NE: Forgotten DNA Evidence Clears Key Figures

[Maxi]

Edit to say, I found it. It's in the same interview you quoted above. Here's the quote:

BS: Let me say one thing, and I'm sure Bob would agree with it, because I think it's really the point he's making, and that is you can't prove every case beyond all doubt. And so, yes, you have all these different kinds of clues and pieces of evidence and all investigators want to pursue them, because some of these could lead to a particular suspect and guilt, and some you can't explain and may just be noise that is cluttering up the investigation. But you may have other evidence that you could prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

He doesn't say specifically that he's referring to the DNA evidence, but, since he was there as a DNA expert, I think that's a valid inference.

I'll see if I can find another interview in whcih he was more specific that he was talking about the DNA.

 

[BlueCrab]

Edit to say, I found it. It's in the same interview you quoted above. Here's the quote:

BS: Let me say one thing, and I'm sure Bob would agree with it, because I think it's really the point he's making, and that is you can't prove every case beyond all doubt. And so, yes, you have all these different kinds of clues and pieces of evidence and all investigators want to pursue them, because some of these could lead to a particular suspect and guilt, and some you can't explain and may just be noise that is cluttering up the investigation. But you may have other evidence that you could prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

He doesn't say specifically that he's referring to the DNA evidence, but, since he was there as a DNA expert, I think that's a valid inference.

I'll see if I can find another interview in whcih he was more specific that he was talking about the DNA.

I'd interpret Scheck's "noise" comment as meaning all of the superfulous items of evidence and rumors floating around about this case.

JMO

 

[tipper]

I'd interpret Scheck's "noise" comment as meaning all of the superfulous items of evidence and rumors floating around about this case.

JMO

I agree BC. Mr tipper uses that word frequently. When I tell him what such and such cost, he'll wave his hand and say "It's in the noise." Meaning it has no impact on our finances.

 

[Eagle1]

1-21-04
I'm just bumping this up to go with today's news about the Susannah Chase case DNA because it does seem the two cases could be connected.

J.T. Colfax reported some hearsay info from two prisoners (?) that Susannah Chase used to "chase" the homeless, herself using an aluminum baseball bat like the one she was beaten with.

There was one at the Rs' house, but nobody knows if it was used to beat JonBenet over the head.

Also, RHGC once said Susannah's ID disappeared from his daughter's kitchen counter, I believe, the day before Susannah was killed, as if it was premeditated, just maybe by people calling themselves a faction.

If I have any detail wrong, feel free to correct me, anyone. Doing this by memory and it's been a while.

 

[Maxi]

"Noise" is used in testing to mean extraneous, irrelevant data. When I get an EKG, the tech will say, "Oh, that's just artifact" or "Oh, that's just noise." I asked what it meant, and he said it was just extra stuff from me moving around or from the machine. That's how I knew what Scheck meant.

I looked googled DNA and noise, and found it used in the same way.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

For Cherokee, it was Lou Smit who said the male DNA from the nail clippings was consistent with the male DNA from the panties. I've posted the exact quote elsewhere, but if you need it, I'll post it again for you with a link to the transcript.

Scheck was apparently not (at the time of that interview) informed about the 2nd spot of blood being tested and a more complete DNA analysis being obtained. Since Scheck's advocacy for new DNA evidence to prove convicted felons innocent is ongoing, I think he'd be more specific in discussing a DNA sample that is complete enough for CODIS comparison.

 

[Spade]

For Cherokee, it was Lou Smit who said the male DNA from the nail clippings was consistent with the male DNA from the panties.

I recently read that Lou Smit may have been a spy for the Boulder cops and that he was just trying to get close to the Ramseys. LP do you know anything about that or what is your opinion?

 

[Imon128]

Lou Smit is not to be believed, IMO. His basement window scenario, as well as the rest of his TV debuts, were filled with statements that COULD fool the public, but not us. Why, I have to ask myself, does Lou want to fool the public? The answer in my mind, is that Lou is more interested in himself being right, than for right for JonBenet. Lou has lost all credibility with me. IMO, he should have quit while he was ahead. Oh, wait, he DID quit. Whether or not he was ahead when he quit, is debatable, IMO.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Oh, c'mon Imon! *Smit wants to fool the public?* Smit is a detective with decades of fine work to his credit. He follows the evidence, and he has access to evidence that posters on forums do not have. He's gone public with what he deduces from the evidence he's had access to, based on his vast experience.

