An answer for JJ


I have repeatedly gotten the following comment from JJ on an old post called “We know that Sharon Tate did not die that night, but was she even pregnant?”

The “rose” is actually part of the string of Christmas lights that Candice Bergen left strewn about the fence before moving out with Terry Melcher.

I have not let the comment through. If I do, JJ becomes a regular, and I don’t want that. This person seems to be dealing on an intimate level with the Tate Massacre. Such people litter the landscape, and are either clueless or are deliberately casting about seeds of doubt on honest research. In either case, I don’t want him/her coming around. So I am answering here, as the odds are that the email address given with the comment is bogus.

JJ, we know that it is a string of lights. That is not the point. It is a staged photo designed to look like a rose and a cross, Rosicrucian, get it? Do you see a cross on the other side of Tate? We also know that is just a fence.

We are not all in total agreement here, but if you look at the odd placement of Tate’s arm, what I see is someone else’s very pregnant body below, and her head above. It is a staged photo heavily edited in a darkroom. It is not a truthful image.

In other words, not only was Tate not killed that night, she was also not pregnant. You don’t get this?

44 thoughts on “An answer for JJ

      1. A year ago, I probably wouldn’t have noticed, but now thanks to your good selves, I’m cynical/critical about everything I see, especially in the papers, on tv, ecc. I saw a magazine Conspiracy Theories on sale at the weekend, and I flipped to the 911 page and it was full of the usual suspects, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and Mossad, pure misdirection – ‘Was blind but now I see.’


  1. Ha, nice, photo analysis time again!

    Indeed, the shadows don’t match. And you have to open the actual file to see what I observed here:

    the head and upper body of Sharon Polanski do not match the rest of the body, they are too small (but sometimes feel they are too big), so
    it looks to me that the photo of Sharon’s head and upper body was shot ~3 feet/1 m more distant, that’s why it looks too small
    the skin tone is different too. Sharon was/is? a typical what I call “Swedish Blonde”. It is a phenotype found in Europe and common in Sweden. You can draw a circle with as midpoint southern Sweden (like Malmö) and then a radius of like 1000 km/miles. Inside that area this very beautiful phenotype is common. People from this type have blonde hair, they tan extremely quickly and nicely (no sunburn) and their hair gets blonder with more sun. I know this first hand, as obviously many Dutch people have this phenotype too. Of course it makes sense the belly is not as much exposed to the sun as the head and shoulders, but the legs have the same tone as the belly, while the head and shoulders are far more tanned.
    the straight line of “her” clothing, what is happening there? Is she holding up her “piece of cloth” (it is not a blouse or shirt or anything)? Looking at her shoulder it should be strapless, but that doesn’t match the lower part, also in the case she holds it up, it should still curve towards her body/hand.

    the first cut line I see. We are talking 1969, so in the analog era where photos had to be cut and pasted by hand, no, millennials reading along, there was no Photoshop (else the moonlandings wouldn’t be so blatantly ridiculous)…

    when you open the file you see it in the symbols in her cloth, even in the trees in the background and it marks a difference in shadow tones between upper and lower parts.

    the second cut line. The straight and awkward cut at her elbow immediately pops out, but it continues in her cloth and the shadow tones again.
    also the difference between the lower straight line of her cloth (vague symbols visible) and the part above the cut line (white)

    this part also is strange, what is it? It is not part of her hair (too long and too straight) and also not part of the plant in the back (different color and the plant seems to stop at the leafy part at the top).

    More observations:
    – I don’t know LA first hand, only from movies and games (GTA V), but look at the city in the background, I assume this is somewhere in Beverly Hills or so and the skyline of the city is very clear. Much less smog in the summer of 1969 than today, I reckon.

    This is fun!


    1. That straight line is right on..Right where it appears to be photo-shopped..Look at how light that shadow is from the line down to the elbow..Good eye,Gaia.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. They didn’t photo shop in those days..But they sure as hell knew how shop-n-chop and slice-n-dice in other ways..Didn’t They ?


