Voice of Reason
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 10
Various threads on this board have begun to turn towards discussion of the DNA, so I thought I would start out a thread devoted to that topic. I think it is important to note that there are certain things which the DNA tells us, and others that it does not. You can't have your cake and eat it. But it goes both ways, with regards to the DNA...
For IDI enthusiasts, a favorite line of reasoning is the following: if the DNA has exculpated some suspects (i.e., Helgoth), then it must exculpate the Ramseys as well, right? Yes and no.
No question about it, the DNA does certainly shed some favorable light on the Ramseys. However, if the BPD did such a bad job, as IDI's love to point out, who's to say they did not screw up with the DNA? It took 8 years to get a sample eligible for CODIS. There has also been criticism regarding the samples from under the fingernails taken with supposedly contaminated nail clippers. If you criticize LE, you must be wary of all of this evidence.
But on the other hand, assuming the tests are done correctly and the samples are properly extracted, you must admit that the DNA does not match the Ramseys. This is well-documented. However, another favorite line of IDI's, especially when trying to tie Helgoth into the picture, is the following: more than one person was involved. Well, if that is the case, then the DNA is non-conclusive as far as eliminating suspects go. If the DNA allows people like Helgoth to be accused as working with an accomplice, who's to say it does not do the same for the Ramseys?
We must all be open-minded here, on both sides of the fence. I go back and forth all the time. However, one thing which I cannot get out of my head, are the circumstances surrounding the crime. For starters, you have a crime that 9 times out of 10, would end up in a family member's guilt. Then, you have the instant lawyering up, vague answers (if answers at all), and media manipulation by the Ramseys. While this is by no means evidence that is going to get you anywhere in a court of law, it is highly suggestive of some sort of involvement.
Now let's switch gears over to Michael Helgoth. Here's a man, who while somewhat strange, holds no ties to the Ramsey family. He has been accused of his odd behavior by a man with a criminal record. His DNA, too, did not match. He owned a pair of one of the most popular brand of hiking boots, Hi-Tec, and he lived in mountainous Colorado. He died suspiciously (murder or suicide?) in the days following DA Alex Hunter's announcement that the search was narrowing. However, noone in his family seems concerned with determining if he was indeed murdered, only those behind these recent TV specials. If your son/brother/friend killed himself, and people suggested he was murdered, wouldn't you want to find out the truth? Their silence speaks volumes. Let Michael Helgoth rest in peace. He obviously lived a troubled life. Here, I think the DNA should allow him to be released, because, IMO, there is really nothing to suggest his guilt.
DNA can be some pretty damning evidence these days. It has completely restructured our criminal justice system. Just look up Barry Scheck's Innocence Project. But don't look where the DNA does not take you. True, the DNA does not take you to the Ramseys, but plenty of other evidence does. I hope that responses to this thread will discuss what the DNA does/can/will tell us, as I'm not trying to implicate the Ramseys here. I'm just trying to explain my opinion, which I feel is an objective one, as to just what the DNA can/can't tell us.
Discuss...
For IDI enthusiasts, a favorite line of reasoning is the following: if the DNA has exculpated some suspects (i.e., Helgoth), then it must exculpate the Ramseys as well, right? Yes and no.
No question about it, the DNA does certainly shed some favorable light on the Ramseys. However, if the BPD did such a bad job, as IDI's love to point out, who's to say they did not screw up with the DNA? It took 8 years to get a sample eligible for CODIS. There has also been criticism regarding the samples from under the fingernails taken with supposedly contaminated nail clippers. If you criticize LE, you must be wary of all of this evidence.
But on the other hand, assuming the tests are done correctly and the samples are properly extracted, you must admit that the DNA does not match the Ramseys. This is well-documented. However, another favorite line of IDI's, especially when trying to tie Helgoth into the picture, is the following: more than one person was involved. Well, if that is the case, then the DNA is non-conclusive as far as eliminating suspects go. If the DNA allows people like Helgoth to be accused as working with an accomplice, who's to say it does not do the same for the Ramseys?
We must all be open-minded here, on both sides of the fence. I go back and forth all the time. However, one thing which I cannot get out of my head, are the circumstances surrounding the crime. For starters, you have a crime that 9 times out of 10, would end up in a family member's guilt. Then, you have the instant lawyering up, vague answers (if answers at all), and media manipulation by the Ramseys. While this is by no means evidence that is going to get you anywhere in a court of law, it is highly suggestive of some sort of involvement.
Now let's switch gears over to Michael Helgoth. Here's a man, who while somewhat strange, holds no ties to the Ramsey family. He has been accused of his odd behavior by a man with a criminal record. His DNA, too, did not match. He owned a pair of one of the most popular brand of hiking boots, Hi-Tec, and he lived in mountainous Colorado. He died suspiciously (murder or suicide?) in the days following DA Alex Hunter's announcement that the search was narrowing. However, noone in his family seems concerned with determining if he was indeed murdered, only those behind these recent TV specials. If your son/brother/friend killed himself, and people suggested he was murdered, wouldn't you want to find out the truth? Their silence speaks volumes. Let Michael Helgoth rest in peace. He obviously lived a troubled life. Here, I think the DNA should allow him to be released, because, IMO, there is really nothing to suggest his guilt.
DNA can be some pretty damning evidence these days. It has completely restructured our criminal justice system. Just look up Barry Scheck's Innocence Project. But don't look where the DNA does not take you. True, the DNA does not take you to the Ramseys, but plenty of other evidence does. I hope that responses to this thread will discuss what the DNA does/can/will tell us, as I'm not trying to implicate the Ramseys here. I'm just trying to explain my opinion, which I feel is an objective one, as to just what the DNA can/can't tell us.
Discuss...