Jane Valez Mitchell & other Media People Who Know Only Ramsey Spin Let's Educate Them

[Ames]

Good to see you back, Ames! I feel like it's been a while.

Hey Girl...yeah, it has been quite awhile. Good to be back!!!

 

[madeleine]

BBM

Now, with all the emphasis on the dna being able to identify her killer (which it won't, I agree) none of these boys/men will come forward to be tested as they will probably be accused of killing JB. Who could blame them?

I agree,I wouldn't blame them but Lacy said that

"confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources. "



These boys that used to come over and play with Burke would be considered connected to the family IMO.IIRC they tested over 200 people,I guess they made sure it wasn't someone JB had contact (innocent) with.

 

[DeeDee249]

Okay, fair enough. Now would you say for certain that he was against the DA in exonerating the Ramsey's? What are your thoughts on that and why would he not be explicit on this? Is it because he thinks that an R could be an accompliss or that they did it? Or could it be that he agrees that this is a significant finding and answers the question of transference?

I can't say whether he was for or against it by his comments alone. He was obviously trying to portray a unified front. But any LE knows that you can't exonerate anyone in a murder until you actually KNOW who the killer is.
They know better. So does ML. Hers was a personal commitment to the Rs and to Patsy especially, to find the killer before Patsy died. So she "found" one.

 

[BBB167893]

Well it seems as if we all interpret Chief Beckner quote in different ways. I would like to see some IDI's and RDI's break down the quote on my signature like to explain to me what he is saying. Thanks for participating.

I'll do you one better, Roy. I suggest you start a thread for it.

 

[BBB167893]

Good to see you back, Ames! I feel like it's been a while.

TOO LONG! Great to have Ames back!

 

[BBB167893]

Basically, he is saying that the DNA MAY belong to the killer or it MAY NOT, and at this point they have no donor. That's pretty much it.
IMO, almost anyone would feel the DNA is an important finding. BUT it is only going to help SOLVE the case if it can be linked to a donor, and that seems to be what some people aren't understanding. Unless you can link it to the crime by linking it to someone who was there when she was killed, you can't say it was left by the killer.
Let's just say for argument's sake that it was found to belong to a boy who was at the R home that day. Patsy has said BR had friends over. And let's just say that JB helped herself to those ridiculously large panties from her drawer, as Patsy said she did.
Does this mean that boy killed her? Not likely, but possible. Or does it mean he touched her in inappropriate places? Possibly. Or does it mean JB touched something he also touched, like the toilet handle or something.
It seems apparent that the BPD has not found the donor. Criminals are in a database- doesn't mean the perp is. There are still many people who need to be asked (they can't be required) to give samples, including ALL males know to be at the R home Christmas Day (as Patsy said there were boys visiting BR) and all males present at the White's that day, regardless of the age they were in 1996.

Yeah, that would be my take on it. That, and maybe some "this isn't over" mixed in there.

 

[BBB167893]

I agree,I wouldn't blame them but Lacy said that

"confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources."

How confident could they BE, maddy? Even Bill Wise said it was unlikely that all of those avenues had been traveled.

 

[BBB167893]

I can't say whether he was for or against it by his comments alone. He was obviously trying to portray a unified front. But any LE knows that you can't exonerate anyone in a murder until you actually KNOW who the killer is.
They know better. So does ML. Hers was a personal commitment to the Rs and to Patsy especially, to find the killer before Patsy died. So she "found" one.

ITA with every word!

 

[madeleine]

How confident could they BE, maddy? Even Bill Wise said it was unlikely that all of those avenues had been traveled.

You know what I think about it.it's wrong IMO to clear anyone until you have a match and you can prove that the owner finished her off and didn't have accomplices but it kinda raises the possibility that the DNA didn't got there innocently.(means we have an unknown person who either participated in the killing or the cover-up or simply was present when it happened)
She was wrong with exonerating the R's,FW so was LE with clearing people based on non-matching handwriting but the DNA findings are real.The DNA in 3 places EXISTS.

 

[madeleine]

Now what I would like to know is

did Lacy only test those places because she knew that if she finds something she can clear the R's and end of story (in her mind end),cause this would be WRONG,would mean her mission wasn't to bring the intruder-killer to justice but to exonerate the R's and period.

or

she did test more stuff(and maybe found more) but thought it's enough to tell us only about THOSE 2 new places

 

[BBB167893]

Now what I would like to know is

did Lacy only test those places because she knew that if she finds something she can clear the R's and end of story (in her mind end),cause this would be WRONG,would mean her mission wasn't to bring the intruder-killer to justice but to exonerate the R's and period.

or

she did test more stuff(and maybe found more) but thought it's enough to tell us only about THOSE 2 new places

That would be the $64,000 question.