  2. I can’t recall what I wrote earlier about this fauxto but the hot spot on her hip suggests a flash and yet the shadows of the legs are misaligned for the light source centering on her hip. The legs shadows should be 10 minutes further to the right or at least a diffusion present given the sunshine…but, then, why use a flash in bright sunlight?
    Au contraire, re: smog. I grew up in that general area of So Cal and the smog back then was punishing by today’s standards. Beverly Hills is lower altitude. They are likely up on top of a canyon wall where the air would have been a little cleaner.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. guys and girls, you are wasting time on this picture analysis. Did anyone tried the cluesforum recently? It seems to be gone. Or is it just me?


    1. I haven’t visited CF in minths, if not years. I do not trust Simon Shack, in a Dr. Fell manner. Keep us apprised of what happens on that site. I would not be surprised if all of the talent he attracted, all the good research done there, is now removed from public view. That would be the closing act of a huge project designed to attract the best minds and lay them to waste.

      Or it might reappear tomorrow.

      Regarding this photo, I beg to differ on its relative importance. The Manson project was huge, the role of the Beatles always a curiosity to me. Sharon Tate did not die, merely became her own sister in public. I once wondered what became of the baby, and even thought maybe it became Brad Pitt. For no good reason. This photo told me there was no baby, but taking a live infant from a woman’s body and murdering both was the ultimate evil they were trying to project on “hippies” (even as hippies were their own invention), and generally on the counterculture and antiwar movement.

      So analysis of this photo is more than good fun. More work needs to be done to guage the relative height of Tate versus this creation, as it would be a good bet that a combination of two bodies, as this represents, would be unlikely to produce the correct dimensions. Tyrone speculated when we first monkeyed with this that they had drawn someone from LAPD with a pregnant wife or an actual LAPD worker who was pregnant to come out to pose without telling her why. Then they had Sharon pose in such a way (arm extended and then darkened to create a division line) that there was a separation point where, in a darkroom, they could append one body to the other.

      The early antiwar movement was clean cut kids and professors (like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, infiltrators) with good minds … by 1968 they were long hair and beads and drugs, so far as the public knew. Manson/Tate was the closing act on their destruction, the end of an era. They drew their enemies close, and then discredited them, slimed them in such dramatic fashion that you might say that Tate/Manson was a way of killing hope.

      Remember that Lookout Mountain was right up the road. They had the best facility in the business for this kind of wrok.


      1. I don’t doubt your conclusions Mark, this was a staged hoax and the picture is manipulated. But you won’t be able to prove if Sharon was pregnant or not, using a manipulated picture. And what for? We have all reason to assume her death was not real. If she had a baby it could be anyone now. I’m also not really opposed to your idea of the existence of a “Matt Damon Batch” or “Bokanovsky Brats”. They may make all the media stars to procreate within themselves to breed “better” humans, which not always works 100% as we know. Think of Daniel Michael deVito for instance. The newer generations also seem to be of lesser talents than their parents were. Breeding always has bad side effects. The best properties can be achieved when two completely unrelated specimen are used. An unattractive German friend of us married an unattractive woman from Korea, who came to Germany to work in a hospital back then in the 80-s. Their two children are both very attractive humans, both with Phd degrees. I know more such examples. IMO the farther the genetic distance is, the better the results it produces. I also know some very attractive, perfect couples who had birth problems and their offspring is by far not as attractive as the parents are. I think, they know that too and that’s why Matt Damon married a woman from Argentina and Ashton Kutcher married a woman from Ukraine.


        1. We are never able to “prove” anything. We can only offer reason and evidence. The Tate massacre was designed to be one of the most horrible events in U.S. history, and pulling a live baby out of the mother’s womb and killing it is the piece de resistance, the frosting on the cake of a carefully planned psyop. So I am asserting that the evidence we have implies no baby, that she was not pregnant at that time.


