DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Forgot to ask - Can someone advise of best info source on JAR?
It depends on what, specifically, you are after. There are a few threads here and elsewhere that discuss JAR.

Here at WS:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126011"]John Andrew Ramsey - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42667"]JAR's semen on the blanket in a suitcase in the basement - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

There is this from Acandyrose:
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-john-andrew-ramsey.htm

Also from books:
From Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller:

Minutes later, John Ramsey’s older children from a previous marriage, John Andrew and Melinda, arrived. They had just flown in to Denver. Originally they were going to meet their father’s private plane in Minneapolis that morning, and then the entire family would have continued on to their vacation home in Charlevoix, Michigan. But John Andrew had called his father from Minneapolis and learned about the kidnapping, and he and Melinda had taken a United Airlines flight to Denver. Now, outside in the early afternoon chill, Ramsey told his son and daughter that their little sister had been murdered.
John Ramsey’s behavior after his daughter’s body was found—together with national child homicide statistics, which showed that a large percentage of child murders are committed by fathers—made the Ramsey family automatic suspects. Ramsey’s two older children had arrived from out of town after the body was found, but they too were added to the list. John Andrew Ramsey, a college student in Boulder who often stayed at his father’s house, was under particular suspicion. The police would soon learn that the suitcase found under the broken window in the basement belonged to him.
Hofstrom then called Michael Bynum, who confirmed that although John and Patsy refused interviews at this time, the entire family—including Burke, John Andrew, and Melinda—would give blood, hair, fingerprint, and handwriting samples. Bynum agreed that Detectives Arndt and Kim Stewart could speak to John Ramsey’s older children and his brother, Jeff, who were at the Fernies’ house.
Twenty-year-old John Andrew was obviously upset, but he was composed enough to explain that he was a student at CU and had been in Boulder until December 19. Then he had gone to Atlanta to spend the first part of his vacation with his mother, Lucinda Johnson, and his sister and friends. Then the plan was to continue his vacation with his sister, father, stepmother, and their children. He said his father had arranged to meet him and his sister in Minneapolis at about 10:30 A.M. on December 26, and from there they would all continue to the house in Charlevoix, Michigan.

In the months that followed, the police would confirm that John Andrew, his mother, and her friend Harry Smiles had attended the Peachtree Presbyterian Church in Atlanta on Christmas Eve and that John Andrew had returned to his mother’s home at 1:00 A.M.
Melinda, who worked at a hospital in Marietta, Georgia, finished her shift at about 7:00 A.M. on Christmas Day. That afternoon, John Andrew, Harry Smiles, Melinda, and her boyfriend, Stewart Long, exchanged gifts at Lucinda’s home in Marietta. In the afternoon they all went across the street to a neighbor’s for dinner.
Melinda and Stewart Long left the dinner party about 7:00 P.M., and Melinda started to pack for an early flight the next day. At 9:00 they went to visit Guy Long, Stewart’s uncle, and after visiting other friends were home by midnight.
At about 8:30 P.M., John Andrew went to his friend Brad Millard’s home in Marietta to play video games. After an hour, they left to catch a 10:30 show at the Town and Country Movie Theaters in Marietta with another friend, Chris Stanley.
John Andrew said that after the movie he went back to Brad Millard’s house to get his car and arrived back at his mother’s house at 1:00 A.M. The next morning he left his mother’s house with Melinda, who had come there to pick him up. Together they boarded a flight to Minneapolis at 8:36 A.M. local time. That was forty-four minutes after Patsy called 911 to report that JonBenét was missing.
Could John Andrew, with one or more of the friends who provided his and his sister’s alibis, have left Marietta, Georgia, flown to Boulder, Colorado, and returned in time to be seen by his sister’s boyfriend, Stewart Long, at about 6:15 A.M. when John Andrew and Melinda left for the airport?
The police figured that John Andrew had a minimum of four and a half hours he could not account for—longer if he didn’t stay to see the entire movie. It would have been longer still if he never went to the theater but went to an airport instead. That scenario would give John Andrew almost nine hours to get from Marietta to Boulder and back. Until all airline and private plane flights were checked, John Andrew Ramsey would remain a suspect.

