Sorry about that. I read a blog entry somewhere that the blogger tried to defend Casey, saying she was innocent because that's how the Anthony's prepared their pets for burial, so they felt George was guilty. I have always felt that the murder was by the egg donor, pure and simple.
RIP Common Sense
- Thread starter BBB167893
- Start date
Sorry about that. I read a blog entry somewhere that the blogger tried to defend Casey, saying she was innocent because that's how the Anthony's prepared their pets for burial, so they felt George was guilty. I have always felt that the murder was by the egg donor, pure and simple.
Not true Cynic. Read up and quit living in the past. Boulder PD has been involved with everything. Exonerating a Ramsey was premature but it is clear that an opinion is stated that they are not suspects. Somebody else did the killing but I will leave it to others to decide if this was murder for hire. RDI is over and done.
"As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder Police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenet’s blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.The police department diligently compared that profile to a very large number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the investigation, and has not identified the source, innocent or otherwise, of this DNA. The Boulder Police and prosecutors assigned to this investigation in the past also worked conscientiously with laboratory analysts to obtain better results through new approaches and additional tests as they became available. Those efforts ultimately led to the discovery of sufficient genetic markers from this male profile to enter it into the national DNA data bank.In December of 2002, the Boulder District Attorney’s Office, under Mary T. Lacy, assumed responsibility for the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide. Since then, this office has worked with the Boulder Police Department to continue the investigation of this crime.In early August of 2007, District Attorney Lacy attended a Continuing Education Program in West Virginia sponsored by the National Institute of Justice on Forensic Biology and DNA. The presenters discussed successful outcomes from a new methodology described as “touch DNA.”
Excuse me for interjecting Roy23, but it seems to me that until the DNA can be mapped to a specific individual, it is impossible to conclude whether it means anything or not. Given they were only able to produce 10 markers, I'm not sure it could be mapped out to any specific individual. But yeah, if the partial profile matches up to a known sex offender who was in Boulder at the time and has no alibi, it would then be time to say the police would have probable cause to label this other male the prime suspect in the case.
Until that time comes, I do not think the DNA is a slam dunk proving the Rs innocence and I believe we should all keep an open mind in regards to who the killer or killers may have been.
Until that time comes, I do not think the DNA is a slam dunk proving the Rs innocence and I believe we should all keep an open mind in regards to who the killer or killers may have been.
Actually, it’s time for you to stop living in the past. Lacy isn’t the DA anymore.
Her departure means that the Ramseys no longer have a DA in their pocket.
Mary Lacy’s biased pronouncement of the “innocence” of the Ramseys coupled with her unilateral decree regarding the DNA is meaningless.
It would be the same as if Michael Tracy was the DA and was in charge of investigating the Ramseys.
You are living in the past, (a past that you’ve rewritten where you feel it’s necessary such as with Beckner,) but the present reality is that unbiased independent task force reviewed all the evidence and subsequent to that review, an unbiased DA un-exonerated the Ramseys. If there was “no innocent explanation” for the DNA that wouldn’t have happened, and you know it.
If you are interested in "reading up," you can start here:
DNA
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7066701&postcount=69"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - RIP Common Sense[/ame]
The real Beckner:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7059708&postcount=165"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Unknown male DNA and the panties discussion[/ame]
There are certainly innocent ways that DNA can turn up in a crime scene, even in multiple matching locations and be completely unrelated to the true perpetrator of the crime.
Here are some examples:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6332787&postcount=77"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=187565&postcount=22"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA[/ame]
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5631931&postcount=352"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - DNA Revisited[/ame]
There is simply far too much evidence pointing to the Ramseys, as the body of evidence is considered in totality, to be led astray by what must be DNA deposited by adventitious means and, as such, unrelated to the crime.
Plenty more at the Rebuttal to Aphrodite Jones Sub-Forum
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=455"]Rebuttal to Discovery I.D. Show about JonBenet - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
Cynic, I also found your information on mixed DNA samples involving siblings to be quite riveting and very possible in this situation.
Again, it has been proven that the four Ramsey's were in the house that night for sure.
Again, it has been proven that the four Ramsey's were in the house that night for sure.
runsdeep
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 5
i wasnt disputing you, rather the jurors.
jurors did use that as an excuse, and if they had paid attention to testimony they would have heard the prosecution clarify via cindy and george that tape was not used on the faces of the pets, but just to seal the bags so other animals wouldnt dig up the pets.
runsdeep
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 5
i havent found aphrodite jones reporting to be very credible.
Agreed. The thread concerning the inaccuracies of that show is a good study in what has been proven/disproven in the case. Great read!
