Mark Beckner’s AMA

[bettybaby00]

:seeya: finally got around to reading this interview!!! I feel he "confirmed" a few things for me, and gave me an understanding of some of the decisions that were made that didn't previously make sense.

I know this will be an anathema to some here (garlic to a vampire, kryptonite to Superman), but I hope the IDIs and ABARs will try to contain themselves. I'm only passing on what was written by the person who was in charge of those who were investigating the most highly visible murder case in the town's history. These are his responses, and he was in a position to have first-hand knowledge.

QUESTION: What is your opinion of Lou Smit and his involvement and conclusions in this case?
ANSWER: Lou was a nice man and very religious. I believe he became emotionally involved with the family and in my opinion this clouded his judgement to the point where he could not accept the possibility that the family was involved. I base this on numerous conversations I had with him. Originally, I wanted to rely on some of Lou's conclusions based on the evidence he was telling me about. More than once, I followed up on the evidence he was using to support his belief and I found it not to be accurate.

QUESTION: Regarding the intruder theory, can you comment on the point of entry, how and intruder might have gained entry and whether it is plausible?
ANSWER: Most investigators do not believe there was a legitimate point of entry. It is unknown how an intruder may have gotten in. Lou Smit always believed it was the basement window, but we did not agree with him, as the dust and spider web were undisturbed.

QUESTION: In 1999, Alex Hunter prohibited by court order the testimony of Lou Smit. Smit had the order overturned. Since they both promoted the intruder theory, why would Hunter not want Smit to testify?
ANSWER: I'm guessing is that it is because Lou Smit had taken the case public and was misrepresenting some of the evidence.
​

This last point is a good example of something I found confusing. I always wondered why Hunter tried barring LS from GJ proceedings, and his answer is pretty straight forward. It never sat right with me that LS did the media circuit with his theory since at the time this was still considered an ongoing investigation.
Although I all admit I'm not 100% sure of the timeline of his appearances. Was he still officially part of the investigation during that time?

Also, does anyone understand who exactly--besides Hunter of course--knew about the TBs when they were first handed down?

I apologize in advance if my comments have already been covered as I'm still at the beginning of the thread.

Eta. Who/what the necks is an ABAR??? :giggle:

 

[andreww]

:seeya: finally got around to reading this interview!!! I feel he "confirmed" a few things for me, and gave me an understanding of some of the decisions that were made that didn't previously make sense.



This last point is a good example of something I found confusing. I always wondered why Hunter tried barring LS from GJ proceedings, and his answer is pretty straight forward. It never sat right with me that LS did the media circuit with his theory since at the time this was still considered an ongoing investigation.
Although I all admit I'm not 100% sure of the timeline of his appearances. Was he still officially part of the investigation during that time?

Also, does anyone understand who exactly--besides Hunter of course--knew about the TBs when they were first handed down?

I apologize in advance if my comments have already been covered as I'm still at the beginning of the thread.

Eta. Who/what the necks is an ABAR??? :giggle:

Not sure who LS was working for on his tour, but it was after he left the investigation. I'd assume that by that point he was working for John Ramsey?

As for the TBs, thats an interesting question. I'm sure very few knew about the decision officially. Unofficially, I wouldn't doubt that everybody knew. But it would be nice to know for sure so as we could tell who was lying by saying the GJ had cleared the Ramseys. With Alex Hunter's loose lips, its hard to believe it was kept from the public for so long. Kind of sickening that he waited for the statute of limitations to expire before he revealed to the public that the GJ recommended charges be laid against the Ramseys.

 

[bettybaby00]

This isn't exactlu on topic but given the grand jury indictment and this AMA, I'd give anything for the Cold Justice team to take a look at this case. Unfortunately, they only go to places theyre invited ...

Ha. I'm a big fan of the show Criminal Minds, (show about the FBI BAU team) and on one episode the team was preparing to investigate a case in Boulder, and they weren't thrilled to be headed for that area. When one of characters questioned their reluctance the reply was, "we haven't been welcome there ever since the JonBenet Ramsey case."