          1. Mark, such stories are created by novel writers a la Stephen King. People don’t do such things, now even mad people. Sometime they use real events and only invent additional details to make them more scary. There was an Earthquake recently on Bali with supposedly many deaths and a tsunami, etc. Friends of us are still there and they witnessed no such thing. There was a small earthquake, some buildings got some damage, no tsunami. All this was invented by mass media and works only because they tell the same story world wide. People belive that but it is still a lie. When does “evidence” work? We know pictures, films, statements no matter if written or spoken can be faked. DNA is a hoax, such are fingerprints, hair analysis, the entire forensics is a one giant hoax. All those things don’t prove anything and can be entirely wrong in their conclusions. If the police finds stolen goods in your place, they can assume, it was you who has nicked them. It’s not a prove but close enough. And it usually works. Except you will deny everything and present an alibi. Or if they catch you in the store with something in your pocket they can assume you intended to steal it. But it still is no prove if you for instance put it there by accident or already bought it somewhere else, etc. Evidence really works only in science if used to prove a theory which explains a natural phenomenon. This phenomenon must be reproducible and the theory falsifiable. Things that happen only once cannot be explained by any theory!!! No evidence can explain human behavior which is unpredictable. Yet still it is used to base sentences on it but it is a lie we all agreed to voluntarily because it is so convenient. Don’t you think?


          2. With one exception, I agree. I rarely, if ever, use the words “prove” and “proof.” The field of mathematics allows for such luxury, but nothing else. All of these flat earthers, while I think them either devious or stupid, cannot be proven to be wrong until we place our feet on the moon and gaze at our planet. We can only use evidence … in that case, the shape of the moon and sun and Saturn, Jupiter and Venus and their predictable behaviors.

            So we are stuck with evidence and no proof. With the Sharon Tate matter, I think it entirely possible the entire event was conjured by writers and made real by use of real and fake photos, and that nothing happened that night in that house. It was all a media show, the photos used staged in advance and supplied after-the-fact. Tate herself gave herself to the project, maybe since real fame had otherwise eluded her, nothing but B movies in her IMDB. She might well have found that life after death was a difficult way, and sought to be a public person again, and so became her own younger sister.

            But as to her being pregnant, it was unnecessary, even a hindrance in the larger scheme.The idea they were selling was hideous evil, and the script writers decided that removing a baby from a womb and killing it was a desireable effect. So they wrote it, and the Lookout Mountain people made it so in their photo darkrooms. Tate was not pregnant, Polanski was not her husband or father of her baby. Why they have kept him out if the country and accused him of raping a minor can be explained as keeping him out of mind and discredited in case he ever speaks the truth iof that night.

            Where I disagree is DNA evidence. It is real. My eight-year-old daughter was raped in 1987, and the police arrested the wrong man and framed him and put him in prison just to solve the crime. In 2002 DNA evidence proved him innocent, and he was awarded $3.5 million due to prosecution fraud. He and I are now FB friends, and I believe in his innocence. In 2014, a random DNA match found another man to be the culprit. My own research found that he lived but one block from us at that time, and my ex-wife’s change of behavior at that time told me that she had known him when the event happened. (The child rapist aside, my ex-wife js perhaps the worst human I have ever known. My bad, however, as I married the freak.) You may choose not to believe any if this, but it is evidence for me that DNA is a valid investigative tool.


          3. well Mark, I read what you’ve written about your personal tragedy. They used the DNA to your advantage to cover their own mistakes. They do it more often. They also still make lots of mistakes using DNA as evidence. This does not prove the DNA analysis works. Scientifically the DNA cannot be the carrier of genetic information even if it plays a significant role in it, because it changes continually through your life. Shock events or relevant experiences can verifiable change your DNA. That’s why children of Formula 1 drivers often becomes race drivers themselves. This is also the reason why for instance certain dogs can inherit the ability to hunt ducks in ponds, which the original wolves never did. Breeders made the Labrador first to match certain properties (strong legs, waterproof fury, ears that get not filled with water easily) and trained them to hunt in certain conditions. Later Labradors inherited this properties from their parents. That was partly made through breeding and partly through training. Training obviously left its imprint in the DNA. When the genetic fingerprint method was first published there were claims to measure its quality using 1000 blood samples, which had to be ordered via DNA. It was never done, instead the method simply offers a probability, so it cannot be proved wrong. If you’re playing roulette in a casino and there was black 99 times in a row, the probability that next time it will be red is about 99% but if its still black then, the probability was not wrong. That is the scientific part. But look at this from the other side. If they could prove somebody’s innocence via DNA why not using it immediately to check all inmates for probable innocence? Instead they sometimes claim they just proved that some person who was innocently incarcerated for decades is now free thanks to DNA. Why now and not years ago? Or just read how they make this funny striped pictures called “gel electrophoresis” and how they use them to guess the probability of the comparison. It’s a hoax which makes them lots of money and gives work to millions of people.


