The Ramseys are Cleared

[Seeker]

No - were you?

I know that she was zapped with some pretty powerful Experimental cocktails that put her briefly in remission. I know that she made the choice to dress her little girl up as a sexual adult. I know that she lied through her teeth without batting an eye and that she was a Pro in Marketing and PR.......I just know that Patsy was not to be trusted and was excellant at covering up for someone as the fake ransom note reveals.

I never caught one glimpse of sincerity from that woman, maybe you can point some out to me?

Clarity of thought? Patsy? When we all know that she smoked, heavily too. Some "survivor" eh?

 

[kcksum]

Yea, the "ransom note" is the thing for me too.
I mean..come the hell on, people.
lol

come the he** on people, dna doesn't lie. there were hired hands on both sides who said she did and didn't write the note. that's why this evidence trumps everything.its science. It doesn't judge by wether or not people liked who patsy was or wethere or not she should have put her daughter in pagents. science doesn't care what kind of people they were, it just tells the truth. i can totally understand why this is hard for som many of you. you have spent a great number of years convinced patsy did this....now the dna and the only un arguable evidence says that isn't so....its a mighty bitter pill to swallow.
like i said....its a good thing johjn ramsey doesn't have to answer to anyone but the da,she's cleared him and rightly so.

 

[Moab]

Say.........like Elizabeth Smart's dad?

Elizabeth was not murdered in her home.

 

[Karole28]

Citation?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ci·ta·tion Audio Help /saɪˈteɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-tey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Military. mention of a soldier or a unit in orders, usually for gallantry: Presidential citation.
2. any award or commendation, as for outstanding service, hard work, or devotion to duty, esp. a formal letter or statement recounting a person's achievements.
3. a summons, esp. to appear in court.
4. a document containing such a summons.
5. the act of citing or quoting a reference to an authority or a precedent.
6. a passage cited; quotation.
7. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context.
8. mention or enumeration.

 

[angelwngs]

Would just one IDI here please answer one question for me?

If unknown male touch DNA is present on both sides of JBR's longjohns, along with DNA intermingled w/ JBR's blood in her undies, do you consider it a "possibility", that these samples could have come from anyone other than the killer?

I just want to know if each and every post here from differing opinions is falling absolutely onto deaf ears or not.

 

[Medea]

come the he** on people, dna doesn't lie. there were hired hands on both sides who said she did and didn't write the note. that's why this evidence trumps everything.its science. It doesn't judge by wether or not people liked who patsy was or wethere or not she should have put her daughter in pagents. science doesn't care what kind of people they were, it just tells the truth. i can totally understand why this is hard for som many of you. you have spent a great number of years convinced patsy did this....now the dna and the only un arguable evidence says that isn't so....its a mighty bitter pill to swallow.
like i said....its a good thing johjn ramsey doesn't have to answer to anyone but the da,she's cleared him and rightly so.

What if the DNA is someone who was in the home and has an alibi?

Not the DNA of a known sexual predator but the DNA of someone who knew JonBenet, could have come into casual contact with her/her clothes and can not have committed the crime?

Does that mean 'science does lie' or that just maybe, 'touch DNA' on the clothes of a victim, in and of itself, doesn't prove or disprove any theory of the crime?

 

[kcksum]

So, when this new DNA is used on old cases and miniscule skin cell DNA turns up on old evidence, are you going to also throw open the prison doors and exonerate anyone whose victim has other 'touch DNA' later found on them and simply ignore the rest of the inculpatory evidence?[/quote

that miniscule skin cell is all they have at this time. if your other evidence is so amazing and important then the ramseys would have been put in jail a long time ago. for every expert you have that says they did it or wrote the ransom note, there's one who says they didn't.
there's a big difference, you know that.

 

[Seeker]

Would just one IDI here please answer one question for me?

If unknown male touch DNA is present on both sides of JBR's longjohns, along with DNA intermingled w/ JBR's blood in her undies, do you consider it a "possibility", that these samples could have come from anyone other than the killer?

I just want to know if each and every post here from differing opinions is falling absolutely onto deaf ears or not.