The police removed the suitcase they had found beneath the three side-by-side windows at the rear of Burke’s train room. They also removed the windows themselves and the exterior window grate. The suitcase had no dust on it, yet a few pieces of broken glass lay on top of it. Inside, they found a blanket with what turned out to be John Andrew’s semen on it.
For seven weeks the police had been interviewing the Ramseys’ family, friends, and business associates without turning up any real suspects. They had finished their background checks on John Andrew and Melinda and had verified commercial airline schedules and private plane flight plans and found no record that either of them had traveled the night of December 25. Their alibis were solid.
Two and a half months after the Boulder police began investigating John Andrew and Melinda Ramsey, they received the final pieces of evidence that cleared Ramsey’s older children of any involvement in JonBenét’s murder. Bryan Morgan wrote to Detective Thomas on March 4 stating that John Andrew had made an ATM transaction at the QT Store on Roswell Road, in Marietta, Georgia, at 9:00 P.M. on December 25. His friend Brad Millard had been present. To support his claim, Morgan enclosed the ATM transaction slip. He also repeated that Melinda had awakened her brother in the early morning hours of December 26, in time for him to stop at a store and still make an 8:30 A.M. flight to Minneapolis. It was impossible for John Andrew to have flown from Atlanta to Boulder, whether by commercial or private aircraft, commit the murder, and return in time to be awakened by his sister in the presence of Brad Millard, who had stayed overnight in John Andrew’s room.

From JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas:

Gosage and I interviewed twenty-year-old John Andrew Ramsey. He was a lanky young man with dark eyes and short dark hair, who wore a checkered shirt, a winter jacket, and an attitude. When the blood tech moved close with her needle, the former Eagle Scout, who was now a third-semester sophomore at the University of Colorado, whispered, “I may pass out.”
Although he also claimed to have been in Atlanta when the crime occurred, we had to check him out because of the neighbor who had reported seeing him on Christmas Day. We had to determine who was right.
We asked him to put his thoughts on paper, and he wrote a document that brimmed with feelings about his little stepsister being murdered, giving us a glimpse into his world. He caught our attention immediately by writing, “I think it was someone that had intimate knowledge of my family and how we lived day to day. Why would they leave the ransom note on the back staircase instead of the front?”
Good question, I thought. How would a stranger know which stairway Patsy Ramsey would come down that morning?
He ridiculed the idea of a small foreign faction being involved, was certain the crime had nothing to do with his father’s company, and questioned why a ransom note was left at all. “Why did they ask for $118,000? I could pay that amount,” he wrote. Someone was envious of their wealth and thought of the Ramseys as “rich bastards,” he said.
John Andrew told us that whoever did this was probably uneducated, were amateurs at kidnapping, and had seen the movie Ransom, in which the family of Mel Gibson’s character was a “spitting image” of his own. He did not believe anyone came in through the broken basement window. They had a key, he surmised.

In one comment, he described his stepmother as “flashy” and guessed that the killer might be someone close to her.
John Andrew also buttressed the comments of the housekeeper’s husband, Mervin Pugh, and former nanny Suzanne Savage about the house being difficult to navigate. “You don’t know your way around real easy right off the bat. . . . You have to open lots of doors. It has lots of ups and downs,” and the basement entrance was hard to find. It was becoming very clear to the police just how difficult it would have been for any stranger to get to that distant basement storage room.

Another reason to interview the Barnhills, however, was that Joe had told the police he had seen JonBenét’s older half-brother, John Andrew, in Boulder on the evening of December 25. John Andrew claimed to have been in Atlanta at the time. During the interview Barnhill sheepishly told us he had made a mistake and apologized, saying that he probably would not even recognize the young man in a crowd. That went a long way toward firming up John Andrew’s alibi.