You want to agree with inexperienced cops like Steve Thomas--go right ahead! But... Smit has a great reputation and great credentials. Steve Thomas has what?

 

[Barbara]

Oh, c'mon Imon! *Smit wants to fool the public?* Smit is a detective with decades of fine work to his credit. He follows the evidence, and he has access to evidence that posters on forums do not have. He's gone public with what he deduces from the evidence he's had access to, based on his vast experience.

You want to agree with inexperienced cops like Steve Thomas--go right ahead! But... Smit has a great reputation and great credentials. Steve Thomas has what?

Didn't you ever wonder why Lou Smit was pretty much all alone in his IDI theory? Years ago, it could be said that they (LE) wanted to get the parents. Yet 7 years later and LE all over the country and world with no ties to the BPD, Lou pretty much stands alone in his powerpoint presentation and its validity.

Doesn't that bother you just a little? Are you so desperate to believe that whole pedophile dream, window well fiasco, suitcase under the window stuff that you would throw out the majority of LE opinions around the world?

If there was another long time experienced homicide detective on this case (and I'm sure there are) or whose opinion you respected said that the evidence fit the RDI theory, would you believe that as well? Or is it just the IDI detective theory?

BTW, Is there another detective out there in LE who has stood behind Lou Smit's powerpoint presentation? I know there are some in LE (who now work for Ramsey related people) who support the IDI, but can you name a single LE official who has stood behind Lou's theory?

 

[sissi]

Didn't you ever wonder why Lou Smit was pretty much all alone in his IDI theory? Years ago, it could be said that they (LE) wanted to get the parents. Yet 7 years later and LE all over the country and world with no ties to the BPD, Lou pretty much stands alone in his powerpoint presentation and its validity.

Doesn't that bother you just a little? Are you so desperate to believe that whole pedophile dream, window well fiasco, suitcase under the window stuff that you would throw out the majority of LE opinions around the world?

If there was another long time experienced homicide detective on this case (and I'm sure there are) or whose opinion you respected said that the evidence fit the RDI theory, would you believe that as well? Or is it just the IDI detective theory?

BTW, Is there another detective out there in LE who has stood behind Lou Smit's powerpoint presentation? I know there are some in LE (who now work for Ramsey related people) who support the IDI, but can you name a single LE official who has stood behind Lou's theory?

If this were five years ago,I could understand your interpretation of information Barbara,but,in light of the newer findings ,the way Sheck threw the ball to Schiller because of grand jury secrecy issues,and the way Schiller,said,"if the dna matches the dna in the panties "it's terribly difficult to pin these findings on stutter or a factory worker. Sheck could not speak himself, his throwing the ball to Schiller to interpret, in a hypothetical manner, spoke volumes,IMO. They are looking for the killer.
There will be justice for Jonbenet!
IMO

 

[Islander]

Oh, c'mon Imon! *Smit wants to fool the public?* Smit is a detective with decades of fine work to his credit. He follows the evidence, and he has access to evidence that posters on forums do not have. He's gone public with what he deduces from the evidence he's had access to, based on his vast experience.

You want to agree with inexperienced cops like Steve Thomas--go right ahead! But... Smit has a great reputation and great credentials. Steve Thomas has what?

Lovely Pigeon: I guess we all have seen the picture of the “wide-open” basement window that Smit used in his PowerPoint presentation. He showed that picture on a Court TV show on November 7, 2002, which was repeated several other times. In referring to the picture, Smit said:

“ Now this is a photograph that really caught my eye because the window was wide open. But what also caught my attention was a mark on the wall leading right directly from the window down the wall going down to the floor. When I first seen that photograph I thought, "Uh oh, looks like somebody could have got in here."