          4. I find your reasoning strained. The dog example actually works against you, as inbreeding is essential to maintain a breed, and failure to do so causes reversion to form, a wolf – a perverted one that would soon be extinct for sure, but still, a wolf. Labradors have to breed with other labs to maintain the traits that were deemed useful. It is true that wolves don’t hunt ducks, but that is purely a mathematical aspect of nature, too small a caloric reward for too large an effort. Bears do not hunt mice. Foxes do and owls do.

            DNA as evidence: Of course it is true that the science was available prior to its widespread use. That it is not used on all prisoners is a problem of bureaucratic interia and self preservation. The “justice” system does not self-examine and expose its own mistakes. That takes outsiders, and those are a group known as The Innocence Project. The justice system did not release Jim due to its own integrity. Far from it. It took IP and some kicking and screaming to get that job done.

            DNA is in wider use now, just as photo analysis is, because of computers becoming more widely used and usable. Of course is can be misused, and I fear thaf the same people who Photoshop our reality with images will also be able to pervert DNA as well, but from what I have seen, it is a useful science with proven results. The police did not know in 1987 who the real perptrator was, and were left with a horrible crime that had to be “solved” to reassure the public that there is indeed justice. So they fudged it. They used hair sample analysis, which I fear to say might be akin to my face chopping in being highly prone to erroroneous conclusions. In Jim’s case, they knowingly fudged the results, which us why Jim is now a millionaire. Again, this is not the system self-correcting. It was outsiders forcing the system to admit error. The douchebag who did the hair analysis testimony that convicted Jim was widely used a an expert at the time, leading to widespread embarrassment.

            Tipton has now emerged as the likely rapist. He was arrested on drug charges and as part of his plea bargain agreed to submit DNA. Bingo. He was a random hit, living in a trailer in White Sulfur Springs, Montana, and no one knew to suspect him of the 1987 crime. Of course I do not have proof of his guilt, and he won’t be forthcoming about it, but I did ask a friend in Billings to check the phonebooks of that era for the name, and sure enough the name appears in a house one block away. I think that had police in 1987 not ao easily settled on Jim, they could have found Tipton, if only by pursuing other leads. My then-wife had a habit of talking in a martyr fashion about being burdened with young children – this in a nearby bar, where the best people hang out. I would love to pursue that lead, but time has buried the evidence. Her current behaviors tell me she is hiding something, however.

            By the way, I did my own investigating at the time, as I could not just sit idly by. The rapist took both my jacket and my wife’s purse. I knew he would be quick to dispose of them, and I also knew the garbage collectors would soon be around. So I went through every alley north, south and east of our house, dumpster diving. I did not go west as there was a vacant meadow there, beyond which there were more residences. That is where there was a house listed as belonging to Tipton. It just did not occur to me walk cross the meadow, not he would be that stupid. He ditched the purse several blocks east, and police used that slim reed as evidence against Jim.

            More to tell here … I think that the judge in the case was complicit in framing Jim, as the sentencing hearing had a staged “new witness” appear. Another time.


  4. The OFFICIAL Date of Death for the character Sharon Tate is August 9, 1969 and she was supposedly married to “Roman” Polanski. In the old “Roman” Calender, August was the 6th month which gives a Death Date of 6/9/69. Another example of Date Numerology is the invasion of Iraq 03/20/2003.