Weeks before our plane took off from Denver in mid-February, I had contacted Lucinda Ramsey Johnson, the first wife of John Ramsey, to offer an exchange of information. I would help clear their son, John Andrew, if she would give me the name of the woman with whom John Ramsey had an affair. She was clearly uncomfortable speaking with me, and the day before the interview she canceled it.
“I’ve got an attorney,” she told me by telephone.
“Why? You aren’t suspected of anything.”
“It seems like the thing to do.”
I offered her a sweetheart deal and dropped my condition to get the name of the mistress: If she would help us clear their children John Andrew and Melinda, I would go public to say they were not involved. I didn’t like it, but moving them off the table would let us get on with more promising leads.
The next day in Atlanta I called her new lawyer, Jim Jenkins. Yes, he said, my proposal was quite attractive. No, there could be no interviews of Lucinda Ramsey Johnson or her daughter, Melinda Ramsey, because the scheduling had come too fast. I reminded him we had made the appointments well in advance, but he countered that since he had just come aboard, he would need to see “all prior statements” before his client spoke to us.
Giving witnesses a chance to review previous statements to police is one of the worst things that can happen before an interview. It totally removes the element of surprise from future questions, telegraphs what you’re looking for, and gives witnesses and their lawyers time to study the documents carefully and plan strategy. Unless legally required to do so, as in the discovery process before a trial, a cop would rather eat glass than hand over previous statements. The tactic would be used time and again by Team Ramsey, often successfully and with terrible results for us.
In the following days, we documented the whereabouts of John Andrew Ramsey on the night his little stepsister was killed. Although the family had been of minimal help, Gosage and I backtracked through interviews, records, friends, and associates to put him officially in the Atlanta-Marietta area, except for about six hours when he was presumably asleep at his mother’s home. Unless there was a far-reaching conspiracy or a Harrier jet in the backyard, he didn’t do it.
On the last day of the month, I wrote in an exhaustive report that “one can conclude John Andrew Ramsey’s whereabouts have been reasonably accounted for.” A few days later the city spokesperson announced that both John Andrew and his sister Melinda had been cleared of suspicion.
That was a huge gift to the Ramseys. Once the older kids were cleared we had no more leverage in Atlanta, and it was a milepost in the sham of cooperation.


I first came across that line of investigation in an interview with Brad Millard, a college friend of John Andrew Ramsey. We routinely asked if he had ever been in the Ramsey home in Boulder. Not only had he been there, but he even spent a night in JonBenét’s bed, he said.
I felt like breaking my pen. With a simple fluke question, a young man volunteered that he had slept in the victim’s bed! How many other guests had slept there?

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation lab discovered a semen stain after all on a blanket inside the suitcase that had been retrieved from the basement. DNA tests matched the specimen to John Andrew, and since we had cleared him, another trail ended where it started. Intruder theorists in the DA’s office would try to weave the semen stain, the blanket, and a Doctor Seuss book also found in the suitcase into a convoluted scenario in which JonBenét was lured from her bed with the book. The plan was then to stuff her in the suitcase and take it out through the window. When it was argued that the suitcase didn’t fit through the basement window, the theory simply changed to having her taken out through a door while the suitcase was used as a stairstep to the window. It was a convenient arrangement of these facts.
 
With the importance of DNA evidence being so crucial in a DA's decision as to filing charges in this case leading to prosecution, does anyone know if the wrapping on the "garrote" stick was unwrapped to check for DNA which might have been sealed under the wrapped cording?

I realize this would require altering key original evidence, but surely this crime scene instrument could be preserved through officially documented photography. Right? If the original ransom note was subjected to chemical testing causing alteration from it's original state, couldn't they unwrap that stick and scrape for DNA tests?

If the ligature cord has been DNA tested, and there were multiple male DNA confirmations, I don't see why that necessarily would have to indicate anything that should lead us away from the crime being committed by a single male perp. The cord could have very easily been touched by several males - even females - as it came through the production process, right up through the point of sale.

