was wrong about it being a women's, it is a childs per the buyers guideline.

I would guess only Burke would know if it was his or a friend of his bat. It would be interesting to find out.

Although, if you buy by weight/ht of the person, which they state is a better way of determining which to buy,& if one could determine it was 30 inches, it could be a women's bat.

http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/info/index....

I think it is closer to 30" - 3 1/2 bricks = 29.75"

Henri McPhee wrote:

<quoted text>
This rumor about a woman's softball bat at the crime scene has been around for years. Like everybody else on this forum, I have never seen the case notes, or the forensic reports, about the matter.
There used to be a sort of women's club, or team of softball bat players, which included Priscilla White and Patsy. There is a photo of the team still on the internet somewhere, which I think was taken by Judith Phillips.
This is an opinion, or perhaps wild speculation, about a softball bat, from the internet in 2003. I suppose it's not a source:
"I'm much more inclined to think the 'baseball bat' was the murder weapon. I put it in quotes because it looks like a softball bat to me; it's fatter than a baseball bat.
We know a few of Patsy's friends played in the Moms Gone Bad softball league. Any chance that the bat found outside belonged to someone on the team?
I assume the BPD looked into the whereabouts of Patsy's bat, if she owned one, and since the Ramsey's have said they don't recognize it and the BPD has never sourced it to the Ramseys...maybe it belonged to one of the Moms Gone Bad."

I always wondered about "Cookie" - did she have an affair with John? Why did Burke not want her to come near him at the
Stines?(iirc) Why would she name a book "Scream Baby Scream" after what happened? She certainly is an odd one.

deb wrote:

<quoted text>
I always wondered about "Cookie" - did she have an affair with John? Why did Burke not want her to come near him at the
Stines?(iirc) Why would she name a book "Scream Baby Scream" after what happened? She certainly is an odd one.

I am talking off the top of my head here again about Judith Phillips. I have picked up endless information, and gossip, about Judith Phillips, and her now husband the shady lawyer Tom Miller, over the years. I don't really want to bore readers with it all now. As deb says Judith posts from time to time on the anti-Ramsey Forums for Justice as Cookie.

I don't think there is any hard evidence that Judith had an affair with John, though I suppose it's possible. It looks like John Ramsey and Judith's then husband, who I think was called something like Mel, were friends in Atlanta prior to the Ramsey move to Boulder. By coincidence, Judith and her then husband followed the Ramseys to Boulder.

There is a mention in the transcripts of the Ramsey family and Judith, and her then husband, spending a holiday together in California prior to the murder.

Judith has a good alibi in that she was out of state with her parents that Christmas in Chicago.

Judith was mixed up in that Stephen Miles libel case in 1998 in that she was the one who accused Stephen Miles, to my mind mainly for money, from the media.

I never liked the way Judith, like Santa Bill, supported Fleet White. Judith supported her husband Tom Miller in writing an anti-Ramsey book which was published in Japanese, but not in Emglish.

Judith seems to be a talented photographer. I must admit her photos seem a bit odd and strange to me but that could just be my artistic taste.

This is an opinion about all this from the internet a few years ago:

"So Susan Bennett is trying to breathe life back into her dead forum by dredging up a post Cookie made back in 2002. Susan calls Cookie (Judith) a liar and makes a very nasty insinuation at the end.

We must ask ourselves, why now?

The answer is because HoraceMills/HenriettaMcPhee over at Topix has now included Judith and her husband, Tom, in his slanderous posts about a non-existant pedophile party in Boulder. Susan is jumping on the bandwagon and posting her OWN libelous insinuation hoping to get some of the Topix discussion to migrate to her dead forum and make her look relevant.

And why should we believe Susan Bennett's version of events over Judith Phillips' version? Jayelles and other posters have documented Susan Bennett's misrepresentations of the truth. Furthermore, Susan Bennett hints she got most of her information (about the event Judith mentions) from Susan Stine. Susan Stine is a known and proven liar. She lied about being Boulder Chief of Police, Mark Beckner, to everyone she sent e-mails in his name.

It looks like Cookie had better watch her back. The Ramsey Spin Team is sharpening their knives and looking for their next victim."

There are a couple of crime scene photos of Ramsey case baseball bats at this website for anybody who is finding this matter confusing:

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-evidence...

It's not exactly a model of clarity, and it would need to be enlarged and examined with a magnifying glass.

deb wrote:

I think it is closer to 30" - 3 1/2 bricks = 29.75"

The photo doesn't depict the bat aligned with the wall (more like a hypotenuse), but we could figure out the exact length pretty easily if we knew the absolute length of the bricks. I visually estimate that the length is about 4 bricks. 4*8=32, so I think it's an adult bat. The length of the barrel makes me think it could be a softball bat too.

Henri McPhee wrote:

There are a couple of crime scene photos of Ramsey case baseball bats at this website for anybody who is finding this matter confusing:
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-evidence...
It's not exactly a model of clarity, and it would need to be enlarged and examined with a magnifying glass.

Thanks, Henri! Why did JP move to Boulder? Why did FW? It's so weird to me, the connections all these people have with one another...