Boulder Police use new DNA databank

I responded to a post written TO ME from Lynette
I responded to a post written TO ME from you
I, however, did not try and wiggle out of what I had done by now coming up with a wild story that someone else must have had access to your PMs and forwarded them to to try and get you in trouble, unlike YOU.

Yes, OWC also answered the post, but she didn't gush all over thanking Lynette for something addressed to another person, YOU did that.
OWN YOUR MISTAKES AND THIS CAN DIE
PLEASE STOP ALL THIS CRAP ON THE BOARD!

Ole South wrote:

<quoted text>
Now you have supernatural powers to know all about everything I do and why I do them -- why, you even see me LAUGHING while I do all the things you say I do.
As your friend L_E often says, this is a public board and you don't own any part of it.
So GET LOST AND GET OFF MY CASE! And STOP telling me what I THINK, WHY I do things, and HOW I LAUGH when I do all the things you accuse me of doing.
You cry on everyone's shoulder about how you want to avoid me but you turn around and insert YOURself into something that doesn't concern you at all.
THIS IS NOT YOUR PRIVATE BOARD! SO STOP ACTING LIKE IT'S ONLY FOR YOU

tootlems wrote:

<quoted text>The fallacy of your argument is called "Argument to Ignorance".

For example, "We have no evidence of alien visitors; therefore, aliens do not exist.(They may well exist, but are not visiting Earth)."

Because a match to the DNA has not been found does not mean it does not exist. It means it is not in a database.

Bump, back to the topic, please.
In fact, the DNA does exist, belongs to a male (perhaps a Caucasian?), and is likely from an individual living independently in 1996, unaccounted for on the evening of 12.25/early morning hours of 12.26. I'd say this narrows the pool of individuals quite a bit...

DrSeussMd wrote:

OWN YOUR MISTAKES AND THIS CAN DIE
<quoted text>

I HAVE. YOU haven't. Nor will you ever. It takes a real man to admit he's made a mistake and YOU are NOT a real man!

Sorry, Mama2, one more comment to him then I'm done:

PLEASE STOP ALL THIS CRAP ON THE BOARD!

ROTFL

Ole South wrote:

<quoted text>
I HAVE. YOU haven't. Nor will you ever. It takes a real man to admit he's made a mistake and YOU are NOT a real man!
Sorry, Mama2, one more comment to him then I'm done:
PLEASE STOP ALL THIS CRAP ON THE BOARD!

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
Bump, back to the topic, please.
In fact, the DNA does exist, belongs to a male (perhaps a Caucasian?), and is likely from an individual living independently in 1996, unaccounted for on the evening of 12.25/early morning hours of 12.26. I'd say this narrows the pool of individuals quite a bit...

I think that may be assuming a bit. There is no real proof the murderer was living independently.

Don't you think that in any murder investigation that a suspect's alibi should be thoroughly checked, and that there may be a possibility either the murderer was lying about his alibi, or his friends and relatives were lying for him?

In the MacDonald case the alibi of the main suspects was supposed to have been checked in the reinvestigation by the Army CID and FBI. One said he 'might' have been staying with his parents, another said he had no alibi, another said he was painting his apartment in the middle of the night and Helena Stoeckley said she could not remember, or recall, anything because she was on drugs at the time. That was selective amnesia.

All this was acepted by the FBI and Army CID. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. Another suspect had an alibi that he was in jail, which is a complicated business in the MacDonald case. That could have been forged and bribed documents. He was noticed out of jail at the time of the MacDonald murders by a detective.

In the Ramsey case, Fleet White's alibi is that his wife, Priscilla, said Fleet went to bed at 11pm. The usual argument is that there was a house full of guests. How do we know for certain that the house full of guests have no knowledge in relation to the crime, and that they are not covering for Fleet?

It looks like Santa Bill and Chris Wolf, and the mom of Nancy Krebs, were asked a few questions about their alibi, but nobody knows if they were telling the truth. It wasn't a thorough investigation. The Boulder cops are fixated on the Ramseys.

There is a bit about this matter on the internet from a British murder case of two little girls in Soham, Cambridgeshire, which Americans may know nothing about:

"Maxine Carr initially provided a false alibi to police for Huntley, claiming to have been with him at the time of the murders when she was in Grimsby. She was charged with perverting the course of justice and assisting an offender. She pleaded guilty to the first charge and not guilty to the second.

Her failure to expose Huntley's lies in the early stages of the investigation (before either of them was arrested) meant that police initially eliminated Huntley as a suspect. But, due to her false statement, it took the police nearly two weeks to arrest and charge him.

The court accepted that Carr had only lied to the police to protect Huntley because she believed his claims of innocence and so found her not guilty of assisting an offender."

I shortened your quote because the remainder of your post was off-topic, and it is not hard to understand to whom you are referring.

Having said that, once proven, an alibi is considered the best negative evidence an innocent man can offer, turning it into positive evidence.

Since in your words, your suspect was a 'top suspect', I have to believe it was proven his friends were not lying for him and his alibi was proven iron clad since he was cleared as a ‘suspect’ by the police. I know you don’t like that answer, but it is in fact true and an established fact of this case.