It will always be a lingering question as to what the status of the case would be now if the TBs had been acted on. Would new/additional evidence have been unearthed? Would the Rs have been brought to trial? Would the tDNA have ever been relevant? It's likely that even if it went to trial, their dream team would have gotten them an acquittal. Would an acquittal have exonerated them? Or would their life mirrored that of OJ?

Still so many questions unanswered!

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

:seeya:

Also, does anyone understand who exactly--besides Hunter of course--knew about the TBs when they were first handed down?

I apologize in advance if my comments have already been covered as I'm still at the beginning of the thread.

Hi, bettybaby. It took me a while to find it, but I knew this had been discussed before:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?223892-breach-of-promise&p=9895744#post9895744
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?223892-breach-of-promise&p=9895883#post9895883

BTW, this was all speculation because no one knows exactly who all was in on the BIG secret. But I will tell you that because of correspondence with someone I know who lives in Boulder, I'm even more convinced now (this is MOO) that at least nearly every lawyer in the area knew about the TBs.

Eta. Who/what the necks is an ABAR??? :giggle:

ABAR: Anyone But A Ramsey (not exactly the same as an IDI) :wink:

 

[DeeDee249]

I have to say I am really disgusted with Beckner. As soon as he "realized" his remarks were made public, he seemed to backpedal. His last comment that the "unknown" DNA is the killer's is completely the opposite of his previous comments that the guilt lies within the family. And it flies in the face of all proper forensics protocol. ANY DNA is USELESS if a donor has not been identified. By name. It can only be the "killer's" IF a donor is identified BY NAME and found to have been in Boulder at the time and had a way of getting into the house without forced entry. JR himself said (in one of his FEW truthful comments) "this is an INSIDE job". It certainly was.

 

[midwest mama]

I have to say I am really disgusted with Beckner. As soon as he "realized" his remarks were made public, he seemed to backpedal. His last comment that the "unknown" DNA is the killer's is completely the opposite of his previous comments that the guilt lies within the family. And it flies in the face of all proper forensics protocol. ANY DNA is USELESS if a donor has not been identified. By name. It can only be the "killer's" IF a donor is identified BY NAME and found to have been in Boulder at the time and had a way of getting into the house without forced entry. JR himself said (in one of his FEW truthful comments) "this is an INSIDE job". It certainly was.

ITA. And don't ask me why, but there's something about the whole thing of Beckner getting his job when he did, with his rather inexperienced background for that position, that has always jangled my hinky meter with connection to this case.

Not saying he didn't fulfill many expectations put upon him as Boulder's chief of police over the years, but so much slipped through the cracks regarding the investigation of JB's murder, and I would have thought he could have done something about that at times when his silence indicated otherwise.

 

[Tawny]

Where did he say the DNA was absolutely the killer's? I missed that...

 

[andreww]

Where did he say the DNA was absolutely the killer's? I missed that...

He didn't really say that. He said the DNA was key and that the case would be solved when the DNA was identified. I think this was a polite way of saying that when the owner of the DNA is ever discovered, it will be proved to be explainable, thus eliminating the major stumbling block against proceeding against the Ramseys. Basically, as long as the DNA is unidentified the Ramseys are safe.

The problem is that if that DNA came from secondary transfer or was planted, the likelihood of the donor ever ending up on CODIS is remote.

 

[BBB167893]

He didn't really say that. He said the DNA was key and that the case would be solved when the DNA was identified. I think this was a polite way of saying that when the owner of the DNA is ever discovered, it will be proved to be explainable, thus eliminating the major stumbling block against proceeding against the Ramseys. Basically, as long as the DNA is unidentified the Ramseys are safe.

The problem is that if that DNA came from secondary transfer or was planted, the likelihood of the donor ever ending up on CODIS is remote.

Which brings up a big question: how to show that the DNA is unconnected? Who is there to test? Maybe between the lot of us, we can come up with some solution.

 

[andreww]

Which brings up a big question: how to show that the DNA is unconnected? Who is there to test? Maybe between the lot of us, we can come up with some solution.

Needle in a haystack Dave. I'd be looking at playmates that she had contact with in the previous week. I'd look at everyone at the Whites party and the Ramsey's parties. I'd look at everybody who came in to contact with her clothing from the time he body was discovered until the time the DNA was discovered.