I will get to Beckner in a minute but all you RDI's keep in mind that he was apart of this whole process. Whether ML should have used the word exonerated is very questionable. But make no bones about it, Mark Beckner knows an unknown party KILLED JBR. This is your last chance RDI's. Learn to read between the lines and I will give you some more help on why Beckner is silent. And it is out of respect to Mr. John Ramsey for prior leaks.
"I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and assistance they have contributed to this investigation.The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find during a criminal investigation."
Yes, Beckner does know who is responsible for the death of JonBenet, the individuals under the umbrella of suspicion.
Read up on the real Beckner
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7059708&postcount=165"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Unknown male DNA and the panties discussion[/ame]
From Mark Beckner's lips.
"The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The Boulder Police Department concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet. We remain committed to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice. That is, and always will be, our goal.
"The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The Boulder Police Department concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet. We remain committed to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice. That is, and always will be, our goal.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7059708&postcount=165"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Unknown male DNA and the panties discussion[/ame]
I can't help that you don't get it dude. Exonerating anyone by ML is a mistake. And coming from Police is even worse. It doesn't change the facts. This all has to do with whether Ramseys conspired a murder for hire. The DNA is different location are $%^& matches cynic. Matches. Matches. Do u frickin get it? Matches.
Quit confusing people with information back in the stone ages. It is over. There is no RDI people. None. Nada. It is over. It is in CODIS cynic. At least three different matched DNA. CODIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7066701&postcount=69"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - RIP Common Sense[/ame]
There are innocent ways that DNA can turn up in a crime scene, even in multiple matching locations and be completely unrelated to the true perpetrator of the crime.
Here are some examples:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6332787&postcount=77"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=187565&postcount=22"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA[/ame]
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5631931&postcount=352"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - DNA Revisited[/ame]
I have read all of this before Cynic. This was a 6 year old girl who had foreign DNA in her panties. And then substantiated on a pair of long johns she changed into that night. The BPD has tested numerous and numerous people to prove exactly what you are trying to prove. And they haven't and can't.
I doubt you are reading my posts, because, as an example, you are suggesting that all possible avenues of contamination have been tracked down. That simply isnt true.
In the first link that I provided it speaks of contamination at the morgue from a previous decedent.
I know all about that stuff. You argument can be made for any DNA case in the history of mankind. The problem is you have to be reasonable. And I know I am wasting my time. The DNA originally had numerous issues just like you claim. From the fingernail DNA to the panty DNA. Nobody is arguing it. And the BPD and media scrutinized their own evidence to the point of suggesting a factory worker in China.
This all changed. And I have sent you numerous commentary about what they did. Now you can still argue credibility of the DNA (esp fingernail) because of the issues they had in the beginning. Forensic standards are ridiculously high. We know that. But put your thinking cap on and even be open to the fingernail DNA since it may be a match to the others. But be reasonable and practical on all the new developments that gave an institution that wanted to BURY the Ramsey's the strict CODIS requirements.
And Some of the bad stories on DNA are not as relevant on sexually active adults. This is different story. One that has investigators in a complete 180 position after 15 years. Jump on board while you can.
You should actually be a defense witness for the defense after they catch the intruder.
No it can’t, but with a case based on minute quantities of degraded skin cells it can.
We’re not talking about matching blood stains here, or semen from a rape kit matching other DNA. This DNA evidence is on the bottom of the scale of relevance.
I am being both reasonable and realistic; the evidence points to the Ramseys, therefore the DNA is likely from a source unrelated to the crime.
As am I with you.
Still does.
From the fingernail DNA, to the panty DNA, to the touch DNA from the long johns.
That is because low sample quantity and degradation issues made it a possibility, those issues are still there.
No it hasn't. We don’t know how many markers are present in the TDNA from the long johns, it could be 2 or 3 markers for all we know, and don’t think that someone as openly biased as Lacy wouldn’t hesitate to call that a match and use it to exonerate her friends.
(Just as these friends of the Ramseys said a 2 marker fingernail DNA sample "matched" other DNA in the case:
Ramsey PI’s, “Agustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml?tag=untagged
Once she was gone an unbiased task force examined the evidence. They may have found out that Lacy was taking "liberties" with her interpretation of the DNA findings and that may have served as the impetus to un-exonerate the Ramseys.
It was primarily a commentary about Lacy’s shameful actions coupled with the presentation of a Mark Beckner and the BPD that has no basis in reality.
Read through my post on the real Beckner
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7059708&postcount=165"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Unknown male DNA and the panties discussion[/ame]
I can and will argue the credibility of the DNA in this case because of all the possibilities involved with this type of DNA, as I said, we are not exactly talking about matching blood stains.
They are high, but the sample made it into CODIS by the skin of its teeth and remains a partial, mixed profile. I would like to see the lab reports before I am convinced that it should even be there in the first place. (Because the sample had only 9 markers to begin with.)