A thought about how Burke could have had possession of the cord and the Swiss army knife that LHP said she put into a cabinet: Patsy bought the cord, retrieved Burke's knife from the cabinet, and then gave both of them to him so he could practice his knot tying for a Scout project. It was Christmas vacation - kids get bored and antsy waiting for presents, so Patsy thought it would be a good time to get Burke interested in his project and maybe even away from the video games for a while. :moo:
 
With the importance of DNA evidence being so crucial in a DA's decision as to filing charges in this case leading to prosecution, does anyone know if the wrapping on the "garrote" stick was unwrapped to check for DNA which might have been sealed under the wrapped cording?

I realize this would require altering key original evidence, but surely this crime scene instrument could be preserved through officially documented photography. Right? If the original ransom note was subjected to chemical testing causing alteration from it's original state, couldn't they unwrap that stick and scrape for DNA tests?

If the ligature cord has been DNA tested, and there were multiple male DNA confirmations, I don't see why that necessarily would have to indicate anything that should lead us away from the crime being committed by a single male perp. The cord could have very easily been touched by several males - even females - as it came through the production process, right up through the point of sale.

A thought about how Burke could have had possession of the cord and the Swiss army knife that LHP said she put into a cabinet: Patsy bought the cord, retrieved Burke's knife from the cabinet, and then gave both of them to him so he could practice his knot tying for a Scout project. It was Christmas vacation - kids get bored and antsy waiting for presents, so Patsy thought it would be a good time to get Burke interested in his project and maybe even away from the video games for a while. :moo:

I have no clue as to whether the part of the cord that was wrapped around the paintbrush was ever unwrapped. I have ever read anything about it, other than that the was removed from JB's neck by the coroner, who cut it and marked the cut ends with a black marker. He did not untie it as far as I know, but they WERE able to get Patsy black and red jacket fibers from the knot. I would think the wrapped part of the cord would have been an excellent place to extract touch DNA or fibers. The paintbrush, too, yet we have not seen that the cord has ever been unwrapped. The only photos we have show it still wrapped.
 
Kolar also suggested that further testing …
I thought it would be a small step from there to conduct additional tests that simulated a coughing, sneezing, spitting seamstress / handler of similar items to verify this type of DNA could be collected from fresh off-the-shelf clothing articles.
might well produce what was found in the JonBenet case.

Re the fingernails, where precisely does it say that he was using or relying on the 1997 lab report? (Source still required.)
It’s an interesting and classic straw man argument but you haven’t got even the slightest bit of proof.
The DNA from one of the samples from the crotch of the panties was analyzed using standard PCR STR testing for CODIS markers.
Are you suggesting that the samples from the fingernails were not, or could not have been later analyzed in that way?
You keep referring to Beckner and how he’s is going to straighten everyone out regarding this case and the DNA.
You are forgetting that Beckner was at the 2009 Task Force meeting, you know, the same meeting that Kolar was at – THE SAME MEETING WHERE ALL THE DNA INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED THAT KOLAR PRESENTS IN HIS BOOK. WHY DIDN’T BECKNER CORRECT ALL OF THIS "MISINFORMATION" DURING THE MEETING? ANSWER: THERE WAS NO "MISINFORMATION."
Just to be clear this is the full context:
It was not disclosed during the task force presentation the exact strength of these markers, or how they compared to other samples previously discovered on JonBenét’s body (i.e. The male and female DNA collected at autopsy from beneath her fingernails), but it did not prevent the outgoing DA from exonerating the Ramsey family in this murder investigation. Knowing the history of Mary Lacy’s announcements, I should not have been surprised when D. A. Investigator Andy Horita shed further light on the Touch DNA test results during the Cold Case Task Force meeting held in February 2009.
I had supervised Horita during my stint as chief investigator at the D.A.’s office, and it was my opinion that he had a promising future ahead of him. He had no experience as a police officer, but he was an extremely intelligent young man. He looked decidedly dejected as he delivered the news about the additional DNA test results. Horita confirmed the public announcements Lacy had made about matching DNA found in the leggings worn by JonBenét.
He went on to report, however, that additional samples of trace male DNA had been discovered on the cord used in the wrist bindings, and the garrote that had killed JonBenét. These trace “Touch DNA” samples were genetically unique from one another, and were believed to belong to different individuals. It took several moments for this information to be absorbed by the cadre of law enforcement experts filling the room before one of the female laboratory technicians voiced her observation. It went something like this: “Are you telling me, based on trace Touch DNA testing results, that we are now looking at six different people being involved in this murder?” Horita reluctantly nodded his head. We collectively recapped the DNA evidence that had been analyzed in this investigation, and it included the following:
1.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails of both hands during autopsy that was identified as belonging to her.
2.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her left fingernails during autopsy that belonged to an unidentified male.
3.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her right fingernails during autopsy that belonged to another unidentified male, and a female. (JonBenét could not be eliminated as a possible contributor of the female DNA.)
4.) There had been trace DNA samples located in the crotch and waistband of her underwear that belonged to an unidentified male. This became known as Distal Stain 007-2.
5.) The new technology of Touch DNA identified trace samples in the waistband of the leggings that matched the unidentified male DNA (Distal Stain 007-2) in the underwear.
6.) The new technology of Touch DNA had located another sample of DNA located on the wrist bindings that belonged to a different unidentified male.
7.) The new technology of Touch DNA had located another sample of DNA located on the garrote that belonged to yet another unidentified male.
By our count, we were looking at six separate and independent DNA samples that belonged to unknown individuals, comprising a group that consisted of five males and one female.
But there was more. Horita indicated that Touch DNA testing had discovered traces of genetic material on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét. This Touch DNA belonged to Patsy and Burke Ramsey. No surprise there: they all lived in the same house.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 412 - 414