This would be a good thread topic, or poll but I doubt they would see your point.

Gee let's see, touch DNA apparently COULDN'T be picked up by JonBenet somewhere and she COULDN'T have created any cross contamination herself by pulling down her longjohns to go potty then pulling them up again thereby depositing the fractional DNA not only into her panties, but along her longjohns too....

Right?

 

[Medea]

So, when this new DNA is used on old cases and miniscule skin cell DNA turns up on old evidence, are you going to also throw open the prison doors and exonerate anyone whose victim has other 'touch DNA' later found on them and simply ignore the rest of the inculpatory evidence?[/quote

that miniscule skin cell is all they have at this time. if your other evidence is so amazing and important then the ramseys would have been put in jail a long time ago. for every expert you have that says they did it or wrote the ransom note, there's one who says they didn't.
there's a big difference, you know that.

My point is only that male skin cells found on the victim's clothing doesn't really inculpate or exonerate anyone.

If they were John or Patsy Ramsey's wouldn't they be equally worthless, since the skin of her parents would most likely be on her clothes?

It is ONE piece of evidence. It could I suppose mean that the whackiest intruder ever to walk the face of the planet did indeed kill JonBenet and coincidentally her parents chose to stonewall the police and her mother gives every indication of being a stone cold crazy narcissist. Or, it could mean nothing.

It troubles me that SKIN CELLS now apparently trump any and all evidence. DNA is not the be all and end all of solving crimes.

 

[Wudge]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ci·ta·tion Audio Help /saɪˈteɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-tey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Military. mention of a soldier or a unit in orders, usually for gallantry: Presidential citation.
2. any award or commendation, as for outstanding service, hard work, or devotion to duty, esp. a formal letter or statement recounting a person's achievements.
3. a summons, esp. to appear in court.
4. a document containing such a summons.
5. the act of citing or quoting a reference to an authority or a precedent.
6. a passage cited; quotation.
7. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context.
8. mention or enumeration.

There's a good reason that you can't cite a handwriting expert for the FBI or Bouder PD who allegedly said Patsy's handwriting was an "exact match" to the ransom note; no such expert said that. As regards her handwriting and those handwriting experts, they graded the liklihood that Patsy wrote the note as "low probability" (4.5 out of 5 as I recall -- with 5 being absolute exclusion).

HTH

 

[kcksum]

I never said the Lab lied......and I'll never trust the chain of evidence while in the hands of the Corrupt.

yeah yeah, and if someone came forward tomorrow and confessed you would be sure that John Ramsey paid the mans family a million dollars and had the cia brainwash him into confessing so that the corrupt boulder da's office could be free from scrutiny.
If a codis hit is made will all have to believe that the fbi staged the codis hit and pre planned 10 yrs ago to have him entered in the data base aall to clear the ramseys.

 

[Rino]

yeah yeah, and if someone came forward tomorrow and confessed you would be sure that John Ramsey paid the mans family a million dollars and had the cia brainwash him into confessing so that the corrupt boulder da's office could be free from scrutiny.
If a codis hit is made will all have to believe that the fbi staged the codis hit and pre planned 10 yrs ago to have him entered in the data base aall to clear the ramseys.

Nah, wouldn't he be the one that tried to collected the ransom?

 

[kcksum]

What if the DNA is someone who was in the home and has an alibi?

Not the DNA of a known sexual predator but the DNA of someone who knew JonBenet, could have come into casual contact with her/her clothes and can not have committed the crime?

Does that mean 'science does lie' or that just maybe, 'touch DNA' on the clothes of a victim, in and of itself, doesn't prove or disprove any theory of the crime?

i highly doubt the da would have released their press statement without checking the dna to all known people in the household. I also find it IMPOSSIBLE that the same known individual would leave dna in three seperate spots on her clothing and some mingled with body fluids. if that known individual deposited their dna in her body fluids, then they need to be looked at closely.

 

[lilywhite]

I guess this means we are entering the phase when unidentified skin cells on a murder victim's body trumps any and all other evidence in a case.

The victim has unidentified DNA under the fingernails. Not guilty.