When he first saw that picture, he may have very well thought that. He was hired in mid-March 1997, and it wasn’t until the April 30th of that year that John Ramsey admitted to the police in his interview that he found the window open an eighth of an inch early the morning of December 26th (page 116 The NE Police Files). OK, let’s give Smit the benefit of the doubt and agree that he was unaware of John’s statement to the police. But on June 23, 1998, there can no longer be a doubt; Smit definitely knew the window was not found “wide-open” as portrayed in his PowerPoint presentation, because John Ramsey personally told him so. During his interview of John, Smit asked John if he ever went down to the basement. John replied that he had, he saw the window open about an inch or so and that he latched it.

Smit was well aware in mid-1998 that the photo was not accurate and yet he continued to include it in his PowerPoint presentation without explaining to his audiences that he later learned from John Ramsey that the window was barely open. In my opinion, that is a delibnerate attempt to misrepresent the evidence, or, as Imon put it, “to fool the public.”

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Barbara: excellent post at the end of the first thread. Islander, I completely agree with your last statement. However, in speaking with Lou, I can confidently say this was not on done on purpose. We all make mistakes. Lou made many as well in this investigation. I believe he continues to seek answers in this case as we all do, and I am not convinced his mind is made up regarding the innocense of the Ramsey's.

As for the question regarding washed or unwashed underwear. It is possible to extract DNA from washed garments, it all of course depends on the sample and how degraded it is or isn't.

Regarding the blood, from what I was told, it was mixed with JonBenet's and found in a very small amount in her underpants. Now is it possible that JB's blood mixed with old blood found on her panties? Yes. No one knows for sure how recent the blood was deposited there. However the fact that the sample was POOR meaning, degraded to the point that only a few markers could be identified, lends credibility to the fact the blood may have been on the panties PRIOR to the night of the crime. As for confirmation that the DNA matched that found under her nails, I have heard this as fact from Lou, however, again the amount was small, and degraded. How did it get there? Well if those oversized panties were ripped from a fresh pack and placed on the child AFTER she was murdered, it's sort of hard to imagine how the DNA got under her nails. I'm a stickler for the DNA. Made me do an about face on this case many times over, but I am not about to climb that fence again. Lee is the expert on DNA, and he took a look at this case and called it as it is. "This is not a DNA case." The totallity of the evidence still IMO points to Patsy Ramsey.

I still would like to learn MORE about the underpants. I recall an article that came out a year or two ago where the BPD did control samples off the same brand of underwear bought from fresh packs from Asia, and they also yielded DNA. I guess my surprise is NOT how it got on the underpants, but HOW it got under her nails. Guess that all depends on how the Coroner conducted his samples. Did the DNA really yield from UNDER her nails, or could the sample have been on top of her nails, as resulting from someone WIPING her down? ONe swipe with a rag in her crotch and another across her hands may have done the trick. Did you all know that NO other part of JB's body was swabbed for samples, besides her panties and thighs? There was what appeared to be a nail mark on her leg, which was missed. So many mistakes. One thing we know of for certain, is that JB was wiped and re-dressed.

 

[cookie]

If these were new panties out of the package, how did old blood get on them in the first place? And, if that is the case in fact, who's blood would it have been? Who else would have worn those size panties, and who could have left any blood in them? This makes no sense to me at all. But, maybe I'm not understanding what some are saying about this possibly being "old" blood stains.

 

[K777angel]

Regarding the blood, from what I was told, it was mixed with JonBenet's and found in a very small amount in her underpants. Now is it possible that JB's blood mixed with old blood found on her panties? Yes. No one knows for sure how recent the blood was deposited there. However the fact that the sample was POOR meaning, degraded to the point that only a few markers could be identified, lends credibility to the fact the blood may have been on the panties PRIOR to the night of the crime. As for confirmation that the DNA matched that found under her nails, I have heard this as fact from Lou, QUOTE]

