DNA clears JonBenet Ramsey's family
edonline
From the Los Angeles Times
DNA clears JonBenet Ramsey's family
From the Associated Press
3:04 PM PDT, July 9, 2008
BOULDER, Colo. — Prosecutors cleared JonBenet Ramsey's parents and
brother Wednesday in the 1996 killing of the 6-year-old beauty queen
and told the family they were "deeply sorry" for putting the Ramseys
under a cloud of suspicion for more than a decade. The district
attorney said new DNA tests point to a mysterious outsider.
"To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public
perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am
deeply sorry," Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy wrote in a
letter to the little girl's father, John Ramsey. "No innocent person
should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public
opinion."
Lacy said new "touch DNA" tests on skin cells that were left behind on
JonBenet's long underwear point to an "unexplained third party" and
not a member of the family.
John Ramsey, a software entrepreneur who now lives in Michigan, said
Wednesday he is hopeful the killer will be found based on the DNA
evidence.
"I think the people that are in charge of the investigation are
focused on that, and that gives me a lot of comfort," he told KUSA-TV
in Denver. He added: "Certainly we are grateful that they acknowledged
that we, based on that, certainly could not have been involved."
For years after the slaying, tabloids and crime shows went after the
couple, and Lacy's predecessor as district attorney, Alex Hunter, said
in 1997 that the parents were under an "umbrella of suspicion." News
reports also cast suspicion on JonBenet's older brother, Burke, who
was 9 when his sister was killed.
The suspicions outlived JonBenet's mother, Patsy, who died in June
2006 of ovarian cancer at age 49 in Atlanta, where the family moved
after JonBenet's death.
"My first thought was obviously I wish Patsy Ramsey was here with us
to be able to at least share vindication of her family," said L. Lin
Wood, an attorney for the Ramsey family. "There are many people in
this country, if not around the world, that also owe John and Patsy
Ramsey and Burke Ramsey an apology."
Early in the investigation, police found male DNA in a drop of blood
on JonBenet's underwear and determined it was not from anyone in her
family. But Lacy said investigators were unable to say who it came
from and whether that person was the killer.
Then, late last year, prosecutors turned over long underwear JonBenet
was wearing to the Bode Technology Group near Washington, which looked
for "touch DNA," or cells left behind where someone has touched
something.
The laboratory found previously undiscovered genetic material on the
sides of the girl's long underwear, where an attacker would have
grasped the clothing to pull it down, authorities said. The DNA
matched the genetic material found earlier.
Lacy said the presence of the same male DNA in three places on the
girl's clothing convinced investigators it belonged to JonBenet's
killer and had not been left accidentally by an innocent party.
"It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney's
Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide,"
she said in a statement. In her letter to the Ramseys, she said the
DNA evidence "has vindicated your family."
She said investigators hope someday to find a DNA match in the
ever-expanding national DNA databank.
Through a spokeswoman, Lacy declined to comment any further.
John Ramsey found his daughter's strangled and bludgeoned body in the
basement of the family's home in Boulder on Dec. 26, 1996. Patsy
Ramsey said she found a ransom note demanding $118,000 for her
daughter.
Lacy had previously expressed doubts that the parents were involved.
In 2003, a federal judge handling a defamation lawsuit in Atlanta
involving the Ramseys said evidence in the case was more consistent
with the theory that an intruder killed JonBenet, and Lacy said she
agreed.
Less than two months after Patsy Ramsey died, the case appeared to
blow wide open with the arrest in Thailand of John Mark Karr, a
sometime teacher obsessed with the little girl's slaying. Karr made
bizarre, detailed confessions to the killing, but authorities said DNA
evidence showed he did not commit the crime.
Bradley K. Sherman
edonline <eronlin...@verizon.net> wrote:
>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jonbenet10-2008jul10,0,4561245.story?track=rss
>
>
>Lacy said new "touch DNA" tests on skin cells that were left behind on
>JonBenet's long underwear point to an "unexplained third party" and
>not a member of the family.
>
What nonsense! That could have been flakes of skin from anyone
in the household, before, during or after. Or anyone in the
same rooms as the evidence, before during or after. This
doesn't clear anyone, no how, no way.
"touch DNA" == PCR hyperbole.
--bks
charley
> In article <kqda749cclehs9nj8ral3ljqm8dmtok...@4ax.com>,
>
> edonline <eronlineSPAM...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jonbenet10-2008j...
>
> >Lacy said new "touch DNA" tests on skin cells that were left behind on
> >JonBenet's long underwear point to an "unexplained third party" and
> >not a member of the family.
>
> What nonsense! That could have been flakes of skin from anyone
> in the household, before, during or after. Or anyone in the
> same rooms as the evidence, before during or after. This
> doesn't clear anyone, no how, no way.
>
> "touch DNA" == PCR hyperbole.
>
> --bks
I think I'll take the authorities word over yours anyday. They're
innocent and always have been.
doomella
I think it all sounds way too convenient and forced. How interesting
that it took eons for these "male drops" to emerge on her underwear. I
suspect the drops are drool from the crack detectives on the scene as
they gazed at the crime scene, mouths open and eyes gently crossed.
Bradley K. Sherman
>On Jul 9, 6:15 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>> >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jonbenet10-2008j...
>>
>> >Lacy said new "touch DNA" tests on skin cells that were left behind on
>> >JonBenet's long underwear point to an "unexplained third party" and
>> >not a member of the family.
>>
>> What nonsense! That could have been flakes of skin from anyone
>> in the household, before, during or after. Or anyone in the
>> same rooms as the evidence, before during or after. This
>> doesn't clear anyone, no how, no way.
>>
>> "touch DNA" == PCR hyperbole.
>
>innocent and always have been.
When you say "the authorities" you should write "Ramsey shill
Mary (nee Keenan) Lacy".
--bks
CJKatl
>
> edonline <eronlineSPAM...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jonbenet10-2008j...
>
> >JonBenet's long underwear point to an "unexplained third party" and
> >not a member of the family.
>
> What nonsense! That could have been flakes of skin from anyone
> in the household, before, during or after. Or anyone in the
> same rooms as the evidence, before during or after. This
> doesn't clear anyone, no how, no way.
>
> "touch DNA" == PCR hyperbole.
>
> --bks
It's so sad that the police and press did such a job on the Ramseys
that nothing at this point will convince some people of their
innocence. The people close to the investigation all think the
Ramsey's are innocent. Why does part of the population, that only
heard its information from sources that now claim that information was
incorrect, still think they are guilty? You heard information. The
people giving that information have since said it is incorrect. But
you still rely on that information in drawing a conclusion? Makes not
sense. It's like still believing the world is flat or that stomach
ulcers are caused by worry.
Years ago, I saw Patsy and her son in Target. The store had covered up
all the check-out magazines because the Ramsey's shopped there
frequently. But people still stared at her. Oddly, I'd seen Richard
Jewell in the supermarket a few months earlier, when he was under
suspicion for the Olympic bombing, and the same thing happened.
Everyone gets quiet and stares. I cannot imagine how awful that must
have been for either one of them. Knowing you are innocent, but
feeling that everyone thinks you're guilty. It's no shock that both
died at very young ages, having endured what none of us should ever
have to endure.
Innocent until proven guilty should be more than a slogan. It should
be a belief. OJ was proven guilty, but a bad couple prosecutors kept
him from getting a guilty verdict. The Ramseys, and Mr. Jewell, were
each cleared by the investigating authorities and never charged. We
should keep reminding ourselves that they never were guilty, were
never proven guilty, and move on.
Bradley K. Sherman
CJKatl <charl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 9, 6:15 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>> In article <kqda749cclehs9nj8ral3ljqm8dmtok...@4ax.com>,
>>
>> edonline <eronlineSPAM...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jonbenet10-2008j...
>
>that nothing at this point will convince some people of their
>innocence.
Oh, lots of stuff would convince me, but not junk science.
--bks
Bo Raxo
"CJKatl" <charl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe5d4272-6e8d-4c4b...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> The people close to the investigation all think the
> Ramsey's are innocent.
Not true. Steve Thomas thought they were guilty.
Just.some.guy
"Bradley K. Sherman" <b...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:g53e6a$s31$1...@reader1.panix.com...
And *who* are you? Authorities couldn't care less if you are
convinced...because in the whole scheme of things, you're a nobody.
> --bks
>
dillydally
The most egregious case of UNEQUAL JUSTICE in the annals of U.S.
jurisprudence has, apparently, concluded, with the prime suspects in
the JonBenet Ramsey murder "cleared" of charges.
From the moment the girl's murder was discovered, high-priced LAWYERS
shielded the Ramseys from any possibility they might be questioned --
much less charged -- in the case. Huge amounts of money spent by the
family ensured they, unlike any ordinary family, would be able to
continue their opulent lifestyle, while the police and district
attorneys at several levels seemed oddly powerless to conduct a valid
investigation.
And, always sheltered, JonBenet's brother Burke, still is shielded
from law's prying eyes and technology.
Why?
---------------------------------
"Family cleared in JonBenet Ramsey’s death""
"New DNA test finds no link, DA says in letter to Colorado girl’s
father"
John Ramsey with his wife, Patsy, had been under an "umbrella of
suspicion" in the death of their daughter, JonBenet. New DNA evidence
has cleared the family of the crime. In this 1996 image, the parents
appealed for the killer's arrest. Patsy Ramsey died in 2006.
MSNBC's Milissa Rehberger reports.
DENVER - Newly discovered DNA evidence in the notorious JonBenet
Ramsey murder case does not match any Ramsey family members or anyone
in law enforcement DNA databases, NBC affiliate KUSA reported
Wednesday.
The discovery, from a new testing method, prompted the Boulder
district attorney’s office to release a letter officially clearing the
Ramsey family, including John, Patsy and their immediate relatives, of
any involvement in the December 1996 death of 6-year-old JonBenet.
John and Patsy Ramsey, who died in 2006, had been the subject of
intense suspicion in the disappearance of their daughter, a beauty
queen whose innocent face smiled out at Americans in countless news
reports for a dozen years.
But in a letter to John Ramsey, Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy,
who met with Ramsey and his defense attorneys Wednesday morning,
declared that “we do not consider your immediate family, including
you, John, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke Ramsey, to be under
any suspicion in the commission of this crime.”