Unidentified skin cells on their clothes. Not guilty.

Unidentified DNA found in the house. Not guilty.

I think this is a really dangerous road to go down. (I think from your post that you agree.) If we are truly shedding microscopic bits of DNA all the time every time we touch anything at all, and those bits of DNA can then be transferred in any number of innocuous ways, how can there not be unidentifiable DNA at many crime scenes?

It is true that DNA "doesn't lie." But it seems to me that based on the nature of DNA testing, DNA evidence can be very misleading.

 

[Karole28]

There's a good reason that you can't cite a handwriting expert for the FBI or Bouder PD who allegedly said Patsy's handwriting was an "exact match" to the ransom note; no such expert said that. As regards her handwriting and those handwriting experts, they graded the liklihood that Patsy wrote the note as "low probability" (4.5 out of 5 as I recall -- with 5 being absolute exclsion).

HTH

And still could NOT rule her out.

Now you can go read. You're welcome!

 

[Medea]

yeah yeah, and if someone came forward tomorrow and confessed you would be sure that John Ramsey paid the mans family a million dollars and had the cia brainwash him into confessing so that the corrupt boulder da's office could be free from scrutiny.
If a codis hit is made will all have to believe that the fbi staged the codis hit and pre planned 10 yrs ago to have him entered in the data base aall to clear the ramseys.

There isn't going to be any CODIS hit, in my opinion.

Doesn't anyone wonder why Lacy chose to go public with exonerating the Ramseys BEFORE putting this through the database?

I mean, if we are to believe her, she's now alerted the 'real' killer that his DNA has been found. Wouldn't it have been a lot smarter to run the DNA and see if they got a hit before releasing any letter to the media?

I guess Mary is a slow learner.

 

[lightwaveryder]

something to consider.

dna evidence labs experience contamination, leading to false arrests and convictions. Ask the Houston tx crime labs, they are considering overturning every case that was settled on DNA evidence by that lab.

i question the validity of new dna evidence in an old case. Take the dna of every policeman, lab technician, reporter, lawyer, family member who ever came near the evidence and i predict a match will be found.



~lightwaveryder~

 

[kcksum]

My point is only that male skin cells found on the victim's clothing doesn't really inculpate or exonerate anyone.

If they were John or Patsy Ramsey's wouldn't they be equally worthless, since the skin of her parents would most likely be on her clothes?

It is ONE piece of evidence. It could I suppose mean that the whackiest intruder ever to walk the face of the planet did indeed kill JonBenet and coincidentally her parents chose to stonewall the police and her mother gives every indication of being a stone cold crazy narcissist. Or, it could mean nothing.

It troubles me that SKIN CELLS now apparently trump any and all evidence. DNA is not the be all and end all of solving crimes.

i understand what you're saying. it isn't just skin cells though. it's skin cells from the same person on three seperate places of her clothing. not just a fleck in one place but three places. one of those areas was mingled with the dead childs body fluids meaning they were near her when that body fluid was excreted.....that is huge. its the combination of all three dna hits not just the skin cells. not all of these dna hits were made using the new touch dna process. you do know there was glass at the crime scene from a window and an unidentified foot print right? there was some evidence of an intruder.

 

[lilywhite]

So, with matching dna being found on her pyjama bottoms and her underpants, they couldn't have been left at the point of manufacture because they were done at two different times and in two different places.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but is that a fact? How can we know that the DNA was left in the panties and on the long johns at two separate times and two separate places? I can think of several scenarios that would account for DNA being deposited at the same time in both places, and only one of those scenarios would exonerate the Ramseys.

 

[kcksum]

There isn't going to be any CODIS hit, in my opinion.

Doesn't anyone wonder why Lacy chose to go public with exonerating the Ramseys BEFORE putting this through the database?

I mean, if we are to believe her, she's now alerted the 'real' killer that his DNA has been found. Wouldn't it have been a lot smarter to run the DNA and see if they got a hit before releasing any letter to the media?

I guess Mary is a slow learner.

it is probably actively running through codis as we speak.....it isn't like csi you don't put it in and get ahit in 10 min