Henri McPhee wrote:

<quoted text>
I think that may be assuming a bit. There is no real proof the murderer was living independently.
Don't you think that in any murder investigation that a suspect's alibi should be thoroughly checked, and that there may be a possibility either the murderer was lying about his alibi, or his friends and relatives were lying for him?

I did not type exactly what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. I think we can narrow the DNA pool down to a non-child (not someone living independent/alone), someone who was absent from their family early evening 12.25/early morning 12.26, a male. I have heard some specualation about the DNA being from a caucasian, but I'm not sure that's 100% accurate?... How else can we narrow the DNA pool? Quite the undertaking, huh? LOL. ;o)

Henri McPhee wrote:

<quoted text>
I think that may be assuming a bit. There is no real proof the murderer was living independently.

I think I'm entitled to make my last comments as well

You need to own what you did OS, and if Lynette says they were doctored at all, or somehow altered or incomplete or untrue, then obviously that is what she was told by you as well as your reason for doing so.

I suggest you stop accusing others of doing the wrong or making these things up to make us look like the liars, etc.

I can and will then consider, if you don't, posting each and every PM and EMAIL I got from you regarding both Lynette and Cindy. The one thing I didn't do is LIE about anything you did, although you can't say the same. Yesterday, I shared them with Seuss and I don't care if you think that was right or not after reading the stuff you wrote. Someone once said that these things are done when you don't "even/level the playing field". I'm prepared to even it.

I heeded some advice and saved them ALL for just this very reason and for that I am grateful

Own what you did and if you want to take it off the board, you'll admit it, at which point, I too, will take it off the board

Capricorn wrote:

I think I'm entitled to make my last comments as well
You need to own what you did OS, and if Lynette says they were doctored at all, or somehow altered or incomplete or untrue, then obviously that is what she was told by you as well as your reason for doing so.
I suggest you stop accusing others of doing the wrong or making these things up to make us look like the liars, etc.

Why is it "obvious" that I told Lynette anything at all? If this is what you believe, why don't you ask HER? I know Lynette will not lie. If she says I did any such thing, then and only then will you have anything to back your claim.

You have accused me of everything imaginable and even insisted that it is I who insists on having the last word. Well, as far as I'm concerned this issue was settled when Seuss wrote "ROTFL", but YOU weren't satisfied...YOU WANT TO KEEP THE POT STIRRED ...AND put in your two cents worth BEFORE YOU HAVE THE LAST WORD.

If you want to play your way, I'm sure I have all the emails you sent to me and all your "warnings". I'll even furnish the remark I made about your picture that you sent me that I said something about -- something that was not as despicable as you now make it out to be. I've tried to be fair with you but you have some kind of ax to grind and I'm sure it will come out in the wash!

Why can't you let sleeping dogs lie? What kind of satisfaction do you get from trying to run me into the ground?

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
Bump, back to the topic, please.
In fact, the DNA does exist, belongs to a male (perhaps a Caucasian?), and is likely from an individual living independently in 1996, unaccounted for on the evening of 12.25/early morning hours of 12.26. I'd say this narrows the pool of individuals quite a bit...

Hi Mama2,
You CANNOT definitively tell race by DNA. While you CAN make an educated guess, you cannot tell for sure if a DNA found is that of a Caucasian, and Asian, or an African.
CC

Charlie Chan wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Mama2,
You CANNOT definitively tell race by DNA. While you CAN make an educated guess, you cannot tell for sure if a DNA found is that of a Caucasian, and Asian, or an African.
CC

Lin Wood made the rermark once that the Ramsey case DNA is Caucasian. I don't think he was making that remark up out of thin air, though I have never seen any hard documentary evidence to back up that Lin Wood remark.

DNA is BIG in family history research. In a way I agree with Charlie Chan that you may not definitively reach race conclusions, but you can now get a pretty good idea if you want to spend some money on the matter.

Part of the problem is things like race and IQ are a very controversial and sensitive matter and the politically correct attitude is not always right. There are people who say there is no such thing as race, or that races are not different.

This is a simple explanation from the internet:

"DNA testing for ethnicity

A Quick Summary

Ethnicity and race can be problematic. On the other hand, DNA testing can be useful to:

reveal whether a person’s ancestors belong to a certain ethnic group
reveal genetic markers for health conditions associated with certain ethnic groups
There are some pitfalls with regard to genetic testing to determine if you “belong” to one ethnicity or other. If the tests are run on the DNA in the Y chromosome (passed through the paternal line) or the mitochondria (maternal line) the results will probably be more exact. The downside to these tests is that they will only tell you about one lineage, either the paternal (father’s father’s father’s, etc.) or mother’s mother’s mother’s, etc.). This represents only a small portion of your many, many ancestors (see the information page about deep ancestry testing).

Admixture testing, on the other hand, looks at genetic markers from your entire genome. Unfortunately, this type of testing is in its infancy, and the results should be taken with a grain of salt. Because of this, unscrupulous companies may promise more than they can deliver, in terms of what ethnic groups you may “belong to.”

There are also providers that offer services specialize for different ethnic communities:

African-Americans
Indians
Jewish people
Native Americans"