“I wish we could have done so before Mrs. Ramsey died,” Lacy wrote,
adding: “We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this
crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you
suffered.”
In a separate statement, Lacy offered her “deepest apology” for the
family’s ordeal.
“In a highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and
suspicion on people’s lives can be extreme,” she said. “The suspicions
about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the
Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from
the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet.”
Bradley K. Sherman
What authorities? All I see is a bunch of USENET posters who
watch way, way too much CSI. "letter of clearing" my foot!
--bks
Paralle...@gmail.com
As coached by Ramsey paid-shill Smits, who knew that the
Ramseys couldn't be guilty because he prayed with them
(kind of like when Bush looked in Putin's eyes).
Whatever DID become of Smits, after the John Mark Karr
"solution" to this case?
Paralle...@gmail.com
If your child is ever murdered, and ANYONE is ruled out
before the case is truly solved, just remember your above
words.
Will
"edonline" <eronlin...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:kqda749cclehs9nj8...@4ax.com...
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jonbenet10-2008jul10,0,4561245.story?track=rss
>
> From the Los Angeles Times
> DNA clears JonBenet Ramsey's family
> From the Associated Press
>
> 3:04 PM PDT, July 9, 2008
>
> brother Wednesday in the 1996 killing of the 6-year-old beauty queen
> and told the family they were "deeply sorry" for putting the Ramseys
> under a cloud of suspicion for more than a decade. The district
> attorney said new DNA tests point to a mysterious outsider.
>
> "To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public
> perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am
> deeply sorry," Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy wrote in a
> letter to the little girl's father, John Ramsey. "No innocent person
> should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public
> opinion."
>
I imagine that there are plenty of murder victims who have traces of
different DNA on their bodies. How does this "prove" innocence?
Just.some.guy
CJKatl <charl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty should be more than a slogan. It should
be a belief. OJ was proven guilty, but a bad couple prosecutors kept
him from getting a guilty verdict.
How was OJ *proven* guilty? The jury apparently didn't think so, because
they said NOT GUILTY. Get over it and move on.
Bradley K. Sherman
Just.some.guy <return_email@not_valid.com> wrote:
>(snipped)
>
>CJKatl <charl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Innocent until proven guilty should be more than a slogan. It should
>be a belief.
Tell that to the folks locked up in Guantanamo.
--bks
Paralle...@gmail.com
> "CJKatl" <charlesk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Most of the Boulder PD believed that, too. It was the
political pressure put on the DA by the Ramseys and
their politically-connected attorney (along with that
clever PR campaign) that started the pity party.
Wild Monkshood
It doesn't, unless you have a "pedigree". I betcha ole John Ramsey has
that "Letter o' Clearing" at the frame shop right now....
WM
>
>
J.F. Poopnagel
that money (eventually) buys "justice" in America.
Just.some.guy
<Paralle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3d04805-0ed3-4cdb...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Oh, so *you* know the inside story huh? The real truth...no guesses all
facts...right? Give it a rest.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:g53dag$2il$1...@reader1.panix.com:
That's why they have procedures for handling such evidence, like,
say, I dunno, wearing gloves.
Plus, retard, the techs who handle evidence have their own DNA on
file for the specific purpose of identifying such contamination.
No, this thoroughly exonerates the family.
>
> "touch DNA" == PCR hyperbole.
>
> --bks
bks == retard.
Go mastrubate some more over a dead child before you reply, son.
You *know* you will.
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:c3a87faf-fec0-4a20...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.c
om:
And bks is a masturbating retard, and always has been.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:g53e6a$s31$1...@reader1.panix.com:
> In article
> <fe5d4272-6e8d-4c4b...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.co
> m>, CJKatl <charl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Jul 9, 6:15 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>>> In article <kqda749cclehs9nj8ral3ljqm8dmtok...@4ax.com>,
>>>
>>> edonline <eronlineSPAM...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jonbenet1
>>> >0-2008j...
>>
>>It's so sad that the police and press did such a job on the
>>Ramseys that nothing at this point will convince some people of
>>their innocence.
>
> Oh, lots of stuff would convince me,
Fairies flying out of your butt? Cuz, I know you talk to them a
lot.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:ad59c0b0-d648-42da...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.
com:
Indeed. Cases are solved *by* ruling out suspects. That's how real
police work is done.
Not by masturbating retards like you and bks wanking on the
interwebs about how much they get turned on by dead children.
Bradley K. Sherman
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>Indeed. Cases are solved *by* ruling out suspects. That's how real
>police work is done.
>
That's how they caught the Unabomber! Whoops, no. That's how
they caugh Hans Reiser! Whoops, no. That's how they caught
Richars Speck! Whoops, no. Oh well, it was probably
accomplished somewhere, sometime.
--bks
Bradley K. Sherman
>say, I dunno, wearing gloves.
>
Barry Scheck would dispose of this one, pre-trial. There are
no procedures in place that would prevent "touch DNA" (whatever
that is) from contaminating evidence. Touch DNA is not even
admissable.
--bks
Bo Raxo
"Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AD6A77F49F...@69.16.186.7...
> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in
> news:g53dag$2il$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>
>> In article <kqda749cclehs9nj8...@4ax.com>,
>> edonline <eronlin...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jonbenet10-2
>>>008jul10,0,4561245.story?track=rss
>>>
>>>
>>>Lacy said new "touch DNA" tests on skin cells that were left
>>>behind on JonBenet's long underwear point to an "unexplained
>>>third party" and not a member of the family.
>>>
>>
>> What nonsense! That could have been flakes of skin from anyone
>> in the household, before, during or after. Or anyone in the
>> same rooms as the evidence, before during or after. This
>> doesn't clear anyone, no how, no way.
>
> That's why they have procedures for handling such evidence, like,
> say, I dunno, wearing gloves.
>
And evidence techs always follow the procedures, such as wearing gloves. I
recall Dennis Fung testifying in the OJ trial that yes, he was 100% positive
that he wore gloves while collecting the evidence.
Then they showed the videotape - he wasn't wearing gloves, and some of the
evidence he said he collected, was actually collected by a trainee (Andrea
Mazzola).
Ever heard of transfer? It has happened in cases with things as large as a
human hair or a piece of lint, much less a pinhead-sized piece of DNA.
> Plus, retard, the techs who handle evidence have their own DNA on
> file for the specific purpose of identifying such contamination.
>
> No, this thoroughly exonerates the family.
Because there is DNA from some unknown person? How does that prove no one
in the family had anything to do with the killing *or* the coverup? It
doesn't.
Let's say for a moment that this DNA is from someone who killed the child.
Which we don't know, of course, but let's just assume that. Does that clear
the family? Does that prove the parents didn't give some molestor access to
their child? Does that prove they didn't know the killer? Does it prove
they didn't help cover up what happened after the fact? Does it prove who
wrote the phony ransom note? Does it establish who fed the child pineapple
that night after she was supposedly put to bed?
No.
>>
>> "touch DNA" == PCR hyperbole.
>>
>> --bks
>
> bks == retard.
>
> Go mastrubate some more over a dead child before you reply, son.
> You *know* you will.
>
And you can go masturbate over a picture of Patsy Ramsey, your heroine.
Bo Raxo
Me
"Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66CdnX4icIs53ejV...@comcast.com...
And he was right. There was so much evidence pointing to Patsy.
The "ransom note" for a body that was in the house.
The ransom note was written with a pen and paper that was in the house
before, during and after the killing.
The ransom note contained the gramatically incorrect phrase, "and hence".
That phrase was also found in an old letter Patsy had written years earlier.
Patsy was wearing the same outfit when the first cop showed up after the 911
call, that she was wearing the previous evening at a neighbor's Christmas
party. Why? Because she never went to bed that night.
And so much more. The Boulder D.A.s office caused much of the screw ups in
the Ramsey case in the first place. Their statement is meaningless. Patsy
Ramsey killed Jonbenet.
AndrewJ
is working on a book about famous murder cases -- and he's insisted
for YEARS that the Ramseys were clearly innocent of Jon-Benet's
murder...
CJKatl
> "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:66CdnX4icIs53ejV...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > "CJKatl" <charlesk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:fe5d4272-6e8d-4c4b...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> The people close to the investigation all think the
> >> Ramsey's are innocent.
>
> > Not true. Steve Thomas thought they were guilty.
>
> And he was right. There was so much evidence pointing to Patsy.
>
> The "ransom note" for a body that was in the house.
>
> The ransom note was written with a pen and paper that was in the house
> before, during and after the killing.
>
> The ransom note contained the gramatically incorrect phrase, "and hence".
> That phrase was also found in an old letter Patsy had written years earlier.
>
> Patsy was wearing the same outfit when the first cop showed up after the 911
> call, that she was wearing the previous evening at a neighbor's Christmas
> the Ramsey case in the first place. Their statement is meaningless. Patsy
> Ramsey killed Jonbenet.
Thank you all for proving my point. There are so many people out there
who only know what they heard on TV or read in the papers. The people
that provided that information have disavowed the information. New
evidence shows the Ramseys had nothing to do with the murder. Yet
there are people who are still and will always be convinced they were
guilty.
The Ramseys never had the presumption of innocence. Even in proven
innocence, so many people cling to their guilt. Shame on anyone who
still proffers guilt in Mr. Ramsey's direction. Unless you were
standing there while one of her parents murdered the child, you have
to treat him as innocent.
Is there anyone who hasn't been fired from their position that worked
in Boulder law enforcement that still claims the Ramseys had anything
to do with the murder? Or is it just a bunch of disgruntled former
workers trying to get back their own tainted reputations who are still
trying to push a conclusion that has been widely discredited?
Bradley K. Sherman
Baseball consultants being such an important part of the criminal
justice system.
--bks
Bradley K. Sherman
CJKatl <charl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Is there anyone who hasn't been fired from their position that worked
>in Boulder law enforcement that still claims the Ramseys had anything
>to do with the murder?
CJKatl damns the Ramseys with faint praise!
--bks
CJKatl
> In article <9bb35892-efdc-4384-b1d2-b82bab9d6...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> CJKatl <charlesk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Is there anyone who hasn't been fired from their position that worked
> >in Boulder law enforcement that still claims the Ramseys had anything
> >to do with the murder?
>
> CJKatl damns the Ramseys with faint praise!
>
> --bks
Umm, huh??