The problem here is that the case was so high profile that you never know if some curious lab worker or security guard or cleaner took an off the record look at her clothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

Needle in a haystack Dave. I'd be looking at playmates that she had contact with in the previous week. I'd look at everyone at the Whites party and the Ramsey's parties. I'd look at everybody who came in to contact with her clothing from the time he body was discovered until the time the DNA was discovered.

The problem here is that the case was so high profile that you never know if some curious lab worker or security guard or cleaner took an off the record look at her clothing.

Even so, I'd consider it time well-spent.

 

[andreww]

Even so, I'd consider it time well-spent.

In your opinion and my opinion, yes. But DNA tests are time consuming and expensive and I'm sure BPD doesn't want to go on a wild goose chase trying to track down a possible error. What it really needed was someone to retrace the movements of those garments from the time JB was found until the time of the first DNA tests were done, making a list of anyone who was even in the same room with them. My guess is that that list would be extremely substantial given how high profile the case was. But if you tested all those people, I'd think there would be a good chance that you might find a match.

 

[questfortrue]

Even so, I'd consider it time well-spent.

Here's something relevant to this discussion. I’m bringing this over from FFJ, since it seems pertinent to some info about the touch DNA. It pertains to protocols for handling evidence or securing of evidence at a crime scene, critically important for integrity of touch DNA evidence. This is from forensicmag.com.

Common rules to help minimize contamination at the crime scene:

• Limit access to the crime scene or evidence
• Do not talk over the evidence
• PPE, including masks
• Change gloves frequently after handling evidence
• Do not touch areas on evidence that may be sampled for DNA
• Collect elimination samples from those who have been in contact with the evidence or scene
• Use disposable fingerprint brushes and powder
• Clean each crime scene tool coming into contact with evidence

Hm-m, even talking over evidence without a face mask is a no-no.

Well, given that the evidence in the JonBenet case was processed back in 1996 when touch DNA was not an option, it’s doubtful that articles were handled as per the protocols.

 

[BOESP]

Bumping this thread because of the straight-from-the-horses's mouth nature of the topic, particularly here:

http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html

If you have time to read at the above link, be sure and read Beckner's replies too. Imo, he indicates who he thinks killed JonBenet. It also clears up some of the questions about the existence of reputed voices at the end of the 911 call.

 

[Roy23]

Bumping this thread because of the straight-from-the-horses's mouth nature of the topic, particularly here:

http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html

If you have time to read at the above link, be sure and read Beckner's replies too. Imo, he indicates who he thinks killed JonBenet. It also clears up some of the questions about the existence of reputed voices at the end of the 911 call.

Very interesting read!

 

[lawstudent]

Finally started reading this. He seems reasonable. He comes across to me as having a strong suspicion as to who did it, but understandably does not know 100%. Unfortunate that he felt words were being put in his mouth, essentially, which does not surprise me. Having a pretty good idea of what happened is different from knowing, although people definitely disagree on that. Definitely influenced my thoughts on the case somewhat.

 

[FrankieB]

I just finished reading Beckner's reddit session. One particular thing stuck out: he was asked if there was a lot of evidence we had not seen which would be considered "huge" he replied:

"There is some evidence which hasn't been released but nothing I would consider huge or definitive"

Excuse me? First of all if there is nothing definitive in the christmas pictures, why have they been hoarded for so long? Secondly, The Grand Jury had access to all the evidence we have never seen, and they decided to indict The Ramseys so I'd wager what they saw definitely makes all the pieces of the puzzle fit.

 

[TeaTime]

How doe one get in touch with Beckner?

 

[Roy23]

I gotta admit the more I read this I do a bit of a double take on my stance on this case. Boy did LE screw this up on day 1.

 

[UKGuy]

The fact that everybody in that family lied about Burke owning Hi Tek boots until Fleet White tipped LE off to it, pretty much tells you where that footprint came from.

It's interesting how many Burke related lies they told, he didn't wear Hi Teks, he didn't eat pineapple, he was asleep all morning, the Swiss army knife....

Makes you wonder


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
Whats the chance that in his upcoming interview BR will be asked did you ever own Hi Tek boots?

.