How could some perp that did all that was done to JonBenet leave ONLY a very tiny amount of ANYTHING - if anything at all was deposited??
It just makes no sense at all.
If there was MORE than a very small amount - so small they have had trouble even getting enough markers from it to determine the owner of it - then it would make more sense. BUT - you would then also have to just forget about all the other evidence that points to a Ramsey. Particularly Patsy.
The note. Her fibers on the sticky side of the tape. Her fibers intertwined in the knot around JonBenet's neck. Her fibers in the paint tote box where the paint stick was taken and broken in half. Her note pad. Her pens. Her language in the note. The note being placed where SHE always comes downstairs first in the morning. Her being dressed and coiffed and make-up on in less than a scant 20 minutes - including all the other stuff she "fussed around with" before she even "found" the note and called 911. Not enough time even on fast forward. And HER clothes still on from the night before.
Her inconsistent statement to different officers that morning.

That DNA is not going to amount to anything related to the crime.
Just because there is some teeny speck of unidentified (if that is even the case) DNA - it does NOT mean that it is therefore part of the crime!

You cannot focus on ONE thing that cannot even be determined to be part of the crime or not - and IGNORE all that CAN be determined to be part of the crime. Which Lin Wood, Lou Smit and the Ramseys and their spin team consistently do.

 

[sissi]

If the dna means nothing,let's bring Santa,Wolfe,McElroy,White,Oliva,Hellgoth,LHP and others back under that umbrella,and start over!
IMO

 

[Blazeboy3]

How on earth does this "clear the key figures"? What about the phony ransom note written by Patsy Ramsey, and the obvious Ramsey cover-up, and the Ramsey lies, lies and more lies?

If anything, all this does is further complicate the mystery, and inspire questions such as: Who are the Ramseys covering for? Who all is involved in this crime along with the Ramseys? What kind of sickness were they involved in that got their daughter killed? What about sex rings and child *advertiser censored*? The possibilities are endless.

And by the way, is Burke on that list? This will also no doubt encourage the BDI theories. And who knows, maybe they are right after all.

Exactly my thoughts(maybe they FACT IT TO MAKE IT?)...I just rec'd an updated (2001) print of a book called "THE FRANKLYN COVER-UP" and it lists more people associated w/this case "dying"...as in DEAD!!!

(GO TO CHAP 21 below/URL):
http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm#Table
Chapter -XXI- Omaha

On the morning of June 29, 1989, pandemonium erupted in the corridors of power in the nation's capital. ``Homosexual Prostitution Probe Ensnares Official of Bush, Reagan,'' screamed the front-page headline of the Washington Times with the kicker ``Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House.''

 

[Blazeboy3]

(REMEMBER: THE "TRUTH IS OUT THERE FOR THOSE WHO SEEK IT"!)

The Times reported, ``A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides and U.S. and foreign businessmen with close ties to Washington's political elite.''

The exposeé centered on the role of one Craig Spence, a Republican powerbroker known for his lavish ``power cocktail'' parties. Spence was well connected. He celebrated Independence Day 1988 by conducting a midnight tour of the White House in the company of two teenage male prostitutes among others in his party.

Furthermore, numbers of foster care officials and youth workers debriefed the sisters. All of them fully believed not only their general story of abuse, but specifically their account of Bush's involvement. The March 1986 report on Bush was incorporated into the Foster Care Review Board's official report presented to the Senate Franklin Committee and to law enforcement. As Kathleen Sorenson wrote in a report dated May 1, 1989, ``This was long before he [Bush] was president. It seems like there were more exciting people to `lie' about if that's what they were doing.''@s9

The rumors about Mr. Bush were given new life when Dr. Ronald Roskens, the head of the Agency for International Development (AID), found himself the object of controversy. Executive Intelligence Review reported in the fall of 1991 that Dr. Roskens is the subject of a scandal in which he is being charged with violating federal laws and ethics codes, according to the Oct. 6 Washington Post. A report prepared by AID Inspector General Herbert Beckington, dated April 5 and leaked to the Post, charges Roskens with accepting thousands of dollars in payments from ``different organizations in compensation of his and his wife's travel expenses'' while Roskens was on official government travel. He also took money for a private trip from a company ``from which Roskens had agreed to divest himself as a condition of his presidential appointment.''