Ohhh, you mean "feint" praise. Sorry, but I couldn't figure out what
falling down unconsious had to do with anything.
Let me be clear. The Ramseys are innocent. Period. They were maligned
by Boulder law enforcement and the national press. They were victims
of a hatchet job so extreme that many people are still convinced they
are guilty.
The evidence has shown they were not involved. The DA apologized and
called them innocent. The only people still pushing the Ramseys' guilt
are people who were fired from their jobs as a result of the horrid
investigation that incorrectly honed in on the innocent Ramseys. These
people have no employment prospects because they handled the Ramsey
case so poorly. Their only chances of getting another job is to prove
they were correct, which all evidence points towards not being the
case. These people are Willy Lomans - the people that are trying to
push the Ramsey's guilt still.
There is nothing feignt in my statement. Or faint, if that were even
possible.
Just.some.guy
They have opinions just like everyone else, and theirs are just as informed
as anyone else's. Unless you were working on the case, all anyone is doing
is speculating.
Bo Raxo
The evidence has shown they were not involved.
- - - - - -
No, it doesn't. It shows there may have been someone else involved. It
doesn't show, for example, why someone wrote an obviously phony ransom note,
with a comically small cash demand that exactly matched John's annual bonus.
It doesn't show who fed the child pineapple. It doesn't prove whether one
or both parents acted in concert with another person.
It doesn't prove anything, any more than OJ's not guilty verdict proved he
was innocent.
Bo Raxo
Betsy
Umm, huh??
***************
Umm, huh??
I don't see the word "feint" or "feignt" in the dictionary, yet I do see
this:
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/damn+with+faint+praise
I have only ever seen the phrase "damn with faint praise". Are you by
chance from someplace other than the US?
Betsy
charley
> On Jul 9, 6:18 pm, charley <varric...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 6:15 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>
> > > In article <kqda749cclehs9nj8ral3ljqm8dmtok...@4ax.com>,
>
> > > edonline <eronlineSPAM...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jonbenet10-2008j...
>
> > > >JonBenet's long underwear point to an "unexplained third party" and
> > > >not a member of the family.
>
> > > What nonsense! That could have been flakes of skin from anyone
> > > in the household, before, during or after. Or anyone in the
> > > same rooms as the evidence, before during or after. This
> > > doesn't clear anyone, no how, no way.
>
>
> > > --bks
>
> > innocent and always have been.
>
> that it took eons for these "male drops" to emerge on her underwear. I
> suspect the drops are drool from the crack detectives on the scene as
> they gazed at the crime scene, mouths open and eyes gently crossed.
Another genius piping in!
charley
> "CJKatl" <charlesk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fe5d4272-6e8d-4c4b...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The people close to the investigation all think the
> > Ramsey's are innocent.
>
> Not true. Steve Thomas thought they were guilty.
I forgot about him but no one ever took seriously what he had to say.
Now Lou Smit is a different story.
charley
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> charley <varric...@aol.com> wrote innews:c3a87faf-fec0-4a20...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.c
Of course.
charley
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ParallelCoo...@gmail.com wrote innews:ad59c0b0-d648-42da...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.
ParallelCoo is the know it all Kris Baker.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
@reader1.panix.com:
What is certain is that you masturbate *way* too much over the
thought of dead little girls.
Plus, you're stupid.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
@reader1.panix.com:
I'm happy for you. It's still trivial to compare it to everyone who
has handled the evidence, which is carefully recorded, to see if it
is contamination. I notice that you snipped out the part where I
mentioned that before. Obviously, you did that because you have no
answer for it, as such elimination comparisons are, in fact, routine,
and you are, in fact, retarded.
Plus, now, an obvious liar.
And you still masturbate *way* too much.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>
> "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns9AD6A77F49F...@69.16.186.7...
>> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in
>> news:g53dag$2il$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>>
>>> In article <kqda749cclehs9nj8...@4ax.com>,
>>> edonline <eronlin...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jonbenet10
>>>>-2 008jul10,0,4561245.story?track=rss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Lacy said new "touch DNA" tests on skin cells that were left
>>>>behind on JonBenet's long underwear point to an "unexplained
>>>>third party" and not a member of the family.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What nonsense! That could have been flakes of skin from
>>> anyone in the household, before, during or after. Or anyone
>>> in the same rooms as the evidence, before during or after.
>>> This doesn't clear anyone, no how, no way.
>>
>> That's why they have procedures for handling such evidence,
>> like, say, I dunno, wearing gloves.
>>
>
> And evidence techs always follow the procedures, such as wearing
> gloves. I recall Dennis Fung testifying in the OJ trial that
> yes, he was 100% positive that he wore gloves while collecting
> the evidence.
That would be a trial where every single piece of evidence the jury
saw was tainted by the perjury of one of two police officers. Gee,
good example, retard.
>
> Then they showed the videotape - he wasn't wearing gloves, and
> some of the evidence he said he collected, was actually
> collected by a trainee (Andrea Mazzola).
And is there some part of "it's routine to compare unknown DNA to
that of those who handled the evidence, just in case" that you're
too fucking stupid to comprehend?
>
> Ever heard of transfer? It has happened in cases with things as
> large as a human hair or a piece of lint, much less a
> pinhead-sized piece of DNA.
Ever hear of "compare it to the people who handled the evidence to
make sure it's not them"? I guess you're too fucking retarded to
grasp that.
>
>> Plus, retard, the techs who handle evidence have their own DNA
>> on file for the specific purpose of identifying such
>> contamination.
>>
>> No, this thoroughly exonerates the family.
>
> Because there is DNA from some unknown person? How does that
> prove no one in the family had anything to do with the killing
> *or* the coverup? It doesn't.
Coverup? Your tin foil hat is slipping, retard. Seriously. Take
your meds. Or else. You *know* what happens if you don't.
charley
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote innews:yKednfoLaqTsz-jV...@comcast.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:Xns9AD6A77F49F...@69.16.186.7...> >>> In article <kqda749cclehs9nj8ral3ljqm8dmtok...@4ax.com>,
Bo is a retard isn't he. God bless him, he's such the troll. He'll
argue with you just for the sake of arguing.
Bradley K. Sherman
>I'm happy for you. It's still trivial to compare it to everyone who
>has handled the evidence,
You have no idea what you're talking about. "Touch DNA" is so
ethereal that you'd have to compare it to everyone who was in
the same room as the evidence and everyone who had ever been
in the same room as the evidence.
Read the caveats here:
<http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/silent_witness_volume_10_number_3_2006.html>
--bks
jelato
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jonbenet10-2008j...
>
> DNA clears JonBenet Ramsey's family
> From the Associated Press
>
> 3:04 PM PDT, July 9, 2008
>
> BOULDER, Colo. — Prosecutors cleared JonBenet Ramsey's parents and
> brother Wednesday in the 1996 killing of the 6-year-old beauty queen
> and told the family they were "deeply sorry" for putting the Ramseys
> under a cloud of suspicion for more than a decade. The district
> attorney said new DNA tests point to a mysterious outsider.
>
> "To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public
> perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am
> deeply sorry," Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy wrote in a
> letter to the little girl's father, John Ramsey. "No innocent person
> should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public
> opinion."
>
> Lacy said new "touch DNA" tests on skin cells that were left behind on
> JonBenet's long underwear point to an "unexplained third party" and
> not a member of the family.
>
> Wednesday he is hopeful the killer will be found based on the DNA
> evidence.
>
> "I think the people that are in charge of the investigation are
> focused on that, and that gives me a lot of comfort," he told KUSA-TV
> in Denver. He added: "Certainly we are grateful that they acknowledged
> that we, based on that, certainly could not have been involved."
>
> For years after the slaying, tabloids and crime shows went after the
> couple, and Lacy's predecessor as district attorney, Alex Hunter, said
> in 1997 that the parents were under an "umbrella of suspicion." News
> reports also cast suspicion on JonBenet's older brother, Burke, who
> was 9 when his sister was killed.
>
> The suspicions outlived JonBenet's mother, Patsy, who died in June
> 2006 of ovarian cancer at age 49 in Atlanta, where the family moved
> after JonBenet's death.
>
> "My first thought was obviously I wish Patsy Ramsey was here with us
> to be able to at least share vindication of her family," said L. Lin
> Wood, an attorney for the Ramsey family. "There are many people in
> this country, if not around the world, that also owe John and Patsy
> Ramsey and Burke Ramsey an apology."
>
> Early in the investigation, police found male DNA in a drop of blood
> on JonBenet's underwear and determined it was not from anyone in her
> family. But Lacy said investigators were unable to say who it came
> from and whether that person was the killer.
>
> Then, late last year, prosecutors turned over long underwear JonBenet
> was wearing to the Bode Technology Group near Washington, which looked
> for "touch DNA," or cells left behind where someone has touched
> something.
>
> The laboratory found previously undiscovered genetic material on the
> sides of the girl's long underwear, where an attacker would have
> grasped the clothing to pull it down, authorities said. The DNA
> matched the genetic material found earlier.
>
> Lacy said the presence of the same male DNA in three places on the
> girl's clothing convinced investigators it belonged to JonBenet's
> killer and had not been left accidentally by an innocent party.
>
> "It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney's
> Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide,"
> she said in a statement. In her letter to the Ramseys, she said the
> DNA evidence "has vindicated your family."
>
> She said investigators hope someday to find a DNA match in the
> ever-expanding national DNA databank.
>
> Through a spokeswoman, Lacy declined to comment any further.
>
> John Ramsey found his daughter's strangled and bludgeoned body in the
> basement of the family's home in Boulder on Dec. 26, 1996. Patsy
> Ramsey said she found a ransom note demanding $118,000 for her
> daughter.
>
> Lacy had previously expressed doubts that the parents were involved.
> In 2003, a federal judge handling a defamation lawsuit in Atlanta
> involving the Ramseys said evidence in the case was more consistent
> with the theory that an intruder killed JonBenet, and Lacy said she
> agreed.
>
> Less than two months after Patsy Ramsey died, the case appeared to
> blow wide open with the arrest in Thailand of John Mark Karr, a
> sometime teacher obsessed with the little girl's slaying. Karr made
> bizarre, detailed confessions to the killing, but authorities said DNA
> evidence showed he did not commit the crime.
Dig up the dead neighbor Santa Claus.