 

[DeeDee249]

Now what I would like to know is

did Lacy only test those places because she knew that if she finds something she can clear the R's and end of story (in her mind end),cause this would be WRONG,would mean her mission wasn't to bring the intruder-killer to justice but to exonerate the R's and period.

or

she did test more stuff(and maybe found more) but thought it's enough to tell us only about THOSE 2 new places

We'd ALL like to know the answer to that! We've all mentioned our own "laundry list" of items we'd like to have seen tested for a match to that "touch DNA".
1. The cord, especially the knot.
2. The tape, both sides
3. The suitcase handle, since LS is so certain an intruder climbed on it and moved it under that window (even though FW SAID he put it there)
4. The chair that "blocked" the train room, since JR was so certain some "clever" (his words) intruder pulled it through a CLOSED door after himself
4. The tissue box that Patsy said didn't belong to her, since the intruder then had to bring it with him (sheesh).
5. The door and handle to the fridge, if an intruder gave her the pineapple

I am sure there is more...but the truth is that the male DNA should be found in places OTHER than where they were if it was an intruder. Because the places where they were could have been contaminated some other way.

 

[madeleine]

We'd ALL like to know the answer to that! We've all mentioned our own "laundry list" of items we'd like to have seen tested for a match to that "touch DNA".
1. The cord, especially the knot.
2. The tape, both sides
3. The suitcase handle, since LS is so certain an intruder climbed on it and moved it under that window (even though FW SAID he put it there)
4. The chair that "blocked" the train room, since JR was so certain some "clever" (his words) intruder pulled it through a CLOSED door after himself
4. The tissue box that Patsy said didn't belong to her, since the intruder then had to bring it with him (sheesh).
5. The door and handle to the fridge, if an intruder gave her the pineapple

I am sure there is more...but the truth is that the male DNA should be found in places OTHER than where they were if it was an intruder. Because the places where they were could have been contaminated some other way.

I saw this somewhere but I swear I forgot who said it and where but the cord was tested and no DNA was found on it.But this happened before touch DNA existed.And didn't they say the cord was destroyed back then and can't be tested anymore?
My biggest problem with IDI theories are that most sustain the idea that he came/left through the window.When you climb out through that window you obviously leave some hand/elbow prints outside,how else do you get out .If IDI I don't think he fed her the pineapple ,I hink JB had pineapple while BR was having his tea,the parents probably know about it but were advized to shut up.
Re the suitcase,shouldn't FW's prints be on it,on the piece of tape too?I still find it suspicious that he admitted touching them both.Same with the basement door.He already has explanations for all his prints down there.Dunno about this.

 

[MurriFlower]

We'd ALL like to know the answer to that! We've all mentioned our own "laundry list" of items we'd like to have seen tested for a match to that "touch DNA".
1. The cord, especially the knot.
2. The tape, both sides
3. The suitcase handle, since LS is so certain an intruder climbed on it and moved it under that window (even though FW SAID he put it there)
4. The chair that "blocked" the train room, since JR was so certain some "clever" (his words) intruder pulled it through a CLOSED door after himself
4. The tissue box that Patsy said didn't belong to her, since the intruder then had to bring it with him (sheesh).
5. The door and handle to the fridge, if an intruder gave her the pineapple

I am sure there is more...but the truth is that the male DNA should be found in places OTHER than where they were if it was an intruder. Because the places where they were could have been contaminated some other way.

There is a photo of a chair in the room off the laundry, (called a storeroom).
Where is the photo of the chair that blocked the train room door or is this the one under the window in the storeroom but it was moved?

 

[Roy23]

I saw this somewhere but I swear I forgot who said it and where but the cord was tested and no DNA was found on it.But this happened before touch DNA existed.And didn't they say the cord was destroyed back then and can't be tested anymore?
My biggest problem with IDI theories are that most sustain the idea that he came/left through the window.When you climb out through that window you obviously leave some hand/elbow prints outside,how else do you get out .If IDI I don't think he fed her the pineapple ,I hink JB had pineapple while BR was having his tea,the parents probably know about it but were advized to shut up.
Re the suitcase,shouldn't FW's prints be on it,on the piece of tape too?I still find it suspicious that he admitted touching them both.Same with the basement door.He already has explanations for all his prints down there.Dunno about this.

Maddy,
Here is my opinion on all of this. First of all, LE and the DA's office developed a theory if IDI how the crime happened. They assumed that if the panty DNA was not transference, the most likely area to test based on the crime scene. Homerun of course.