Brought over from another thread ....please read above!
 
Kolar also suggested that further testing …
I thought it would be a small step from there to conduct additional tests that simulated a coughing, sneezing, spitting seamstress / handler of similar items to verify this type of DNA could be collected from fresh off-the-shelf clothing articles.
might well produce what was found in the JonBenet case.

Re the fingernails, where precisely does it say that he was using or relying on the 1997 lab report? (Source still required.)
It’s an interesting and classic straw man argument but you haven’t got even the slightest bit of proof.
The DNA from one of the samples from the crotch of the panties was analyzed using standard PCR STR testing for CODIS markers.
Are you suggesting that the samples from the fingernails were not, or could not have been later analyzed in that way?
You keep referring to Beckner and how he’s is going to straighten everyone out regarding this case and the DNA.
You are forgetting that Beckner was at the 2009 Task Force meeting, you know, the same meeting that Kolar was at – THE SAME MEETING WHERE ALL THE DNA INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED THAT KOLAR PRESENTS IN HIS BOOK. WHY DIDN’T BECKNER CORRECT ALL OF THIS "MISINFORMATION" DURING THE MEETING? ANSWER: THERE WAS NO "MISINFORMATION."
Just to be clear this is the full context:
It was not disclosed during the task force presentation the exact strength of these markers, or how they compared to other samples previously discovered on JonBenét’s body (i.e. The male and female DNA collected at autopsy from beneath her fingernails), but it did not prevent the outgoing DA from exonerating the Ramsey family in this murder investigation. Knowing the history of Mary Lacy’s announcements, I should not have been surprised when D. A. Investigator Andy Horita shed further light on the Touch DNA test results during the Cold Case Task Force meeting held in February 2009.
I had supervised Horita during my stint as chief investigator at the D.A.’s office, and it was my opinion that he had a promising future ahead of him. He had no experience as a police officer, but he was an extremely intelligent young man. He looked decidedly dejected as he delivered the news about the additional DNA test results. Horita confirmed the public announcements Lacy had made about matching DNA found in the leggings worn by JonBenét.
He went on to report, however, that additional samples of trace male DNA had been discovered on the cord used in the wrist bindings, and the garrote that had killed JonBenét. These trace “Touch DNA” samples were genetically unique from one another, and were believed to belong to different individuals. It took several moments for this information to be absorbed by the cadre of law enforcement experts filling the room before one of the female laboratory technicians voiced her observation. It went something like this: “Are you telling me, based on trace Touch DNA testing results, that we are now looking at six different people being involved in this murder?” Horita reluctantly nodded his head. We collectively recapped the DNA evidence that had been analyzed in this investigation, and it included the following:
1.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails of both hands during autopsy that was identified as belonging to her.
2.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her left fingernails during autopsy that belonged to an unidentified male.
3.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her right fingernails during autopsy that belonged to another unidentified male, and a female. (JonBenét could not be eliminated as a possible contributor of the female DNA.)
4.) There had been trace DNA samples located in the crotch and waistband of her underwear that belonged to an unidentified male. This became known as Distal Stain 007-