He and weird wife had a child who died tragically on Christmas Eve
years before.
Weird wife wrote a sick story about sex and strangling very like what
happened to Jon Benet.
Jon Benet told people that Santa had promised to come by for a special
visit just for her.
Dumb cops.
jerry warner
"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote:
> In article <kqda749cclehs9nj8...@4ax.com>,
> edonline <eronlin...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jonbenet10-2008jul10,0,4561245.story?track=rss
> >
> >
> >Lacy said new "touch DNA" tests on skin cells that were left behind on
> >JonBenet's long underwear point to an "unexplained third party" and
> >not a member of the family.
> >
>
> What nonsense! That could have been flakes of skin from anyone
> in the household, before, during or after. Or anyone in the
> same rooms as the evidence, before during or after. This
> doesn't clear anyone, no how, no way.
>
yes it does. DB Cooper DID NOT do it!
JonesieCat
Thx for link, interesting article. It defines Touch DNA as LCN DNA. Excerpt:
"Since DNA analysis does not shed any light on the timeframe in which a
biological sample was deposited, most LCN typing, unlike other DNA typing,
cannot be used for exculpatory purposes." Guess nobody told the Boulder DA.
jc
CJKatl
> "CJKatl" <charlesk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
No. I'm from the US. Your free dictionary is proof that you get what
you pay for...
"Faint" means "feeling weak, dizzy" while "Feint" means "to make a
false show of or pretend" according to dictionary.com. Here is the
link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feint
Now, which makes more sense: Damning someone with praise that is mean
to be feeling weak or dizzy or praise that is pretend? Clearly, the
meaning is the latter.
Do a google search for "damning with feint praise" and notice the
links are to well known, top publications. Do a search for "damning
with faint praise" and you'll find many blog entries. You will find
numerous corrections on the phrase. It's something that just bugs me
to no end. At some point, people stopped reading and just accepted
that when they heard this phrase, the word was "faint" because they
were unfamiliar with the correct word in the phrase. But the phrase
makes no sense with the word "faint" substituted and is really quite
funny, if you think about it.
It's like the lyrics to "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" wherein people
think "the girl with colitis goes by" is the correct lyric. Or when
people say "aks" instead of "ask." Just because people say it doesn't
make it correct.
But Betty, let me ask you one that has stumped me for years, since you
seem to be a bit of a language liker. (Only people like me, and I'm
guessing you, would look at an idiom dictionary.)
Is the expression "All told" or "All tolled" as in "All told/tolled,
there are seven wonders of the world?" I've seen that one both ways,
and each one makes sense. All told means everything has been said. All
tolled means everything has been counted. I've never gotten an answer
about which is correct, other than to be informed that either one is
correct. Any insight?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> In article <Xns9AD6C7AC55B...@69.16.186.7>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>I'm happy for you. It's still trivial to compare it to everyone
>>who has handled the evidence,
>> ...
>
> You have no idea what you're talking about. "Touch DNA" is so
> ethereal that you'd have to compare it to everyone who was in
> the same room as the evidence and everyone who had ever been
> in the same room as the evidence.
No, not really.
But it's hardly a surprise that you're too fucking stupid to admit
it.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:65f731a0-4dfd-4d1d...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.
com:
> On Jul 9, 10:40 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:yKednfoLaqTsz-jVnZ2dnU
> VZ_gy...@comcast.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote
>> > in messagenews:Xns9AD6A77F49F...@69.16.186.7...
>> >> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in
>> >>news:g53dag$2il$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>>
>> >>> In article <kqda749cclehs9nj8ral3ljqm8dmtok...@4ax.com>,
>> >>> edonline <eronlineSPAM...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jonbene
>> >>>>t10 -2 008jul10,0,4561245.story?track=rss
He'll argue with him until I allow him to stop. He's my bitch. And
he loves it.
bks is even more so.
JonesieCat
----------
I still vote for faint. Damned with weak praise works for me.
jc
Bradley K. Sherman
> ...
>"Faint" means "feeling weak, dizzy" while "Feint" means "to make a
>false show of or pretend" according to dictionary.com. Here is the
>link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feint
>
>Now, which makes more sense: Damning someone with praise that is mean
>to be feeling weak or dizzy or praise that is pretend? Clearly, the
>meaning is the latter.
>
>Do a google search for "damning with feint praise" and notice the
Utter tripe.
"Damning with faint praise" 68,000 hits
"Damning with feint praise" 616 hits
Sheesh.
--bks
Scott T.
>
> BOULDER, Colo. - Prosecutors cleared JonBenet Ramsey's parents and
> brother Wednesday in the 1996 killing of the 6-year-old beauty queen
> and told the family they were "deeply sorry" for putting the Ramseys
> under a cloud of suspicion for more than a decade. The district
> attorney said new DNA tests point to a mysterious outsider.
>
DA (Mary Lacy) has a long standing reputation since 2002 of thinking
(perhaps succumbing to local pressure) that the Ramsey's were innocent. We
all remember how embarrassed this DA was for her handling of the John Mark
Karr fiasco - driven by a desire to validate her belief in the intruder
theory.
Isn't this DA up for re-election?
Why wasn't this same DNA found on any of the following?
1) The window or the window sill or the wine cellar door in the basement.
2) The ligature
3) The duct tape
4) The rope used with the ligature
5) The instrument used to write the ransom note
6) The ransom note itself
7) The bowl used to serve Jon Benet pineapples
I suppose you could argue that the assailant could have gloves on and still
leave a trace of skin on her leggings. But the fact it was found on the
waistband of her leggings makes me wonder if it was deposited while removing
the garment and he did not have gloves.
I agree the finding 'may' be significant', but is it dispositive? I'm sorry,
but I just can't make that leap of faith.
Betsy
********Very interesting. I thank you for this explanation. I read quite a
lot, but have never seen this word or phrase. But I still don't think
'faint' is so bad, either. It does not only mean weak or dizzy. For
example, "a faint outline" or a "faint image in the distance". This is how
I take "faint praise." Meaning slight or barely able to make
out.****************
It's like the lyrics to "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" wherein people
think "the girl with colitis goes by" is the correct lyric. Or when
people say "aks" instead of "ask." Just because people say it doesn't
make it correct.
********I know, it is a pet peeve of mine when people sing along with songs,
but can't be bothered to get the lyrics correct. I've learned to just shut
up and ignore it.******************
But Betty, let me ask you one that has stumped me for years, since you
seem to be a bit of a language liker. (Only people like me, and I'm
guessing you, would look at an idiom dictionary.)
Is the expression "All told" or "All tolled" as in "All told/tolled,
there are seven wonders of the world?" I've seen that one both ways,
and each one makes sense. All told means everything has been said. All
tolled means everything has been counted. I've never gotten an answer
about which is correct, other than to be informed that either one is
correct. Any insight?
**********Excellent question, but I am afraid I do not have the answer.
They both make sense, but I have only ever seen "All told".
I'll tell you one that makes me cringe every time I see it, and that is
confusing "would've", or "could've" for "would of" or "could of." Picky?
Yes, but I just can't help it. And when people point out my mistakes, I do
not take offense. I use it to improve.
Thank you,
Betsy
Bo Raxo
Moron: the point was that the evidence was handled without gloves, and the
technician in charge of collecting it lied about that. The example stands.
>
> And is there some part of "it's routine to compare unknown DNA to
> that of those who handled the evidence, just in case" that you're
> too fucking stupid to comprehend?
Sure, but sometimes evidence gets contaminated. There are cases where it
has happened. That's a fact.
>>
>> Ever heard of transfer? It has happened in cases with things as
>> large as a human hair or a piece of lint, much less a
>> pinhead-sized piece of DNA.
>
> Ever hear of "compare it to the people who handled the evidence to
> make sure it's not them"? I guess you're too fucking retarded to
> grasp that.
Ever heard of labs making mistakes? Not performing tests when the paperwork
says they did?
These things have happened in other cases. The Boulder PD screwed up so
many aspects of the investigation of that crime scene, but we're to believe
they got this part - the most sensitive part - completely right. Performed
all the right tests, made no mistakes, skipped nothing.
Suuuuure.
And that tiny speck of DNA explains the phony ransom note how?
Guess you will just ignore that aspect of the case, you know, the biggest
piece of evidence that was sitting right on those stairs. The stairs that
Patsy swears she was able to step completely over the step where the note
was sitting, even though it was shown that the spiral made that impossible,
Suuuure. That speck of DNA can be said to raise doubts, but it doesn't
prove anything.
Bo Raxo
Cori
> Dig up the dead neighbor Santa Claus.
>
> He and weird wife had a child who died tragically on Christmas Eve
> years before.
>
> Weird wife wrote a sick story about sex and strangling very like what
> happened to Jon Benet.
>
> Jon Benet told people that Santa had promised to come by for a special
> visit just for her.
>
> Dumb cops.
Creepy coincidence, but wouldn't DNA have been collected from all
suspects at the time? That is, unless the cops were too busy screwing
up to do it.
Saying the Ramseys are cleared is just as stupid as saying the REAL
Santa Claus did this, assisted by his elves. Does being weird and
creepy allow "Santa" to
--Write a rambling ransom note incorporating extensive knowledge of
the Ramsey family, including a pet phrase they used with John, a
paraphrase of a quote from a movie they had just rented, and the
nearly exact amount of John's Christmas bonus, in handwriting so
closely resembling Patsy's that she could not be ruled out as the
writer? Not to mention using an unusual phrase Patsy was known to use
both before and since?
--Leave no DNA on any of the other items the "intruder" supposedly
handled, and no other evidence, such as hair, fiber, and fingerprints?
--Obtain a blanket the housekeeper said was in the dryer, in an out-of-
the way place only a family member would know about? And don't crime
scene photos show the bed undisturbed, although JonBenét was
supposedly removed from it? Uh, think the bed could have been remade
when Patsy changed it after JonBenét WET THE BED which was Patsy's
reason for killing her?
--Know that the Barbie nightgown was JonBenét's favorite and place it
with the body?
--Magically overcome being an old, overweight, practically disabled
man and crawl out a basement window? (Oh, remember, he goes down
chimneys!)