    Patricia Gay Tate, born October 30, 1957, official sister of Sharon Tate, supposedly died June 3, 2000 while the other alleged sibling Debra Tate was born November 30, 1952 and is still living. The Father of these 3 women is supposed to be COLONEL PAUL JAMES TATE born 1922 while the Mother is listed as Doris Gwendolyn (Willett) Tate born 1924. They married in 1942 and Sharon Tate was born 1943 so that makes sense. Then 9 years before Debra is born and another 5 years before Patricia is born? They were married 50 years before Doris died July 10, 1992 at age 66 years + 176 days. Colonel Paul James Tate died 18 May 2005. Here is a Wiki Link to the very limited info on The Colonel.

    Now it is always a “COLONEL” who gets the assignment of doing the dirty work right? Now “El” comes from the Latin/Espanol and is synonymous with the English word “The” and the English Language is a lot of flipping and backward spelling so “Colonel” means “El Colon” or “The Colon”.

    Now the word “ROMAN” is also the word “MANOR” as in “Lord of the Manor”. The “Manor” is the principal house of a landed estate.

    Debra Tate will turn 66 years old on November 30, 2018. I suspect her death will occur shortly after that on the 15th of a month, possibly April 15th or July 15th, 2019.


      1. She’ll “die” in connection to the publicity for the upcoming Tarantino movie Once Upon a Time in Hollywood which has somebody playing Sharon Tate in it. In fact, she’ll have her pick as there are, I believe, four Tate movies coming soon.


        1. According to nydailynews, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is scheduled for release on the 50th anniversary of the alleged Man+Son Murders event, August 9, 2019, which is during the sign of “Leo” the “Lion” and the movie stars “Leo” nardo de Caprio who was officially born 11/11/74 in HOLLYWOOD, so de Caprio is a Scorpio. THEY claim Sharon Tate was 2 weeks from giving birth on August 9, 1969, when she and her child were killed. With an average pregnancy of 280 days, that would put her date of conception right around mid November, very close to 11/11/1968. Now the symbol of the UK is of course “The Lion” and there is a somewhat famous beauty from the UK that is said to look exactly like Sharon Tate and she is “Kitty” Eleanor Spencer born December 28, 1990, daughter of Charles Spencer (younger brother of Diana) and Catherine Victoria Lockwood. Kitty also has two beautiful twin sisters, Amelia and Eliza, born July 10th, 1992. Charles “9th Earl” Spencer is currently on wife #3 Karen Villeneuve, a Canadien Philanthropist, who is the founder and CEO of Whole Child International, a charity based in…………..Los Angeles, that works to improve the lot of orphaned, abandoned, or abused children. One is of course left to wonder if any of these poor unfortunate children end up as Actors with al the details of their lives simply made up out of thin air, which takes me back to a conversation between Andy and Red in the Library in the movie Shawshank Redemption where Andy tells Red about his creation of Randall Stephens. Now before watching this scene, you should know that Andy is describing the way in which EVERY PERSON is CREATED, including your PERSON! This is the “Immaculate Conception” story, spelt out by Stephen King.