Put your thinking cap on and ask yourself about the ramifications of the coroner’s actions in this case. The coroner admitted that he did not sterilize nail clippers between autopsies.
"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."
Steve Thomas, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" – Pg. 41
Also:
Bill Wise, former first assistant with the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, said that although DNA "absolutely could be one of the biggest things in the case," it could also be nothing.
Some of the DNA taken from the 6-year-old pageant queen's fingernails and underwear was "degraded," Wise said. He said the tool used to take samples wasn't clean.
"It had foreign DNA on it," he said.
http://www.dailycamera.com/archivesearch/ci_13061689
The DeMocker trial illustrates that this could account for all the DNA findings in this case.
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=187565&postcount=22"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA[/ame]
Be reasonable in considering that Lacy was biased to the point where she could not be trusted to investigate the Ramseys.
Yes, I’m sure that’s what you tell yourself to help you ignore those case studies.
There is no evidence, whatsoever, that anyone in the BPD has done a 180 turnaround.
Has anyone from the BPD ever said that there is no innocent explanation for the DNA evidence?
Has anyone from the BPD ever endorsed Lacy’s exoneration of the Ramseys?
I don’t jump aboard sinking ships.
A careful examination of the totality of the evidence in the JonBenet case points to the Ramseys as being responsible for the murder of their child, there is no intruder.
KoldKase
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 996
- Reaction score
- 26
Your problem, Roy, is you can't seem to understand that no one is going to ever be convicted on that DNA. Not the Ramseys; not a stranger/intruder.
There is a mountain of evidence in this case that has never been and will never be traced to anyone, anywhere, but the Ramseys and their home.
Period.
Considering that Patsy wrote the ransom note, that JonBenet was being molested before the night she was murdered, and that the Ramseys have covered up for the molester and killer for 15 years, it's a no-brainer: the Ramseys did it. All of it.
Following the evidence, John and Patsy handled the body: Patsy's clothing fibers were tied into the knots of the garrote; John's shirt fibers were found in the genital area where the victim had been wiped down before she was redressed. The staging was so obvious, even John realized the weaknesses when he was allowed to "find" the body and told Arndt it was an inside job.
I don't know you or what kind of stake you have in this case. What I do know is no one who can objectively look at the actual, factual evidence in this case can possibly rule the Ramseys out.
What Beckner was acknowledging--what everyone in LE has to accept at this point--is this: Team Ramsey has had two corrupt D.A's., both of whom hired and worked with Ramsey master-propagandist Lou Smit and his cronies; they also had a powerful Defense Team even O.J. would envy; by the time Hunter buried the grand jury, the Ramseys had hired media and civil law expert Lin Wood casting a long shadow over anyone who dares to speak the truth about this case; throw in self-promoting, international propagandist Michael Tracey providing 15 years of public relations spin and faux suspects, and it would take someone with either incredible heart or incredible balls to stand against this juggernaut of injustice. There is equally little doubt much went on behind the legal and media scenes which was influenced by the heady power of Lockheed Martin's undeniable world-class connections, burying evidence, creating disinformation at every twist and turn. Even Beckner knew when he was defeated. He probably knew it on Day Two, in fact.
So of course, the DNA at this point would have to be sourced to try anyone--ANYONE. How many ignorant people now say, Oh, the Ramseys have bee PROVEN innocent with that DNA, haven't they?
But if they found that DNA donor tomorrow, and even if he were a child molester who for decades lived in Boulder, that would NOT be enough to convict him. Not in any court, anywhere.
All any defense attorney will ever have to bring up in front of a jury/judge is the ransom note and that Patsy could NOT be eliminated as its author/writer, the many evasions and lies the Ramseys told LE, their "inconclusive" results from TWO of THEIR OWN self-sponsored polygraph examiners, and the fact that LE/Hunter/Lacy NEVER got copies of the Ramseys full cell phone records with any subpoena, nor for their clothes, for that matter. The fibers, the autopsy evidence--what DA is going to explain how that "stranger intruder" managed to molest carefully watched JonBenet right under her family's noses, and they never caught on? Or more incredulous, they helped cover it up then, too, even after she was murdered? There are not 12 people outside a nut farm who would believe there's no reasonable doubt some stranger committed this crime because A FEW SKIN CELLS from him were harvested during mucho evidence processing by MANY labs and technicians over a period of 12 years--surely lab contamination is impossible!
Didn't you ever wonder why Team Ramsey was always so willing to concede this "intruder" could be dead? Ha! He could have been already dead when JonBenet was murdered, lying in a morgue somewhere while his autopsy or case evidence was being processed--a few skin cells handled by a lab tech who had no idea how easily this case would be thwarted with future, overly sensitive DNA-testing that would prove--nothing!
So you hang on to that DNA for dear life: SKIN CELLS, my man. Not blood; not semen; SKIN CELLS, of which we all shed thousands a day--look at those dust bunnies under your bed and couch.
