Posted on 01/19/2009 10:53:36 AM PST by nickcarraway
That's a bold statement which you can't make in an absolute sense considering the way in which Linda Arndt and the Boulder police allowed the crime scene to be contaminated and the numerous shortcomings of the Boulder authorities concerning chain of custody, lack of experience in homicide investigations, rejecting of help offered by DPD, etc. Ever consider that JonBenet could have been molested by someone wearing a latex glove using an inanimate object? DNA wouldn't have been left by her father, brother or mother but she still would have been a victim of molestation and incest.
From reading your other posts in this thread you need to learn quite a bit more about the case before you make such definitive statements. By the way, do you know who Tom Haney is?
Your DNA would probably indicate that your family tree has no branches.
“Listen Carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We respect your business, but not the country it serves.”
Oh yea, and BTW we also happen to know about how much $$ you have in the bank. And, did I say we are small foreign faction . . Blah, blah, blah.
PAtsy Ramsey, is it hot down there? John, are you ready for eternal damnation?
You said — “No, I just know enough about the case and the people inviolved to conclude that anybody who thinks the Ramsey’s have been officially exonerated is an idiot.”
I suppose you would have to talk to those officials in the government who said that, as stated in that newspaper article. I can’t help you too much with that. I only relayed the information that the particular government agency exonerated them. If you’ve got a gripe about that, I would take it up with them...
—
And lastly you said — “Your DNA would probably indicate that your family tree has no branches.”
I guess that would mean I’m exonerated, too?
I'm not just talking about bedwetters if you will read what I posted. She was defecating in her bed most nights and other problems symptomatic of sexual molestation.
And if you will read what I posted, I described how a child could have the problem you describe without having incest involved.
What are these other problems, and is anyone other than Mr. Stephens claiming they existed?
“Ever consider that JonBenet could have been molested by someone wearing a latex glove using an inanimate object?”
Anything is possible, except that there was dna in the crotch of her underwear that did not match them.
I understand what you are saying about the crime scene, but I’m having a hard time believing anyone but the molester is going to have their dna in the crotch of the undies.
Have they said what the source of dna is?
Are we talking skin cells?
Or was it semen?
“From reading your other posts in this thread you need to learn quite a bit more about the case before you make such definitive statements.”
That’s probably true. And from what I’m reading from others is that alot of people are making definitive statements about guilt without definitive proof.
I don’t know who Tom Haney is.
One other reason I found the thread interesting - we watched the move The Zodiac the other night (rented it from netflix).
At the end of the movie I was wondering how accurate handwriting analysis really is.
Any freeper opinions about that would be appreciated too.
I was convinced of Patty’s guilt in the beginning - but then again, I thought Richard Jewell was guilty too.
Then I thought the first anthrax scientist was guilty too.
By the time they pointed at the second guy I was skeptical, and now I’m pretty skeptical about claims of absolute guilt especially when you’ve got this dna thing.
So now I’m considering the possibility that a woman was branded a killer and died with that -and maybe she was not the killer.
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.