          Now Stephen Edwin King met his wife Tabitha Spruce in the “Fogler” Library at the University of Maine and of course, one of the “main” characters in the Laurel Canyon scene was Abigail “Folger”, heiress to the Folgers Coffee fortune. Now Stephen Kings first published story was “The Glass Floor” in 1967 at the age of 20, and Leonardo Decaprio starred in The Revenant, a supposedly true story about Hugh Glass, a man famous for getting torn to shreds by the Big Brown Bear, and it was noted by many that in that attack scene, it appears that “The Bear” is phucKING Leo “The Lion”, butt The Lion (UK) kills The Bear (RUSSIA) though the battle (WWI, The Depression & WWII) has left The Lion extremely weak and very near death. The Lion (UK) has to think of all sorts of new ways to survive, but The Lion is not mad at The Bear, which he now wears as a Coat of Arms, and is instead mad at the American Military Officers that couldn’t be bothered to nurse The Lion back to health and that had left him for DEAD and so he plots his revenge. The bands touring the U.S. aren’t called The British Invasion for no reason! Did you know that all Canola Oil comes from Canada and that it is a TOXIC POISON and that CANOLA stands for CANADIAN Oil Low Acid and is derived from a Genetically Modified Rapeseed Plant? I guess “Rapeseed OIL” wouldn’t be a catchy name. Caffeine (Coffee) is also a TOXIN and your body reacts to this Toxin in multiple ways to try to expel it from the body. Urination, Defecation, Perspiration and the release of Adrenaline which is the “Fight or Flight” and it is the release of adrenaline that actually gives the “energy boost” associated with caffeine. In the UK, they do not drink Coffee, especially the Members of the Peerage. Now look at many of your Cigarette and Liquor products and notice The Lion Logo, then look at the majority of your other Toxic Consumer Products and notice the small Logo (U) or (K).


            1. Tyrone,

              Thanks for the link. I had not heard of or seen anything regarding Terran Downvale before.


              When I wrote that ‘they’ don’t drink coffee in the UK, i was not trying to say that coffee is not made available to the lower classes. It is worth noting also that nearly all cigarettes are manufactured by U.S. and UK Companies with the exception of the China Tobacco Corporation that is mainly just for China and has a virtual monopoly on cigarettes in China. The US & UK Companies all add SUGAR to the cigarettes as well as a plethora of other toxic ingredients. Ironically, the China National Tobacco Corporation was founded in 1982, the same year that a little-known book was published called “POLITICAL PONEROLOGY”. Here is a downloadable pdf.

              Click to access political-ponerology.pdf

              One of the facts revealed in the book is how it had been discovered that people who had suffered carbon monoxide poisoning were harder to control/brainwash. In the Fall of 1982, the “smoking area” was banned at my High School. Coincidence? Not a chance. It is also worth noting that the original Polish Manuscript was not translated into English until 1985. If you have not read this book, you should read it now. It’s been years since I read it the first time and I plan to read it again in the coming days.


              I have a cousin who has chickens and he told me we are the only country that refrigerates eggs. You have travelled much overseas. Is that accurate?

              Liked by 1 person

          1. I don’t get the warm beer at all, but each area of the world has its own ways. We were in Italy and Austria last summer, and they do not use ice cubes in drinks, and ice is not sold in stores. Here in the US we drown everything in ice, every motel has an ice machine, grocery stores are all stocked with 10 and 25 pound bags.


    1. WOW, That is quite some heavy pain to endure. Why would any man fabricate such a story just to prove a point…and more so,How can anyone doubt you ? I’m sorry that happened to your little girl,Mark. I’m sorry you have to live with that.


        1. Mark, I gave you a longer answer a few posts above. In short: they used the DNA to your advantage to cover their mistakes. They’ve used it now, why not 30 years ago? The method is well known since the early 80-s. The costs are irrelevant to them. It would even save lots of money if they could re-check all inmates and leave the innocent ones out. Shouldn’t that be a standard procedure to check everybody’s innocence via DNA? In your case they did not find any new material. It was all in the storage for decades. They do it that way to sell the DNA hoax and to scare us that we can get in jail without a proof and that only some passionate lawyer can get us out then after decades and lots of paperwork. It’s part of the fear business.


  5. Well, Thank God or whatever you believe in for that. Because a few lives were tore up and nearly destroyed,but the real scumbag was brought to justice.


  6. Just identified, Should have been Crucified ! The statute shouldn’t apply to such repulsive crimes. where is the time-line for the damage done to the victim(s)…When does their limit end,to getting over it, if Ever ?


    1. It is ongoing stuff, but not of the high intensity … the matter has been appealed to the US Supreme Court, and California has joined Montana in asking them to overturn the statute that set him free. I don’t hold out much hope. Almost all cases appealed to the Supremes are turned away. And anyway, prosecutors want a conviction, while I want the truth of that night. My quest, never to be satisfied, is much broader. That’s life.