Wring thread please delete
 
<modsnip>
You can not discount DNA that has a second source and is a match. It is completely irresponsible and no real investigator would ignore it. However if it is in a book that makes someone a name or money, That would be a bias.

There is a reason that the rest of the world has turned the corner and no longer sees the R's as suspects. There is a reason why Beth Holloway dated this man..
 
IIRC JB's nails were clipped with implements that had been used on other deceased persons.
 
<modsnip>
You can not discount DNA that has a second source and is a match. It is completely irresponsible and no real investigator would ignore it. However if it is in a book that makes someone a name or money, That would be a bias.

There is a reason that the rest of the world has turned the corner and no longer sees the R's as suspects. There is a reason why Beth Holloway dated this man..

I prefer to use my own logic and reasoning as opposed to buying into the one with an agenda, IMO Mary Lacy. It was WRONG of her to ever clear anyone in an on going investigation based on unsourced touch DNA.

Every other shred of evidence in the case points directly to a Ramsey. And there is a mountain of it.

What about all the other unsourced touch DNA that didn't match the touch DNA touted by Lacy? Who does that belong to?

"The rest of the world has turned the corner" according to you... Means little to me. Most people IMO believe what the media soon feeds them. Most people are sheep that can't be bothered to do their own research.
 
<modsnip>

You can not discount DNA that has a second source and is a match. It is completely irresponsible and no real investigator would ignore it. However if it is in a book that makes someone a name or money, That would be a bias.

There is a reason that the rest of the world has turned the corner and no longer sees the R's as suspects. There is a reason why Beth Holloway dated this man..

Do you have a reference that the rest of the world turned the corner? Just asking, that's a pretty bold statement to make.

I don't care who JR has dated. It really has nothing to do about JBR's murder. That is the topic here, not who her father chose to date. Respectfully, do you know Beth Holloway personally?
 
Where are you getting that "the rest of the world has turned the corner and no longer sees the R's as suspects??????? Many, many, many, many people still view them as suspects, including people who actually worked the case and have far more knowledge of it than we do.
 
I prefer to use my own logic and reasoning as opposed to buying into the one with an agenda, IMO Mary Lacy. It was WRONG of her to ever clear anyone in an on going investigation based on unsourced touch DNA.

Every other shred of evidence in the case points directly to a Ramsey. And there is a mountain of it.

What about all the other unsourced touch DNA that didn't match the touch DNA touted by Lacy? Who does that belong to?

"The rest of the world has turned the corner" according to you... Means little to me. Most people IMO believe what the media soon feeds them. Most people are sheep that can't be bothered to do their own research.

It’s useful to remind ourselves that this continues even today, witness Abrams’ and Couric spouting the same old stuff. Couric actually said the same thing back in 2000. For those who didn’t see the show, Couric and Abrams shared: A judge cleared the R’s, and the DA exonerated them. To note, Abrams usually takes the side of someone actually accused or who possibly could be accused. It’s a formula which works for him, and it keeps potential lawsuits away. (Though he did get in a little jam for saying Zimmerman should walk.)

In my book, Abrams' commentaries are fluff pieces. Abrams doesn’t even have his facts straight. One of the things brought up in the discussion was about a girl who attended the same dance school as JB. She was 14 years old (not brought out in the Abrams piece with Couric.) 8/9 months after JB homicide an intruder was waiting in the home and molested the girl. Come to find out, the girl knew this guy, and he had visited her before. Take what you will from that, but this was “stunning” evidence of a loose intruder in Boulder to Abrams. It's good, there are those who prefer to think for themselves, even when a media outlet seems to slant towards the RDI side. moo
 
Where are you getting that "the rest of the world has turned the corner and no longer sees the R's as suspects??????? Many, many, many, many people still view them as suspects, including people who actually worked the case and have far more knowledge of it than we do.