I'll believe the story when Burke finally comes clean and admits his
mother did it, and not until then. This DNA could have come from
anywhere, such as someone handling a piece of clothing for packaging
purposes (it was new out of the package, and the DNA matched other
brand new, unworn underwear in the package) or perhaps even JonBenét
handling something a man had touched and then touching the underwear
in the package, deciding which pair to put on (if touch DNA could be
transferred this way.) Test every worker at the factory where the
underwear was manufactured and you'll find your "culprit," who will
have been working at a third world sweatshop at the time. This is a
weak, pathetic, ridiculous proposal which will go the way of John Mark
Karr and does nothing towards solving this terrible crime.
Cori
Bo Raxo
- - - - - -
You really will argue about anything, and you're so obviously wrong. Do you
actually think the *only* meaning of "faint" is to feel weak or dizzy?
You're obviously wrong.
"damning with faint praise" is a common idiom. It is used with "faint":,
not "feint". A couple of definition references:
http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/damnwithfain.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Damning_with_Faint_Praise
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/damned+with+faint+praise
Recent news stories using it:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/07/09/sheldon-alberts-obama-s-short-fuse.aspx
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.letters25j6jun25,0,5228253.story
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/22/sunday/main4200720.shtml?source=mostpop_story
http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/travel/destinations/italy/article4124473.ece
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/sports/soccer/11euro.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=login
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080613.wgtfridayreads0613/BNStory/Technology/columnists
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/13/travel/trwine.php
It's hilarious that you would even try to argue this, anyone who is familiar
with common American idioms knows what the correct version is. Given how
stupid you are, that you have such a hardon for certain posters, and that
your nym just appeared, seems pretty obvious you're a sock. As dumb as you
are, I'd say you're the same moron as "charley".
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
"Cori" <cmashiel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dacb158a-277a-46ea...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Cori
- - - - - - - - -
That is a GREAT summation of the evidence pointing to the family, thank you
for stating it all in such a clear fashion.
Bo Raxo
Cori
> That is a GREAT summation of the evidence pointing to the family, thank you
> for stating it all in such a clear fashion.
>
> Bo Raxo
Thank you for a lovely, insightful, CIVILIZED reply!
Cori
Just.some.guy
Cori
And just as passionate as you are in your *opinion*, there are others who
strongly disagree with you, and think she did NOT do it. Your opinion holds
no more water than theirs...remember that.
CJKatl
> "CJKatl" <charlesk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> I'll tell you one that makes me cringe every time I see it, and that is
> confusing "would've", or "could've" for "would of" or "could of." Picky?
> Yes, but I just can't help it. And when people point out my mistakes, I do
> not take offense. I use it to improve.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Betsy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oooh, good cringe material. I will share it with you going forward!!
Now that you mention it, I've read right through that one a few times
without stopping to notice.
But I'll stand by the feint praise. My favorite was from years ago. My
dad had a receptionist of many years, we'll call Jane, who was getting
married. Someone looked down at her engagement ring and said, "My, how
dainty." There was nothing trace or shadowy about what was said. It
was clearly stated and was clearly meant as false, damning praise. The
rock was practically non-existent! Hence "feint!"
CJKatl
>
> Recent news stories using it:http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/07/09/sh...http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.letters25j...http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/22/sunday/main4200720.shtml?so...http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/travel/destination...http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/sports/soccer/11euro.html?_r=1&ref=...http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080613.wgtfriday...http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/13/travel/trwine.php
>
> It's hilarious that you would even try to argue this, anyone who is familiar
> with common American idioms knows what the correct version is. Given how
> stupid you are, that you have such a hardon for certain posters, and that
> your nym just appeared, seems pretty obvious you're a sock. As dumb as you
> are, I'd say you're the same moron as "charley".
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for pointing out the numerous sources that have used the phrase
incorrectly.
And thanks for not trying to argue the logic of using "faint" in the
phrase, as that word makes the phrase crumble.
The type of phrase talked about is one that is stated as complimentary
when, in fact, it's an insult. Like, "What a pretty zit on your face."
really is meant to point out the zit, or "At least we haven't bombed
Canada." might point out a success of the current administration. Both
are states as praise, but are false, or "feint" praise. How could
those be described as "faint" praise??? It doesn't make sense. Why
would people have ever stated that was "faint" praise in the first
place? They would not have stated that.
The word "feint" has fallen from everyday usage. The phrase lived on.
People substituted the word they knew into the phrase, much like many
people substitute the lyric in "Blinded by the Light" to indicate
someone is "Dressed up like a douche, You know, the runner in the
night." But it's just as comical when people write "faint praise"
instead of the correct term. It shows they use a phrase without
thinking of its meaning.
The fact that so many people have shared in making this mistake does
not change the fact that it is bad grammar, lacks common sense, and is
incorrect usage of the English language!
And I'm not sure whom you refer to as "charley" but it's not me. This
is the only name under which I (infrequently) post here. Or anywhere,
for that matter.
CJKatl
Cori and Bo -
When were you at the crime scene? Or are you relying upon second-hand
statements that have been discredited and disavowed by the very
authorities that originally put them out? You do realize your entire
argument boils down to, "Look at the evidence they put out when they
were trying to frame the Ramseys. You know, the evidence they no
longer say is accurate." Give it up. You were had by people who were
purposely trying to frame them Ramseys.
What a shame that people still cling to all the incorrect information
that was put out by Boulder law enforcement, people trying to push
books or get TV ratings, and other shady sources. The bottom line is
that Boulder law enforcement, the ones that were actually there and
have seen the actual evidence, now admit that they were wrong in
suspecting the family. It's unbelievable that people that only heard
the information second hand can cling to their guilt. The outrage
should be towards the misguided people who botched the investigation
from the start. The people who released the inaccurate information
should be charged, tried, and convicted. Boulder needs to look to
Durham for prosecutionary advice! The Ramsey's have been Nyfonged and
deserve to have those responsible held accountable.
What a shame for Mr. Ramsey. What a breakdown of our system, which was
founded on a belief that people are innocent unless proven guilty.
Your "facts" are the type of gibberish the heresay rule keeps out of
court due to its total inaccuracy. Thankfully the judicial system
worked correctly for the Ramseys. Thankfully we don't tar and feather
in this country, as many of you would have boiled your pots by now.
Tin@
> On Jul 9, 6:15 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <kqda749cclehs9nj8ral3ljqm8dmtok...@4ax.com>,
>
> > edonline <eronlineSPAM...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > >Lacy said new "touch DNA" tests on skin cells that were left behind on
> > >JonBenet's long underwear point to an "unexplained third party" and
> > >not a member of the family.
>
> > What nonsense! That could have been flakes of skin from anyone
> > in the household, before, during or after. Or anyone in the
> > same rooms as the evidence, before during or after. This
> > doesn't clear anyone, no how, no way.
>
>
> > --bks
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It wasn't the prosecutors who blew it, it was the jury, they could
have seen video of him doing it and found him innocent.
Paralle...@gmail.com
> <ParallelCoo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f3d04805-0ed3-4cdb...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 4:51 pm, "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "CJKatl" <charlesk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > The people close to the investigation all think the
> > > Ramsey's are innocent.
>
>
> Most of the Boulder PD believed that, too. It was the
> political pressure put on the DA by the Ramseys and
> their politically-connected attorney (along with that
> clever PR campaign) that started the pity party.
>
> Oh, so *you* know the inside story huh? The real truth...no guesses all
> facts...right? Give it a rest.
It's well-documented.
It's funny how many of the defenders here, can do nothing
to refute an argument, but attack the person.
Paralle...@gmail.com
>
> who only know what they heard on TV or read in the papers.
And you are different from them, just how?
vox...@yahoo.com
>
> "Faint" means "feeling weak, dizzy" while "Feint" means "to make a
> false show of or pretend" according to dictionary.com. Here is the
> link:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feint
>
> Now, which makes more sense: Damning someone with praise that is mean
> to be feeling weak or dizzy or praise that is pretend? Clearly, the
> meaning is the latter. <<
I'm afraid you're incorrect, and Betsy is correct.
"Feint" is a verb. I feint, you feint, we all feint. To say "damn
with feint praise" is like saying "damn with swim praise" or "damn
with walk praise."
"Faint" is a verb (I faint, you faint, we all faint), but it is _also_
an adjective. "The sound was so faint we could barely hear it."
To say "damn with feint praise" makes no grammatical sense, and even
an idiom wouldn't bend the rules that far as to put together words
that are nonsensical when strung together.
The phrase is "damn with faint praise." Just because something is
online -- even if it's on the website of a "well known, top
publication" -- doesn't mean it's correct. Online editors are not
print editors, and content turns over _very_ quickly in online
publications. I'm constantly reading errors in news headlines in the
online versions of "well known, top publications." If you want to see
how much you can trust Google, search for "jibe with" and then "jive
with." The incorrect usage has many more results (326,000) than the
correct one (222,000). Unless you really believe there are hundreds
of thousands of sites out there where people are discussing dancing in
an archaic style.
>> It's like the lyrics to "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" wherein people
> think "the girl with colitis goes by" is the correct lyric. Or when
> people say "aks" instead of "ask." Just because people say it doesn't
> make it correct. <<
It's nothing like either of those. Misheard lyrics is a genre unto
itself, and has to do with an auditory experience. "Aks" is a
regionalism. Like "nuke-u-lar." Jimmy Carter says "nuke-u=lar," and
it's not because he's stupid (he's not).
In your case, your misuse of "feint" is because you're not accounting
for parts of speech.
HTH,
Amy
CJKatl
>
> - Show quoted text -
For all the misgivings about the jury, I really think they did what
they had to do, given the case presented. It was rambling. It was
pointless. (Not my posts. The case presented.) The prosecutors and the
judge did not have control over what went on there. Johnny Cochran ran
the show. By the time the jury got the case, they had no idea what the
heck they were supposed to be doing. They were so confused they had no
choice but to acquit...
The case was really a garden variety domestic murder. These types of
trials rarely go past one week. The prosecutors and judge should have
acted accordingly and put forth a simple, easy to follow, step-by-step
case. They let Mr. Cochran scare them into months of meandering
testimony. During that long a period, there was bound to be a single
mistake - ala the glove - that would tank the entire case.
The civil case was kept to the point and OJ lost. Johnny Cochran made
the criminal court room into a five-ring circus. Don't blame the
jurors for not knowing where to look. Blame the prosecutors for not
setting the room themselves and Ito for allowing the elephants,
trapeez artists, clowns, and human cannons into the room.