      1. That’s life, you got that right. What more does it take to overturn a decision of law on cases such as these ? This should be a prime example..A man spends 15-yrs of his life behind bars for a crime he didn’t commit. ( so he became the victim of a crime committed against him) He’s awarded 3.5 million to buy a little bit of tomorrow,but he can’t buy back yesterday.and the family, (the victims) of the crime he didn’t commit are again victimized for a second time,when they find the past 15 years of their life was all in vain and nothing has been solved,or shall we say resolved…Because nobody paid, except the VICTIMS. The family should have received 3.5 million,also,just for all the mental anguish…and another 3.5 million for the 15 years they spent in a prison of their own.


        1. Don’t confuse “law” and “legal system” with “justice.” They only occasionally overlap. With Jim, the only reason he got the $3.5 million was that the police committed fraud in convicting him. Were that not the case, 15 yars of his life would have yielded nothing but his original possessions, some pocket change, and a pat on the back.


  7. Point taken. There really was no justice,was there? Had that man not been able to prove fraud, He would have walked out of prison trying to salvage what’s left to his life,with a mere pat on the back…That’s pretty sad.


    1. The legal system is not in the justice business. Fortunately, the Innocence Project and Peter Neufeld are, and because of them Jim got his life back and a good part of $3.5 million.

      Jim was offered a chance at early parole while in prison if only he would submit to group therapy for sex offenders. Man that he had become while in prison, he said he was innocent and refused to go that route. That took some courage.


  8. That took more than courage,Mark. if that man was “GUILTY,” any diddling molesting maggot rapist would have been jumping at the early chance at parole. They already had his freedom,Now they were trying to strip him of his pride and dignity and get him to surrender his soul by submitting to group therapy for sex offenders…And he told them to stick it where that sun will never F…ING shine and went back to his cell like a Man. “THAT” was not “COURAGE”….That was a sign of an “INNOCENT” man.


  9. Mark, I think, you just got me wrong somehow. I don’t judge the current results of your case only the using of the DNA hoax to change the previous results. Labrador come as all other dogs from the domesticated wolf. The first Labradors were created from a series of deviation caused by inbreeding. This deviations did not make them hunt ducks in ponds. This behavior had to be trained through many generations of Labradors. Every next generation inherited some of the behavior of its parents. Current Labradors even if they never really hunted anything for real in their life still have the affinity for water and small animals. It got into their DNA not by inbreeding but by consequent training of their ancestors. I also tried to explain that the results of the DNA analysis are never proven and never sure. It’s a probability only. If you say, I’m a billionaire with w probability of 95%, will that make me rich? Either I’m are rich or not. It’s not a question of probability. On what will you base your probability that I’m rich? Because I have the same favorite color as some rich people have or because I like the same music? Or because I worked all my life? Makes no sense, don’t you think? How can anybody be guilty with a probability? This came with the DNA and before that nobody was ever declared being guilty with a probability. Or take a look how do they find foreign DNA on the crime scene. When we say DNA analysis we mean the genetic fingerprint method invented by some Alec Jeffreys. You can check the guy out. I won’t be surprised if he is a fake too. His German Wiki Entry is weird enough to me. Just read some more details about how this is done, why they use PCR to replicate DNA sequences only to later find the same sequences of DNA and all that nonsense. Our DNA is 99% the same as that from a mouse. How can you spot the difference between two humans then?


    1. I am only giving you my evidence that they have fingered the right guy. They did that with DNA. They did not just pick some random dude. If this thing ever goes to trial, unlikely, they will also have to build a strong circumstantial case against him, but my personal discovery that he lived a block away, and my ex-wife acting like she is hiding something, tells me that they may well have the right guy. I realize that we always, always deal with “evidence” and not proof, and that we never have the luxury of certainty. That does not disqualify DNA evidence any more than it does fingerprints. (By the way, DNA is absolutely useless in terms of hair samples.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s