Hang on to it, because it's all you're ever going to have.
And Burke is going to live his entire life under that umbrella of suspicion, because his parents were so arrogant, so egotistical, so without responsibility and parental duty to their molested, beaten, and strangled child, that instead of doing the right thing and calling for professional help, handling the sickness that was theirs to answer for under the laws any of the rest of us would have been subjected to, they chose to burden society and innumerable innocent people with their lies and crimes.
Imagine if they'd only swallowed their pride and gotten help when it was discovered she was first being molested.
Oh well. That's the nature of incest; take it to the grave. So one or more of them helped her do that, with some intent at least, IMO.
There is a mountain of evidence in this case that has never been and will never be traced to anyone, anywhere, but the Ramseys and their home.
Period.
Considering that Patsy wrote the ransom note, that JonBenet was being molested before the night she was murdered, and that the Ramseys have covered up for the molester and killer for 15 years, it's a no-brainer: the Ramseys did it. All of it.
Following the evidence, John and Patsy handled the body: Patsy's clothing fibers were tied into the knots of the garrote; John's shirt fibers were found in the genital area where the victim had been wiped down before she was redressed. The staging was so obvious, even John realized the weaknesses when he was allowed to "find" the body and told Arndt it was an inside job.
I don't know you or what kind of stake you have in this case. What I do know is no one who can objectively look at the actual, factual evidence in this case can possibly rule the Ramseys out.
What Beckner was acknowledging--what everyone in LE has to accept at this point--is this: Team Ramsey has had two corrupt D.A's., both of whom hired and worked with Ramsey master-propagandist Lou Smit and his cronies; they also had a powerful Defense Team even O.J. would envy; by the time Hunter buried the grand jury, the Ramseys had hired media and civil law expert Lin Wood casting a long shadow over anyone who dares to speak the truth about this case; throw in self-promoting, international propagandist Michael Tracey providing 15 years of public relations spin and faux suspects, and it would take someone with either incredible heart or incredible balls to stand against this juggernaut of injustice. There is equally little doubt much went on behind the legal and media scenes which was influenced by the heady power of Lockheed Martin's undeniable world-class connections, burying evidence, creating disinformation at every twist and turn. Even Beckner knew when he was defeated. He probably knew it on Day Two, in fact.
So of course, the DNA at this point would have to be sourced to try anyone--ANYONE. How many ignorant people now say, Oh, the Ramseys have bee PROVEN innocent with that DNA, haven't they?
But if they found that DNA donor tomorrow, and even if he were a child molester who for decades lived in Boulder, that would NOT be enough to convict him. Not in any court, anywhere.
All any defense attorney will ever have to bring up in front of a jury/judge is the ransom note and that Patsy could NOT be eliminated as its author/writer, the many evasions and lies the Ramseys told LE, their "inconclusive" results from TWO of THEIR OWN self-sponsored polygraph examiners, and the fact that LE/Hunter/Lacy NEVER got copies of the Ramseys full cell phone records with any subpoena, nor for their clothes, for that matter. The fibers, the autopsy evidence--what DA is going to explain how that "stranger intruder" managed to molest carefully watched JonBenet right under her family's noses, and they never caught on? Or more incredulous, they helped cover it up then, too, even after she was murdered? There are not 12 people outside a nut farm who would believe there's no reasonable doubt some stranger committed this crime because A FEW SKIN CELLS from him were harvested during mucho evidence processing by MANY labs and technicians over a period of 12 years--surely lab contamination is impossible!
Didn't you ever wonder why Team Ramsey was always so willing to concede this "intruder" could be dead? Ha! He could have been already dead when JonBenet was murdered, lying in a morgue somewhere while his autopsy or case evidence was being processed--a few skin cells handled by a lab tech who had no idea how easily this case would be thwarted with future, overly sensitive DNA-testing that would prove--nothing!
So you hang on to that DNA for dear life: SKIN CELLS, my man. Not blood; not semen; SKIN CELLS, of which we all shed thousands a day--look at those dust bunnies under your bed and couch.
Hang on to it, because it's all you're ever going to have.
And Burke is going to live his entire life under that umbrella of suspicion, because his parents were so arrogant, so egotistical, so without responsibility and parental duty to their molested, beaten, and strangled child, that instead of doing the right thing and calling for professional help, handling the sickness that was theirs to answer for under the laws any of the rest of us would have been subjected to, they chose to burden society and innumerable innocent people with their lies and crimes.
Imagine if they'd only swallowed their pride and gotten help when it was discovered she was first being molested.
Oh well. That's the nature of incest; take it to the grave. So one or more of them helped her do that, with some intent at least, IMO.
That sums up the sad state of the IDI position nicely, KK.