The inspector general concluded that the money accepted by Roskens was a clear conflict of interest and violated federal law against earning non-government income. But on Sept. 4, after reviewing the charges, the Department of Justice ... informed Beckington that it had decided not to prosecute--giving no explanation for its decision. The White House is reviewing the case.

Congressional investigators are already looking into the allegations. Should they scratch below the surface, they will find that this is not the first time Roskens has been touched by scandal. Although President Bush promised that he would not tolerate even the appearance of impropriety in his administration, Congress should not be surprised if the White House threatens to start ``breaking legs'' in Roskens's defense.

It is not just that Roskens is a personal friend of the President--although he is.... [A]n unimpeded investigation into Roskens could expose the link between Bush's little publicized birth control mania--much of which is carried out through the State Department's AID in the Third World--and the sexual depravity rampant in U.S. political and intelligence elites. Any such scandal could shatter the illusions of Bush's conservative base, many of whom still accept the President's claims to being ``pro-life,'' ``anti-drug,'' and an American patriot. It should also make anyone who thinks of the propaganda about Bush being the ``education President,'' deeply queasy.

Roskens left his home state of Nebraska for the nation's capital in early 1990 enmired in controversy. He had been fired suddenly as president of the University of Nebraska, in a secret meeting of the state Board of Regents in July 1989. No public explanation was given for his removal. Yet, within weeks, the White House offered Roskens the high-profile job in Washington. The administration knew about the controversy in Nebraska, but Roskens passed an FBI background check, and was confirmed to head AID.

 

[Blazeboy3]

(REMEMBER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "EDUCATED/ION and KNOWLEDGE")
The FBI appears to have overlooked a Feb. 19, 1990 investigative report by the late Gary Caradori [see footnote 5 below], an investigator for the ``Franklin Committee'' of the Nebraska Senate. He wrote, ``I was informed that Roskins [sic] was terminated by the state because of sexual activities reported to the Regents and verified by them. Mr. Roskins [sic] was reported to have had young men at his residence for sexual encounters. As part of the separation from the state, he had to move out of the state-owned house because of the liability to the state if some of his sexual behavior was `illegal.'''@s1@s0

There has been no independent confirmation of the accusation. As of late December 1991, a congressional committee was looking into the charges.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to the Table of Contents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NOTES:
Notes for Chapter -XX-

1. Washington Times, Aug. 9, 1989.

2. Washington Times, July 7, 1989.

3. Pronto (Barcelona, Spain), Aug. 3, 1991 and Aug. 10, 1991.

4. Omaha World-Herald, July 23, 1989.

5. On July 11, 1990, during the course of his investigations, Gary Caradori, 41, died in the crash of his small plane, together with his 8-year-old son, after a mid-air explosion whose cause has not yet been discovered. A skilled and cautious pilot, Caradori told friends repeatedly in the weeks before his death that he feared his plane would be sabotaged.

6. Gentleman's Quarterly, December 1991.

7. Report, written on March 25, 1986 by Julie Walters and authenticated by her in an interview in 1990.

8. Report, early 1989, compiled by Jerry Lowe, the first investigator for the Franklin Committee of the Nebraska State Senate.

9. A book recently published on the Nebraska affair by a former Republican state senator and decorated Vietnam veteran, John W. De Camp, The Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism and Murder in Nebraska (Lincoln, Nebraska: AWT, Inc., 1992) tells the whole story.

10. Executive Intelligence Review, Oct. 18, 1991.

 

[Barbara]

If the dna means nothing,let's bring Santa,Wolfe,McElroy,White,Oliva,Hellgoth,LHP and others back under that umbrella,and start over!
IMO

These people have been interrogated, tested and interviewed more than any other people in this case including the parents. DNA, handwriting, alibis, interviewed, etc. all without lawyers, and many times. I have no doubt that they have been harassed by the Ramsey investigators as well as LE.

If there was even a speck of reason to believe they were involved, we would be hearing it all over the place in LE, not just on certain forums by certain posters.

Actually, the Ramseys are the only ones not put through the agony that the above people were, and that's no joke. AND, the above are innocent.