Most of the legal talking heads have started to talk about the R's as innocents and not guilty of anything.. The only place I really see them talked about as guilty is forums and books that people write.
 
Where are you getting that "the rest of the world has turned the corner and no longer sees the R's as suspects??????? Many, many, many, many people still view them as suspects, including people who actually worked the case and have far more knowledge of it than we do.

The professionals and experts who worked the case and saw all the evidence view the R's as suspects. Of course there was one officer who believed IDI, but then he was the Ramsey's prayer-pal and was blindly biased.
 
Do you have a reference that the rest of the world turned the corner? Just asking, that's a pretty bold statement to make.

I don't care who JR has dated. It really has nothing to do about JBR's murder. That is the topic here, not who her father chose to date. Respectfully, do you know Beth Holloway personally?

WE all know that Beth Holloway is someone that is regarded as an advocate and fighter of injustice. She would not have gone near that man if she had any inkling he had hurt his dd. Her nod says a lot.

I have not seen this case discussed in years without the whole conversation being about how the R's were falsely accused..

Why? Because the evidence supports it.
 
While I know nothing of John Ramsey and Beth Holloway and their relationship, iirc, they "broke up." Maybe she got an inkling. :wink:
 
While I know nothing of John Ramsey and Beth Holloway and their relationship, iirc, they "broke up." Maybe she got an inkling. :wink:

Nothing says that. If she did she would have yelled it from the rooftops.. She is not a shrinking violet.
 
Since when is Beth Holloway the meter stick to which we gauge someones integrity or character? Honestly? I don't give a rats arse about their relationship. I know plenty of high functioning, intelligent women who make extremely poor choices when it comes to men and it is shocking but that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

The topic here has gone way far afield, IMO.

I love reading here, and have the feeling that something is going to shake loose soon in regards to several things: Kolar's book, renewed interest due to information from said book and information that the grand jury recommended to move forward with an indictment of the parents.

As far as I recollect Grand Juries are convened to make a determination on wether or not it is reasonable to move forward with an indictment. This GJ apparently did. Boulder is a wealthy community- plenty of money and resources so we can rest assured it wasn't because of financial reasons the DA chose NOT TO TAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GJ IT HAD CONVENED! None of it makes sense.

Let's get to the bottom of it and lay it ALL bare.

I think we would quickly have some pretty solid answers and there are plenty of people who would NOT want that outcome. Officials who did not do their jobs properly, turned a blind eye intentionally, and the individual(s) who perpetrated the crime.

I know what I believe. Lay it bare and let the chips fall where they may. RDI, if we are certain should not have a problem with this- and IDI, if they are so certain, shouldn't have a problem either.
 
WE all know that Beth Holloway is someone that is regarded as an advocate and fighter of injustice. She would not have gone near that man if she had any inkling he had hurt his dd. Her nod says a lot.

I have not seen this case discussed in years without the whole conversation being about how the R's were falsely accused..

Why? Because the evidence supports it.

:floorlaugh: So you don't know her personally. That is just your opinion of her.
 
Most of the legal talking heads have started to talk about the R's as innocents and not guilty of anything.. The only place I really see them talked about as guilty is forums and books that people write.

I'm going to need sources for them backing the R's.
 
:floorlaugh: So you don't know her personally. That is just your opinion of her.

Im pretty sure that is most people's opinion of her. She is strong and smart and a victims rights activist. She fights for victims. She would not tangle herself up with a perp or even a suspected perp. She is a smart cookie. And there is nothing anyone can say against her.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
155
Guests online
1,686
Total visitors
1,841

Forum statistics

Threads
606,863
Messages
18,212,211
Members
233,990
Latest member
ty1220
Back
Top