Had the prosecutors presented an easy to follow, to the point, quick
case, and the judge charged correctly, the jury would have convicted.
Blaming them for what happened requires you ask the jury to go beyond
the evidence as it was presented in the court. It's like blaming the
oven when your cake didn't turn out right, when, in fact, you had
added motor oil, mascara, batteries, and a fifth of vodka to the
recipe.
CJKatl
Certainly you cannot be asking how my not assuming guilty based upon
second hand information is the same as assuming someone is guilty
based upon second hand information.
That I'm not concluding someone is guilty based on that second hand
information. I'm assuming innocent until proven guilty. To me, that's
very different.
Was that a serious question??
vox...@yahoo.com
>
> The type of phrase talked about is one that is stated as complimentary
> when, in fact, it's an insult. Like, "What a pretty zit on your face."
> really is meant to point out the zit, or "At least we haven't bombed
> Canada." might point out a success of the current administration. <<
You're a bit confused as to the meaning of this phrase, too.
"What a pretty zit on your face" is pure sarcasm. It ain't faint
praise.
Your second example is somewhat closer. But a better example would be
someone saying, upon exiting a school auditorium after being forced to
listen to eight-year-olds mangle Beethoven and Brahms in a beginner's
orchestra concert, "Well, at least it was a nice, short concert!"
Or watching a politician give a speech that was full of bad news, and
commenting, "He sure had a nice suit."
_Faint_ praise. It's praise, but hardly so. Just faintly discernible
as praise.
Amy
Tin@
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, I live in the LA area and I will always believe it was justice
what happened to Rodney King and the fact that juries rarely convict
celebs.
Paralle...@gmail.com
The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is meaningless
in public opinion or during investigations. It's only applicable
to a jury, and is part of their oath.
Next?
This one's too boring. Someone else can play with it
and its socks.
Paralle...@gmail.com
>
> ParallelCoo is the know it all Kris Baker.-
Why, thank you!
Since everyone else has known my only alternate ID
for almost two years, why did it take you so long?
No matter how hard you try to be significant to me,
you're just boring. Go to sleep for another two years.
Paralle...@gmail.com
> "Bradley K. Sherman" <b...@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:g53tb1$hah$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <Xns9AD6C7AC55B09taustingm...@69.16.186.7>,
> >>I'm happy for you. It's still trivial to compare it to everyone who
> >>has handled the evidence,
> >> ...
>
> > You have no idea what you're talking about. "Touch DNA" is so
> > ethereal that you'd have to compare it to everyone who was in
> > the same room as the evidence and everyone who had ever been
> > in the same room as the evidence.
>
> > <http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/silent_witness_volume_10...>
>
> > --bks
>
> Thx for link, interesting article. It defines Touch DNA as LCN DNA. Excerpt:
> "Since DNA analysis does not shed any light on the timeframe in which a
> biological sample was deposited, most LCN typing, unlike other DNA typing,
> cannot be used for exculpatory purposes." Guess nobody told the Boulder DA.
>
> jc-
Oh, they probably tried to. But she consulted her gurus
(Smit and the crazy professor) who convinced her that the
John Mark Karr incident was really a crafty diversion.
Plus, it's election time! Lacey needs to make some news,
and anyone who still supports here, is among the gullible.
Paralle...@gmail.com
>
> Jon Benet told people that Santa had promised to
> come by for a special visit just for her.
...and JonBenet is the ONLY child in the history of
the world, promised a visit from Santa. Why, you'd
better get on the phone and call Mary Lacey, because
I'm sure that'll break that case wide open!
doomella
If they want to get to the bottom of this, they should bring in the
tooth fairy for questioning. A creature who slithers into children's
rooms at night while they're sleeping to snatch up childhood body
parts and leave cash in return? Hmmmm...
Isn't it kind of odd that all these fantastical top-secret childhood
cult heroes share such creepy habits as sneaking into houses and
bedrooms at night, only for the kiddies, leaving them toys and
candies? Even the Easter Bunny's kind of guilty of that. And at the
same time we tell our kids to avoid "secret" strangers who try to lure
them with, well, toys and candies.
charley
> "Bradley K. Sherman" wrote:
> > In article <kqda749cclehs9nj8ral3ljqm8dmtok...@4ax.com>,
> > edonline <eronlineSPAM...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jonbenet10-2008j...
>
> > >Lacy said new "touch DNA" tests on skin cells that were left behind on
> > >JonBenet's long underwear point to an "unexplained third party" and
> > >not a member of the family.
>
> > What nonsense! That could have been flakes of skin from anyone
> > in the household, before, during or after. Or anyone in the
> > same rooms as the evidence, before during or after. This
> > doesn't clear anyone, no how, no way.
>
>
>
>
> > "touch DNA" == PCR hyperbole.
>
> > --bks
I love DB Cooper. By the way they knew who he was. He is dead now.
charley
>
> > Recent news stories using it:http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/07/09/sh...
>
If he referred to you as Charley then after reading your posts I am
delighted that he thinks I am you and vice versa. You seem to have
your pulse on this case more so than the dreaded troll known as Bo.
He's harmless and I like sparring with him, but he's so argumentative
which detracts from his point of view.
Wild Monkshood
I've been watching various media outlets coverage of this, this
morning. All seem to be going with the press release line that this
"vindicates" the Ramseys. Are they just lazy, or don't they have
research departments? Of course, I realize they are going for what makes
better "TV" and the facts be damned....
WM
charley
Enjoy your extra-large milkshake!
tiny dancer
"Wild Monkshood" <Wild_Mo...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:97d72$48761c64$62101d6b$4...@ALLTEL.NET...
Even the 'grace-less' one didn't put much effort into disputing it last
night. I think most who are absorbing this information realize that finding
the exact same male DNA in three different places, on two different
garments, and beneath her fingernails, is significant. The only people I
saw last night still disputing it were those who had written books on the
case slamming the Ramsey's. As far as not finding this DNA match in the
system, how many states have we read about here that are so back-logged with
testing/entering DNA into the system? Like I said earlier, were this any
other case, one where so many people were not invested in the Patsy did it
theory, this would be considered significant evidence. The finding of DNA,
the same male DNA, in numerous locations. DNA from both skin and saliva.
And I've not seen mention of the other child, from JonBenets dance school,
who's mother awoke one night to find a strange male in her child's room in
the middle of the night. Nor have I seen mention of the other mounds of
evidence pointing towards an intruder. Everything from the grate outside
the basement window having been moved, to the suitcase with fibers from
JonBenet inside it. Nor the stun gun wounds on her body.
I read an article last night concerning the police agreeing with the
conclusion of the D.A.
doomella
> "Faint" means "feeling weak, dizzy" while "Feint" means "to make a
> false show of or pretend" according to dictionary.com. Here is the
> link:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feint
>
> Now, which makes more sense: Damning someone with praise that is mean
> to be feeling weak or dizzy or praise that is pretend? Clearly, the
> meaning is the latter.
Wow. No, it isn't. You need to learn how to read a dictionary, conduct
a proper search, interpret your results, and get a basic grasp of
grammar and context before you start analyzing and pronouncing things
as correct or incorrect.
l
Merriam Webster's third meaning for "faint" is: "lacking strength or
vigor : performed, offered, or accomplished weakly or languidly <faint
praise>." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faint
Wild Monkshood
tiny dancer wrote:
I'd be interested to know how many "Letters of Clearing" have been sent
out by the Boulder DA specifically, and how widespread this practice is
generally. I'd never heard of it before. I think it likely that JonBenet
was killed by her mother, but would love to see justice done and if that
means that another is found guilty that would be great. However, this
has all the earmarks of PR work and it is being magnified/sold as more
than it is.
WM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Raymond
> "WHERE'S BURKE?"
>
> The most egregious case of UNEQUAL JUSTICE in the annals of U.S.
> jurisprudence has, apparently, concluded, with the prime suspects in
> the JonBenet Ramsey murder "cleared" of charges.
>
> From the moment the girl's murder was discovered, high-priced LAWYERS
> shielded the Ramseys from any possibility they might be questioned --
> much less charged -- in the case. Huge amounts of money spent by the
> family ensured they, unlike any ordinary family, would be able to
> continue their opulent lifestyle, while the police and district
> attorneys at several levels seemed oddly powerless to conduct a valid
> investigation.
>
> And, always sheltered, JonBenet's brother Burke, still is shielded
> from law's prying eyes and technology.
>
> Why?
> ---------------------------------
> "Family cleared in JonBenet Ramsey’s death""
>
> "New DNA test finds no link, DA says in letter to Colorado girl’s
> father"
>
> John Ramsey with his wife, Patsy, had been under an "umbrella of
> suspicion" in the death of their daughter, JonBenet. New DNA evidence
> has cleared the family of the crime. In this 1996 image, the parents
> appealed for the killer's arrest. Patsy Ramsey died in 2006.
>
> MSNBC's Milissa Rehberger reports.
>
> DENVER - Newly discovered DNA evidence in the notorious JonBenet
> Ramsey murder case does not match any Ramsey family members or anyone
> in law enforcement DNA databases, NBC affiliate KUSA reported
> Wednesday.
>
> The discovery, from a new testing method, prompted the Boulder
> district attorney’s office to release a letter officially clearing the
> Ramsey family, including John, Patsy and their immediate relatives, of
> any involvement in the December 1996 death of 6-year-old JonBenet.
>
> John and Patsy Ramsey, who died in 2006, had been the subject of
> intense suspicion in the disappearance of their daughter, a beauty
> queen whose innocent face smiled out at Americans in countless news
> reports for a dozen years.
>
> But in a letter to John Ramsey, Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy,
> who met with Ramsey and his defense attorneys Wednesday morning,
> declared that “we do not consider your immediate family, including
> you, John, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke Ramsey, to be under
> any suspicion in the commission of this crime.”
>
> “I wish we could have done so before Mrs. Ramsey died,” Lacy wrote,
> adding: “We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this
> crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you
> suffered.”
>
> In a separate statement, Lacy offered her “deepest apology” for the
> family’s ordeal.
>
> “In a highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and
> suspicion on people’s lives can be extreme,” she said. “The suspicions
> about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the
> Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from
> the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet.”