And let me stress to you Maddy as far as your questions above that BPD was not exactly trying to follow the evidence to see where it led them. Because of all of their screw ups they were trying to find evidence to cover up their boo boo's and make it stick to the Ramsey's. This is why there are so many RDI's to begin with.

 

[BBB167893]

Maddy,
Here is my opinion on all of this. First of all, LE and the DA's office developed a theory if IDI how the crime happened. They assumed that if the panty DNA was not transference, the most likely area to test based on the crime scene. Homerun of course.

We'll see, I guess.

And let me stress to you Maddy as far as your questions above that BPD was not exactly trying to follow the evidence to see where it led them. Because of all of their screw ups they were trying to find evidence to cover up their boo boo's and make it stick to the Ramsey's. This is why there are so many RDI's to begin with.

I disagree strongly with those assertions. The Rs and their goon squad have fed us that propaganda for years, but police conspiracies like that only happen in the movies, not in real life. Even Michael Kane said that the cops did the very best they could given the initial screw-ups. The problem in this case was (and to an extent, still is) the DA's office, not the police, as I've OFTEN pointed out.

 

[madeleine]

Okay guys let's assume this happens somewhere else.LE has evidence (they claimed so,right) and feels that they have a strong case but the DA is biased and incompetent.Who can the cops ask for help in such situations?What can they do.And if there is anything they can do why did the Boulder cops didn't do it?I mean,they claimed that experts say PR wrote the note,they claimed experts say it was prior abuse,they claimed the fibers are a match.Where are the reports,did AH and Lacy hide them or what.Why don't fight with what you got IF you really got it and it's so strong?I doubt that a DA can really make this all go away.Maybe what I just said it's stupid.But this is the reason why I feel ST was mostly bluffing,he ended up writing a book (speculation most of it) instead of fighting for what he believed in (did he really?justice for JB?don't think so).And we were talking about same old Beckner,do you really think he changed his views?IMO he doesn't wanna tick off the new DA.He can't follow IDI leads without admitting he was biased (even IF RDI,they still should have checked all the leads and they didn't),don't think THAT will ever happen.And I do think "shut up until you got a strong case for me" is really cowardly when it comes to THIS case after so many screw ups they should be more transparent about what they are doing ,IF they are doing anything about it at all.Bunch of cowards and liars.IMO

 

[BBB167893]

Okay guys let's assume this happens somewhere else.LE has evidence (they claimed so,right) and feels that they have a strong case but the DA is biased and incompetent.Who can the cops ask for help in such situations?What can they do.

Not much, I'm afraid. Prosecutorial discretion is nearly absolute. A DA has almost unchallenged authority to decide what actions to take and not to take. The governor has the authority to remove the DA and appoint a special prosecutor, but in order to do that, he'd have to have solid proof that one was needed: i.e., that the DA in charge was not up to the challenge. But that's a tough standard to meet. Merely refusing to prosecute is not grounds for such an extreme measure.

And if there is anything they can do why did the Boulder cops didn't do it?

I get the feeling they would if they could have.

I mean,they claimed that experts say PR wrote the note,they claimed experts say it was prior abuse,they claimed the fibers are a match.Where are the reports,did AH and Lacy hide them or what.

My guess would be that those reports are buried deep within the case file. And it wouldn't surprise me if AH and ML wanted them that way.

Why don't fight with what you got IF you really got it and it's so strong?

Where would they go?

I doubt that a DA can really make this all go away.

DA's have a lot of power, maddy. A lot of times, just claiming that a case is still open will cause a lot of people to back off. indeed, on my profile of incompetence thread, I gave a list of cases that the Boulder DA DID make "go away," much to the outrage of many people involved.

Maybe what I just said it's stupid.

Not at all. It NEEDS to be talked about.

But this is the reason why I feel ST was mostly bluffing,he ended up writing a book (speculation most of it) instead of fighting for what he believed in

I understand that feeling. But that's why this subject needs to be brought up. A lot of people don't realize just how much autonomous power district attorneys have. Maybe he hoped that his book would bring about a political sea change and get some real A-list talent into the DA's office. In that regard, he WAS fighting.

And we were talking about same old Beckner,do you really think he changed his views?

Just a hunch, but I doubt it.

And I do think "shut up until you got a strong case for me" is really cowardly when it comes to THIS case after so many screw ups they should be more transparent about what they are doing ,IF they are doing anything about it at all.Bunch of cowards and liars.IMO

Are you referring to the police, or the DA? Or both?

Either way, I agree, 100%.

 

[madeleine]

Both.
IMO "I will reopen the Jonebent case" was just campaign,politics.Sounded good eh,he knew everybody would want that.

 

[Ames]

TOO LONG! Great to have Ames back!

Awwww...thanks DAVE!!!! :blushing: