The Ramseys are Cleared

[Adalena935]

Wait, I need more information!

I'm reading that the same DNA was found in her leggings and in her panties, and that they were bagged and stored separately. Could the transfer have occurred earlier, while she was wearing them?

I have always wanted to think they didn't do it, I'm a mom and I'd like to think we all would be "too good" to do something like that (even though I know that's not true) but I'm still not convinced this has closed that door. And, I'm pretty skeptical of BPD. But, I would be happy if I could be convinced the Ramseys had nothing to do with it.

What to think, what to think?

Evidence shows it was an unknown male who murdered the child. I believe some day he will be identified. I don't think a man who would commit a crime like this will stop at just one. As someone else said this was a bold crime and surely not the 1st by this person. And most likely not his last, either.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=6254072

The results, reported to prosecutors in March, indicated the newly discovered DNA matched the DNA found earlier, and was not from the Ramsey family. Lacy said the presence of the same male DNA in three places on the girl's clothing convinced investigators it belonged to JonBenet's killer, and had not been left accidentally by an innocent party.

"It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide," she wrote.

 

[luvbeaches]

Awesome Tricia! You got in all the important points.

Yes, she did.

These are things I'd forgotten about.

If this Touch DNA belongs to the "real killer" why isn't it all over the following items: ligature, paintbrush handle, tape, the white blanket, JonBenet's shirt, the flashlight, the spoon, and the bowl of pineapple the "real killer" fed JonBenet before he wrote the ransom note and killed her.

I'm a believer that Steve Thomas knows what he's talking about. And this announcement does not change my mind.

 

[wenchie]

Nothing will ever convince me that Patsy didn't write that note.

She may as well have signed her name and stuck her thumbprint on it, it was that obvious.


If the Ramsey's are innocent victims, what reason did they have to lie to LE about assorted things?

 

[TexMex]

II have one question about this all:
:furious::furious:HOW MUCH DID JOHN RAMSEY HAVE TO PAY TO GET HIS NAME AND BURKE'S FUTURE ALL CLEANED UP????:

Man, John should have "paid" up ten years ago...

 

[trixie]

RR:


A "corrupt judicial system" yet you want the Ramseys to submit themselves to them?

The victim is that little girl, with some guys DNA in three different places on her clothing. That DNA is not from the family who loved her.

I will gladly brush aside handwriting and pineapple for DNA. All day, every day.

IMO calling parents who lost a child names and your avatar pic is...not cool.

The DNA is now a "fact in this case".

Dr. Henry Lee "This is NOT a DNA case."

 

[MrsMush99]

Hi wenchie

Yes, he did leave evidence in his motor home, thank God, or that monster may have gotten off.

He wasn't in the home as long, true....but still he entered a strangers home and left not one clue he'd been there.

And the parents would have probably been blamed.

I really don't understand why people are disputing the DNA. THREE separate places. Male DNA, which leaves out Patsy, and it is not John or Burke. So why exactly are some people questioning that???

IMO, it could NOT just be anyone. Some of the things I'm reading hear on how the the DNA got there has me scratching my head. I guess even if one day they find a match to the DNA people won't believe that either.

 

[thefragile7393]

Yes, she did.

These are things I'd forgotten about.

I'm a believer that Steve Thomas knows what he's talking about. And this announcement does not change my mind.

Tricia did nail everything...and I agree fully with the above. Still waiting for the answers to SeekingJana's questions, plus any pro-Ramsey's explaining the points Tricia pointed out. Somehow that all gets lost in the shuffle when one is trying to prove all sorts of points.......

 

[wenchie]

Hi wenchie

Yes, he did leave evidence in his motor home, thank God, or that monster may have gotten off.

He wasn't in the home as long, true....but still he entered a strangers home and left not one clue he'd been there.

Just think about all the things the perp did in that house: JB wasn't just carried away, the way Danielle VD was.

He was all over the house.....wrote a long note....changed Jonbenet's clothes....washed her....beat her....strangled her...wrote on her.....changed her hairdo...............all without not only waking anyone, but without leaving one hair, fiber or fingerprint behind?


Nope! Just not believeable....................as are the Ramseys (not believeable).

 

[MrsMush99]

Man, John should have "paid" up ten years ago...

LOL, seriously right??? He could have had this taken care of a while ago if he would have just thought of paying someone off.

 

[TexMex]

Dr. Henry Lee "This is NOT a DNA case."

Dr. Lee testified for OJ IN a DNA case....

 

[trixie]

Nothing will ever convince me that Patsy didn't write that note.

She may as well have signed her name and stuck her thumbprint on it, it was that obvious.

If the Ramsey's are innocent victims, what reason did they have to lie to LE about assorted things?

I agree!!

 

[K777angel]

Here's another question.....

if an intruder wasn't wearing gloves at one point.... why aren't there touch cells found on MANY, MANY locations of her clothing & just in a few spots that they managed to test?
That makes no sense to me.
No touch dna on the letter.... none on the glass in the kitchen?

Wow - I haven't posted on here in a long time but the news today prompted me!

I have to agree with you LI_Mom. I got a phone call from someone telling me the news. My first comment was 'Well WHO is announcing this news?' And just exactly what are the details? Because we've heard this before.

So many things swirl through my head but the first is this as you stated LI_Mom: If they now are stating that they believe there was an intruder that committed this murder and that conclusion is based on teensy little skin cell scrapings they scrounged up off her clothes - HOW COME this man's DNA isn't all OVER the place? It should be! "He" was in the house for a long time writing notes, running upstairs, kidnapping, running downstairs, changing her clothing, beating her, assaulting her, wrapping her up in blankets and laying her down on blankets he spread out.... and heaven knows where else he was! Probably snooping right? I mean - the note came from the notepad found IN THE HOUSE.

I don't believe this new pronouncement.

I think there is another explanation for those "touch DNA cells" because ALL THE OTHER FACTS do not mesh with an intruder.

We have come to rely on DNA samples from a crime scene without question these days sometimes completely dismissing other FACTUAL evidence. That is just wrong. Even with DNA technology we must not toss aside other evidence and facts because afterall - in ANY crime scene there is unexplained evidence that seems to be part of the crime but in fact is not but merely a coincidence.

I think that the Boulder DA's office is tired of Mr. Wood and this case and the money that it costs and has finally found a way to convince the public (and satisfy certain hound dogs) - especially now that Patsy Ramsey is no longer with us, that the Ramseys are not responsible. But...

There are far too many important and critical unanswered questions that have NOT been answered that do not square with some intruder.

*How did he get in?
*How did he exit? NO sign of either.

*Explain why in the 'ransom' note there is so much of Patsy's personal
linguistics, style and some experts say handwriting match!

*Why lie about Burke being awake?

*Explain how Patsy was fully dressed and made up when the officer answered the door that morning so shortly after she had gotten up at (her words) 5:30am. Not to mention running through the house looking for JonBenet, reading the note, showing it to John etc. All in 20 minutes? No way. Not to mention the fact that she was still dressed in last night's clothes!

*NO ransom money claimed! Let's not forget that the killer left behind THE most important piece of evidence: The letter. 3 pages. Claiming he wanted money in exchange for their daughter. No kidnapping ever took place. No money was ever sought. It was nothing more than a panicked attempt to divert attention away from what really happened. NOTHING about this fact and evidence has changed. And the new DNA test does not change it.

On and on the OTHER important facts swirl through my mind.

I am reminded of a comment that Alex Hunter made in an interview with Geraldo Rivera that always stuck in my mind. He stated that the evidence they were looking at was "not just in the house that night." Or something to that effect. I think that is the exact quote. We may never know if the Ramseys had other people over that night or if one or both of them trekked out somewhere that night and took JonBenet with them. Or - one of THEM had "skin cells" from someone else they'd shaken hands with or what not and it "transferred" to her clothing later that evening. Good grief - so many things COULD explain this other DNA. Again - if it were from the killer - there HAS to be a plethora of it on her and other items. There is not. THAT IS HUGE.

Two last things:

1. Has law enforcement tested EVERY single person's DNA that JonBenet's clothes could have come in contact with during that time period? Even the coroner who obviously would have had to remove her panties and long johns during the autopsy. Did they take DNA from him? From the ambulance drivers? Nurses? Other police officers??
Are victims clothes kept SO pristine as to not effect a sensitive test like the one they just used?
Of course not. (Test ALL of her clothing! Test HER. Test the skin they say was under her fingernails! Test the rope. Test the blankets. Test more and then some! And if you find TONS of this "other" DNA then I just might think you have something there... but until then, I am not convinced.

2. For me, one of the biggest reasons I am still suspicious of some involvement from the Ramsesy and that they KNEW that morning what had tragically happened - is the fact that they felt comfortable allowing Burke to LEAVE their protective side that morning all the while claiming a dangerous and threatening kidnapper and possible murderer (note threatened to kill/behead) was out there and WATCHING their families every move.

Nope. This new "breaking news" does nothing but break my heart that there are so many gutless people in this world who are too cowardly to admit ALL of the truth in this case. And there will never be any justice for little JonBenet Ramsey. In this life anyway.

~Angel~

 

[RiverRat]

RR:


A "corrupt judicial system" yet you want the Ramseys to submit themselves to them?

The victim is that little girl, with some guys DNA in three different places on her clothing. That DNA is not from the family who loved her.

I will gladly brush aside handwriting and pineapple for DNA. All day, every day.

IMO calling parents who lost a child names and your avatar pic is...not cool.

The DNA is now a "fact in this case".

The Boulder authorites are the last people I want the Ramseys submitted to, this wouldn't have flown anywhere but Boulder.

Since the DNA is such a fact now as you state, explain this one to me from the press release above:

"Lacy claims the DNA on the long-johns match DNA on the undewear. It would be nice if Lacy could make the very logical conclusion that there was transference of a few skin cells since the long-johns WERE PULLED OVER THE UNDERWEAR."

 

[Wudge]

Becklynn, Fox News got it right. Please read the rough draft of my press release. This is just the beginning of all the things wrong with Lacy's stupid crap she is pulling..AGAIN.

For Immediate Release July 9th 2008
From: Forums for Justice.org
Contact: Tricia Griffith tgrif@xmission.com

HERE WE GO AGAIN. BOULDER D.A. MARY LACY MAKES A FOOL OF HERSELF IN THE RAMSEY CASE.
You would think Lacy would have learned something from her John Mark Carr fiasco​

Today, true justice for 6 year old murder victim JonBenet Ramsey has been thwarted by the very person elected by the people to protect her.

Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy has given the Ramseys a parting gift as she leaves office; she has cleared them of having any connection to the murder of JonBenet.

Lacy "cleared" the Ramseys based on new DNA evidence called "Touch DNA."
Touch DNA is exactly that. A test so sensitive that it can pick up a few microscopic skin cells left behind by someone touching an object.

Lacy claims there is unknown DNA on the long-johns and underwear JonBenet was wearing when she died, therefore (and only Mary Lacy could make this leap) the Ramseys are innocent.

Forums for Justice.org would like to remind Mary Lacy of what she said two years ago,

""The [Ramsey case] DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s." - Boulder DA Mary Lacy, 8/28/06

I guess now Mary Lacy has changed her mind.

If this Touch DNA belongs to the "real killer" why isn't it all over the following items: ligature, paintbrush handle, tape, the white blanket, JonBenet's shirt, the flashlight, the spoon, and the bowl of pineapple the "real killer" fed JonBenet before he wrote the ransom note and killed her.

MARY LACEY PLEASE SHOW US THE SAME DNA YOU FOUND ON THE LONGJOHNS AND UNDERWEAR ON THE OTHER ITEMS USED IN THE MURDER. DID THE "REAL KILLER" TAKE OF HER GLOVES WHEN SHE LEFT A COUPLE OF SKIN CELLS ON THE PANTS THEN PUT THEM BACK ON AS TO NOT LEAVE ANY MORE DNA?

Patsy Ramsey stated she put the long-johns on JonBenet. Her DNA must be on the long-johns too. So why isn't she mentioned?