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25608543/
Earlier Post by poster Raymond
The Boulder District Attorney, Mary Lacy, appeared to be accepting an
Academy Award instead of discussing the murder case. She thanked
everyone except the Academy and her mother and father for making it
possible for her to be in charge of the investigation. But, of course,
her job is an elected office and she is running for another term, so
why not grandstand ? That was the first thing she mentioned; that she
was elected.
It makes no sense to believe that a sexual predator would spend hours
inside a house writing a ransom note after killing a six year old
child. and to have the freedom to move from the child's bedroom to the
basement carrying the little girl and her blanket.
The Ramsey parents are telling the truth . They both said, "I did not
kill JonBenet."But, no one asked them if their son Burke had killed
his sister with a baseball bat that was found outside the house with
fibers from the carpet found in the basement near the storage room
where the child was found.
A metal baseball bat was found outside the Ramsey's Boulder home.
Fibers on the bat matched a carpet found in the basement near the
storage room, where JonBenet's body was found. The bat was found, "in
a
place where kids normally wouldn't play." [ Burke's bat.]
The Ramseys said they believe an intruder may have waited for hours in
their home before strangling and beating JonBenet. "I can't believe
that we have ever knowingly met anyone that can be this vicious. But
someone killed our daughter. So we have to start looking. We start at
the inner circle and keep moving out," Patsy Ramsey said.
They should have called O.J. Simpson to help them "start looking" O.J.
is a pro at hunting killers.
"We start at the inner circle." A good idea. Who is in the inner
circle? Is Burke included in that inner circle?
Parents of JonBenet Sue Over Stories on Son
-JonBenet Ramsey's parents sued The New York Post and Time Warner
saying they libeled the Ramseys' son by portraying him as the PRIME
SUSPECT in his sister's murder. The lawsuits, each seeking $4 million,
were filed in federal court.
To lose a son as well as a daughter would be too much. Ergo, Cover up
son's angry act with the bat. Children do argue, sometimes with tragic
results. And, JonBenet did not die of strangulation. She died from a
single blow to the head which a nine year old boy could be capable of
doing, where he might not have been able to strangle her.
Would these parents cover up the death to save their pure Bolder
reputation and to save their other child from some kind of certain
incarceration. I think so.
"Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love
the questions themselves. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be
given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point
is
to live everything. Live the questions"
--- Rainer Maria Rilke quotes (Austro-German lyric poet, author of
Duino Elegies and Sonnets to Orpheus, 1875-1926)
Who else, that we haven't heard about, needing fifteen minutes of
fame, will now suddenly appear to admit killing the child?
Having DNA means nothing until the owner of the DNA is identified.
Of course, if the DNA found on the child's underwear matches a school
teacher's DNA, the game is over and my theory is shot to Hell.
Is it all over?
Not until Ramsey's son Burke, now nineteen, admits that he and his
sister were involved in a child's quarrel and he hit her with his
baseball bat--- the bat that was found outside---and Dad and Mom
foolishly attempted to cover his mistake up to avoid losing both a
daughter and son.
see: bat with fiber location
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer10_blue.html
tiny dancer
I tend to disagree with the PR aspect. I think, like with so many other
cases we read about here, the DA learned of a newer manner of testing for
DNA. A newer test that can detect DNA from simple skin cells, and sent what
I heard, a number of items of evidence to the lab where this testing is
done, to see *if* they could come up with any new results. If I heard it
correctly, these results came back in March? And after that time, all those
who had handled the evidence prior, were tested to be certain these results
couldn't have come from someone else.
I've never believed patsy did it, not because I didn't think a mother
*could* kill their child, but because the evidence didn't lead me in that
direction. From the beginning we were told the head wound came first. When
I discovered the head wound came at or near the time of death, the
'accidental' slamming of the childs head didn't add up. Especially when one
see's on the autopsy photo's, little fingernail marks on JonBenets neck,
indicating she had tried to loosent the garrote from around her neck. And
then of course the stun gun marks on her face, which weren't there in
photo's of the child taken earlier that evening.
td
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Iarnrod
> Earlier Post by poster Raymond
>
> The Boulder District Attorney, Mary Lacy, appeared to be accepting an
> Academy Award instead of discussing the murder case. She thanked
> everyone except the Academy and her mother and father for making it
> possible for her to be in charge of the investigation. But, of course,
> her job is an elected office and she is running for another term, so
> why not grandstand ?
Uh, chum, Mary Lacy is term-limited this year. She is not running for
anything.
> It makes no sense to believe that a sexual predator would spend hours
> inside a house writing a ransom note after killing a six year old
> child. and to have the freedom to move from the child's bedroom to the
> basement carrying the little girl and her blanket.
It makes no sense that anyone in the family staged a crime in this
fashion. Intruder is the only explanation that makes sense.
> The Ramsey parents are telling the truth . They both said, "I did not
> kill JonBenet."But, no one asked them if their son Burke had killed
> his sister with a baseball bat that was found outside the house with
> fibers from the carpet found in the basement near the storage room
> where the child was found.
Burke did not kill his sister and then have the parents cover it up by
sexually molesting her corpse and tying a garrote around her neck.
That’s ludicrous.
> A metal baseball bat was found outside the Ramsey's Boulder home.
> Fibers on the bat matched a carpet found in the basement near the
> storage room, where JonBenet's body was found. The bat was found, "in
> a
> place where kids normally wouldn't play." [ Burke's bat.]
It was not Burke’s bat. It is evidence of an intruder. You seem to
take all evidence of intruder and relabel it “planted.”
> The Ramseys said they believe an intruder may have waited for hours in
> their home before strangling and beating JonBenet. "I can't believe
> that we have ever knowingly met anyone that can be this vicious. But
> someone killed our daughter. So we have to start looking. We start at
> the inner circle and keep moving out," Patsy Ramsey said.
So why didn’t the police do that, instead of focusing on what they
thought was the easy way out?
Paralle...@gmail.com
It does give a good "perfect stranger" method to excuse
abuse, doesn't it?
Maybe in Boulder, leaving pineapple treats was the norm?
Paralle...@gmail.com
wrote:
Mostly gullible. MSNBC finally brought in Cliff VanZandt, but
they "I've been working pro-bono for the Ramseys since 1999"
shills have been pretty visible, too.
John Fartlington Poopnagel
(almost) incredible that fools like larnrod here would ,without
question, accept any and all "evidence" that would tend to clear the
Ramseys of guilt!
Then again, there are millions of people who, incredibly, still
believe O.J. Simpson is innocent!
Just like there are even more jackoffs who believe Saddam Hussein was
behind the 9/11 attacks!
Or that their Nincompoop-In-Chief took the U.S. on an illegal invasion
of Iraq to "spread democracy."
All of which is evidence that the former "United" States is composed
of at last one-half dumb 'uns.
Iarnrod
<perryneh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In a case that was itself criminally botched from the beginning, it's
> (almost) incredible that fools like larnrod here would ,without
> question, accept any and all "evidence" that would tend to clear the
> Ramseys of guilt!
There is no evidence of their guilt. Were you born stupid or did it
happen to you when you chose such a moronic screen name? Do you
"think" that because police were biased and ill-motivated, that they
collected no evidence at all?
> Then again, there are millions of people who, incredibly, still
> believe O.J. Simpson is innocent!
Oh, I see, Mr. hypocrite. How come botched police work In the Ramsey
case means you have to remain open minded to something the evidence is
against, but in the OJ case botched police work is no obstacle to
stating your conclusion?
Raymond
> On Jul 10, 9:19 am, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Earlier Post by poster Raymond
>
> > The Boulder District Attorney, Mary Lacy, appeared to be accepting an
> > Academy Award instead of discussing the murder case. She thanked
> > everyone except the Academy and her mother and father for making it
> > possible for her to be in charge of the investigation. But, of course,
> > her job is an elected office and she is running for another term, so
> > why not grandstand ?
>
> Uh, chum, Mary Lacy is term-limited this year. She is not running for
> anything.
Uh chum. Your reading comprehension is not too keen Notice that I
said, "FROM an Earlier Post." when Lacy was running.
The authorities should hve heard from you sooner and we the Ramseys
would not have had to experience this publicity ordeal. You seem to
have the true facts for the DA to rely on
> > It makes no sense to believe that a sexual predator would spend hours
> > inside a house writing a ransom note after killing a six year old
> > child. and to have the freedom to move from the child's bedroom to the
> > basement carrying the little girl and her blanket.
>
> It makes no sense that anyone in the family staged a crime in this
> fashion. Intruder is the only explanation that makes sense.
Well, that answers that Thanks. We can now close the case Sherlock.
>
> > The Ramsey parents are telling the truth . They both said, "I did not
> > kill JonBenet."But, no one asked them if their son Burke had killed
> > his sister with a baseball bat that was found outside the house with
> > fibers from the carpet found in the basement near the storage room
> > where the child was found.
>
> Burke did not kill his sister and then have the parents cover it up by
> sexually molesting her corpse and tying a garrote around her neck.
> That’s ludicrous.
Then, when Burke is finally subjected to more questioning. will you
be his attorney?
Blame it on the Teddy Bear
DA Hunter Asked Public to Help Identify Teddy Bear
Leslie Durgin -- Boulder mayor. In January, Durgin took issue with a
statement from Patricia Ramsey that a killer was on the loose in
Boulder. The murder was probably not a random act, she said, since the
killer appeared to be someone who knew the Ramsey home well. Maybe a
white Teddy Bear. but there was no killer, or killers, on the loose in
Boulder
On January 28, 1999 DA Alex Hunter issued a press release, launching a
nationwide search for the origins of a stuffed WHITE bear in a Santa
suit. He asked for the public's help "in identifying the manufacturer
of, and/or retail outlets that sold, in 1996 or earlier, a WHITE toy
teddy bear dressed in a rather unusual Santa Claus suit."
Hunter would not say why this information was needed. The whereabouts
of the bear are unknown. Family members say the bear, pictured in a
BPD crime scene photo, did not belong to JonBenét Ramsey.
There were over 10,000 responses to Hunters plea within the first 24
hours, and it was reported that a similar bear had been turned in to
the DA's office by a Denver woman.
> > A metal baseball bat was found outside the Ramsey's Boulder home.
> > Fibers on the bat matched a carpet found in the basement near the
> > storage room, where JonBenet's body was found. The bat was found, "in
> > a
> > place where kids normally wouldn't play." [ Burke's bat.]