Lacy claims the DNA on the long-johns match DNA on the undewear. It would be nice if Lacy could make the very logical conclusion that there was transference of a few skin cells since the long-johns WERE PULLED OVER THE UNDERWEAR.

Forums for Justice.org would like to ask Mary Lacy one final question; WHAT ABOUT THE 2 1/2 PAGE RANSOME NOTE. The note has been matched to Patsy Ramsey's handwriting by several well respected handwriting analysts.

There are hundreds of other examples of common sense observations in the JonBenet Ramsey case that escape those in the Boulder D.A's office.

In Mary Lacy's world of Ramsey common sense does not exist.

Tricia Griffith
Forums for Justice.org
tgrif@xmission.com

PS. It will be interesting to see where Mary Lacy ends up in the private sector.

On TV, you would claim what?

 

[luvbeaches]

PS. It will be interesting to see where Mary Lacy ends up in the private sector.

Haddon, Morgan and Foreman would be my guess.

Does anyone recall what Paula Woodward's connection is to this law firm? It seems like there was some connection, but I just don't remember.

 

[wenchie]

Why did the R's skirt Burke out of the home, with no concern that HE might be targeted for a "kidnapping" next?

Why did they not question Burke themselves about whether he had heard anything............or want him to be questioned by LE?

Why was Patsy peeking through her fingers at the police officer and then doing a fake "boo hoo hoo" for him?

Why was Patsy not only wearing the same clothes from the night before, but was also in full makeup (after only a few hours sleep, no coffee, and having gotten up at 5:45 am)?

Why were the fibers from those same clothes inside the garotte?

Why weren't both the R's sitting there staring at the phone and praying for it to ring with news of their daughter?


And on and on and on.....................

 

[evelyn24]

I thought they ALWAYS said it was male DNA?

Found on waistband on leggings? Oh okay, so when she was "redressed" the waistband would come in contact with the panties, correct?

IMO, Mary Lacy just wanted to be rid of this once and for all.

I agree.
Unless the DNA is a bodily fluid, I still don't get the bold statement that this clears the Ramseys?
Maybe JBR transferred the DNA skin cells herself??
I mean, they are her clothes, and it's possible foreign DNA from somewhere got on her tights, and she pulled them off to pee, got it in her undies.

All I know is that kids pick up A LOT of foreign DNA (fibers, hair, skin cells) from places and it's transferable.

 

[SeekingJana]

LOL, seriously right??? He could have had this taken care of a while ago if he would have just thought of paying someone off.

I would say the timing has to do with Burke's career plans as an adult and John's desire to give him a " clean slate", and probable life insurance proceeds from Patsy's death. After all, he could have had very long standing policies on both of them which pre-dated her first bout with ovarian cancer.

How ironic would that be? Patsy's life insurance paying to get her off the hook for murder after her own death.

Someday, ALL of these people will face God and they will be judged for what they did to a beautiful tiny 6 year old!!!

 

[Adalena935]

Danielle VanDam was snatched out of her bed and taking from the house.

Westerfield wasn't all over the house.....changing her clothes, writing notes, going through the house.

He did leave evidence of his crime in his motor home, though.

He did have evidence all over his house though, because he was a neighbor. On his bed, all over his bedroom, in his laundry room and evidence all over his house that proved he tried to clean up the crime scene to avoid detection. Remember the orange fibers from inside the trunk inside his living room that was tied to her body 130 miles out into the desert? From an afghan they supposed that had been inside the trunk inside his house inside his living room. They tested it in Sacramento with a special fiber fingerprint machine/technology.

and all over inside his RV as you said too.

All that was proven in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt to a jury at trial.

Nothing's been proven in this case so far except to exhonerate the parents and the brother thru DNA evidence. DNA does not lie. DNA is truth by nature. It's more absolute than fingerprints which have been used to solve crime for many years.

 

[lilywhite]

Nothing will ever convince me that Patsy didn't write that note.

She may as well have signed her name and stuck her thumbprint on it, it was that obvious.

I can't help but agree. It's probably one of the top three pieces of evidence for me.

I wish I knew more about DNA than I do. I'm not comfortable trying to debunk the "new" DNA when I don't fully understand the implications and the possibility for transfer.

This case will never be solved.