>
> It was not Burke’s bat. It is evidence of an intruder. You seem to
> take all evidence of intruder and relabel it “planted.
Please furnish your evidence that it was not Burke's bat. The DA
will be happy to get that information since it was identified as being
Burke's bat.
> > The Ramseys said they believe an intruder may have waited for hours in
> > their home before strangling and beating JonBenet. "I can't believe
> > that we have ever knowingly met anyone that can be this vicious. But
> > someone killed our daughter. So we have to start looking. We start at
> > the inner circle and keep moving out," Patsy Ramsey said.
> So why didn’t the police do that, instead of focusing on what they
> thought was the easy way out?
They were the Keystone Cops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIk4ZLVGIC8
Social Services Computer Files Relating to
Burke Ramsey Interview Reported Stolen
Confidential computer files potentially related to the JonBenét Ramsey
homicide were reported to have been stolen from the Boulder County
Department of Social Services in early June 1997.
Technicians discovered the possible unauthorized access during routine
maintenance of a computer within the department. Department officials
asked the Boulder Police Department to investigate the potential theft
June 26, 1997. Social services workers questioned JonBenét's brother,
Burke, after the girl's death. Two sources said the theft may have
included documents related to those interviews.
More damn bats in the case..... Not Burke's bat.
Testimonials for a Bat repelling device.
*****************************************
I want to inform you that I am very pleased with the Bat Pest
repeller. I am using it to repel the bats at night on my front porch.
We did a mini scientific trial by using it and not using it and it
really works! Right now we have an extension cord and a temp mount,
but will have an electrician place an outlet for permanent mounting.
Maybe we can try to paint the outer cover to match our walls so it is
not so noticeable.
Thanks again!
Julie W
OOPS Wrong kind of bats.. Sorry Julie W. We are discussing baseball
bats in the Ramsey case. Thanks anyhow.
Jay Elowsky -- A Ramsey family friend who was charged with a
misdemeanor for threatening two men with a baseball bat. He thought
the men were reporters.
"Pasta" Jay Elowsky Arrested for Threatening Men With Baseball Bat
Jay Elowsky, owner of Pasta Jay's restaurant and friend and business
associate of John Ramsey, was arrested February 10, 1997 on charges he
threatened three men with a baseball bat and pulled a gun on one of
them. He reportedly thought the men were journalists stalking Patsy
and John Ramsey, who were his house guests for six weeks following the
murder.
Elowsky's targets were freelance newsman Lee Frank, working for NBC,
and two others: Warren Schmelzer and Ira Haimann.
Elowsky pleaded guilty to one count of misdemeanor menacing July 1,
1997 in Boulder County Court. He was sentenced to two consecutive
weekends in the custody of the Boulder County Sheriff's Department on
work detail beginning 7:30 a.m. July 19. The weekend program requires
offenders to remain in the custody of the sheriff overnight.
On May 16, 1998, while Elowsky was still on probation, he was arrested
for suspicion of DUI. However, he was not charged with violating his
probation. Authorities said Elowsky inadvertently slipped through the
system
--- Tess Truehart Agency
Raymond
Matt
Watch "The Overlooked Suspect" and you will know who killed Nicole and
Ron. Did you know that Jason was given a false alibi that night? That
he had a "rage disorder"? That he always carried knives and had
military training in knife fighting? That he had threatened a previous
boss with a knife? That he wrote in his diary, "this is the year of
the knife"? That he was extremely upset with Nicole that night? That
OJ had stopped paying for his "rage meds" just before the murders?
Just watch TOS before you come back with some glib bs.
Bo Raxo
"CJKatl" <charl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:28176fc1-2ff6-433d...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 3:19 am, "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "CJKatl" <charlesk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bc342aab-e5d6-4195...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 10:07 pm, "Betsy" <b.fern...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "CJKatl" <charlesk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:9799a485-fa8a-4107...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> false show of or pretend" according to dictionary.com. Here is the
> link:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feint
>
> Now, which makes more sense: Damning someone with praise that is mean
> to be feeling weak or dizzy or praise that is pretend? Clearly, the
> meaning is the latter.
>
> links are to well known, top publications. Do a search for "damning
> with faint praise" and you'll find many blog entries.
> - - - - - -
>
> You really will argue about anything, and you're so obviously wrong. Do
> you
> actually think the *only* meaning of "faint" is to feel weak or dizzy?
>
> You're obviously wrong.
>
> "damning with faint praise" is a common idiom. It is used with "faint":,
> not "feint". A couple of definition
>
> Recent news stories using
> it:http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/07/09/sh...http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.letters25j...http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/22/sunday/main4200720.shtml?so...http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/travel/destination...http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/sports/soccer/11euro.html?_r=1&ref=...http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080613.wgtfriday...http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/13/travel/trwine.php
>
> It's hilarious that you would even try to argue this, anyone who is
> familiar
> with common American idioms knows what the correct version is. Given how
> stupid you are, that you have such a hardon for certain posters, and that
> your nym just appeared, seems pretty obvious you're a sock. As dumb as you
>
> Bo Raxo- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for pointing out the numerous sources that have used the phrase
incorrectly.
- - - - - - - -- - - - -
I note you cite no sources whatsoever. Your claim, unsupported, is that the
New York Times is wrong, CBS News is wrong, the Globe and Mail is wrong, the
online version of the reference book Bartleby's is wrong, the Times of
London is wrong, the online idiom dictionaries (which all agree) are wrong,
and you're right. Because you say so.
Hilarious.
Bo Raxo
On Jul 10, 3:49 am, Cori <cmashieldscapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 12:25 am, "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That is a GREAT summation of the evidence pointing to the family, thank
> > you
> > for stating it all in such a clear fashion.
>
> > Bo Raxo
>
> Thank you for a lovely, insightful, CIVILIZED reply!
>
> Cori
Cori and Bo -
When were you at the crime scene?
- - - -
Bo: The same time as you.
- - -
Or are you relying upon second-hand
statements that have been discredited and disavowed by the very
authorities that originally put them out?
- - - - -
Bo: The ransom note isn't a second hand statement. You're ignoring the
evidence, and commencing with a rant that makes no reference to the facts of
the case. Do you think that constitutes an actual argument? Puhleeze.
- - - - - -
You do realize your entire
argument boils down to, "Look at the evidence they put out when they
were trying to frame the Ramseys. You know, the evidence they no
longer say is accurate."
- - - - - - - - -
Uh, which evidence is no longer accurate? The ransom note, that mentions
the amount of John's bonus, and uses the "Southern common sense" phrase the
family teased him with?
The statement by Patsy that she stepped over the note on the spiral stairs,
even though that was physically impossible?
The statement by police that when they arrived she was in full makeup and
wearing the same outfit she had worn the day before?
These are all facts. Evidence, whether it is used to "frame" the Ramseys or
not, is evidence. Your little rant refers to none of it, you just make
empty claims that you don't back up.
When you're ready to discuss the actual evidence, come back. If all you
have to say is "the poor Ramseys, everyone tried to frame them!" and empty
claims that some "evidence" that you don't specify is now discredited, then
you're just blowing hot air.
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
On Jul 10, 8:58 am, "Tin@" <tinas49...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 3:26 pm, CJKatl <charlesk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Innocent until proven guilty should be more than a slogan. It should
> > be a belief. OJ was proven guilty, but a bad couple prosecutors kept
> > him from getting a guilty verdict. The Ramseys, and Mr. Jewell, were
> > each cleared by the investigating authorities and never charged. We
> > should keep reminding ourselves that they never were guilty, were
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
For all the misgivings about the jury, I really think they did what
they had to do, given the case presented. It was rambling. It was
pointless. (Not my posts. The case presented.) The prosecutors and the
judge did not have control over what went on there. Johnny Cochran ran
the show. By the time the jury got the case, they had no idea what the
heck they were supposed to be doing. They were so confused they had no
choice but to acquit...
- - - - -
I agree with you 100%. At first I blamed the jury, but after reading
several books about the case I was convinced it was the prosecutors who blew
it. Bugliosi's book really hammers that point home nicely.
Bo Raxo
Michael T.
>
> DA (Mary Lacy) has a long standing reputation since 2002 of thinking
> (perhaps succumbing to local pressure) that the Ramsey's were innocent. We
> all remember how embarrassed this DA was for her handling of the John Mark
> Karr fiasco - driven by a desire to validate her belief in the intruder
> theory.
>
> Isn't this DA up for re-election?
>
> Why wasn't this same DNA found on any of the following?
> 1) The window or the window sill or the wine cellar door in the basement.
> 2) The ligature
> 3) The duct tape
> 4) The rope used with the ligature
> 5) The instrument used to write the ransom note
> 6) The ransom note itself
> 7) The bowl used to serve JonBenet pineapples
>
> I suppose you could argue that the assailant could have gloves on and
> still leave a trace of skin on her leggings. But the fact it was found on
> the waistband of her leggings makes me wonder if it was deposited while
> removing the garment and he did not have gloves.
>
> I agree the finding 'may' be significant', but is it dispositive? I'm
> sorry, but I just can't make that leap of faith.
>
Here's what I posted in this newsgroup five years ago with a different
username.
--------------
I still can't get past the ransom note.
I am sure it has been discussed ad nauseam in this newsgroup.
Many would agree that the ransom note had a striking resemblance to Patsy
Ramsey's handwriting.
So I have to wonder why would anyone write a ransom note imitating Patsy
Ramsey's writing style and penmanship?
I know it was never 'conclusively' proven that she wrote it, but to my
knowledge she was never ruled out either.
Finally, in a Christmas message the Ramsey's wrote "Had there been no birth
of Christ, there would be no hope of eternal life, and, hence, no hope of
ever being with our loved ones again."
The phrase "and hence" is also used in the ransom note.
This is a curious coincidence as using AND before HENCE is so uncommon. The
word "hence" is a transition word. You do not have to use the word "and"
with it.
Was this simply a coincidence? Perhaps?
Michael
-------------
I still can't get past this "and hence" comment. I don't think in the last
five years I have heard anyone else say (or write) this phrase.
My intention is not to reargue the case, as I have no problem with those who
prefer the intruder theory. You may be correct based on this new evidence. I
can't decide whether I am "stuck on stupid" or "stuck on very persuasive
information" <g>. But I can't let go.