The Ramseys are Cleared

[JMO8778]

This is the point that pissess me off about what Mary Lacy did today. She only released publically the evidence that she needed to release to justify her exoneration of the Ramseys. She's not telling the results of any other testing and in fact said she would not discuss any further evidence. She only wants the public to know about that one speck of DNA because it justifies her actions today. To me that is crooked, shoddy politician crap. She's doing it 'cuz she can.

right on.Lacy knew she screwed herself publicly w. the Karr fiasco.she's just trying to offset that,IMO.and perhaps there is a book deal in the making.

 

[LinasK]

Could someone please explain to me the fiber evidence everyone is talking about? I've seen it said many times that Patsy's/Johns clothing fibers were found in the garrote/whatever. How can it be said that it was theirs for sure? Everything I've ever learned about fiber evidence is just that it ISN'T evidence. Only that it can be said that fibers found were SIMILAR to whatever being compared to, that you can't say for absolute certainty that the fibers came from something. I thought it was like that with hair as well. Am I wrong? Lol if I am boy have I been misled.:waitasec:

John's shirt fibers were found in JB's panties. Care to explain that? I'm not buying the "laundry" theory.

 

[LinasK]

Linask,
Sing it sista.

Thanks.:blowkiss: I've been gone from this forum for awhile because nothing new was happening, but now it's refuting the same old, same old garbage that arose when all the new posters flooded this forum sure that JMK was the one, despite ignoring all the other evidence. It never took much to convince me the Ramseys did it and this so-called news isn't either...

 

[JMO8778]

I want to see where the DNA from the panties matches the DNA on the long johns. Then I'd like to see the coroner provide DNA samples to be sure that it wasn't left by him as he undressed the body and handled the clothing.
And yes, let's apply the "touch DNA test" to the cord, tape, spoon, flashlight.

There are still a few things that should give us pause now...IMHO, PR wrote the ransom note- I've seen those exemplars. She wrote that note.
And the pineapple. Either they lied about the pineapple or they are covering for someone. For JBR to have sat and eaten the pineapple with someone- it was someone she knew. If she had snacked with her brother and the parents were unaware of it, then why wouldn't her brother say so? He is over 21 now. Old enough to know that the pineapple in his sister's stomach and the fact that his parents denied feeding it to her was a major issue in this case. However he was at age 9-10, Asbergers's or just an immanture kid, he went to college and should have the sense to speak up about it now.

Also, Lacy has "exonerated" the IMMEDIATE family. The three Rs that were in the house that night. But what about some family members that COULD have been there and have denied it? JAR? Grandpa?

And one last thing- this is Lacy- a Hunter legacy. They've been on the R side for 12 years. They threw enough roadblocks in front of this investigation from day 1 to have been charged with obstruction of justice themselves.
Remember the Karr fiasco and Lacy at that press conference?
Let's take this all with a grain of salt until that DNA actually matches a PERSON.
I think it's very telling that the ONE thing that could go a long way to solve the case: testing the garrote itself- hasn't been done.

WELL-SAID!! this is so obviously just another thought-up method of trying to make the R's appear innocent.forget the real evidence...just come up w. new nonsense!! the fact they keep doing just that is very telling.it's like when a ufo 'abductee' adds claims of being abducted more than once...he 'thinks' it adds to his credibility,fact is..it only takes away from it.coming up w more nonsense only weakens the case.

 

[trixie]

I have a couple of observations and I hope you all will bear with me. May mean something, may mean nothing but feedback is appreciated.

From Mary Lacys love letter to John Ramsey released today for public consumption:

"We became aware last summer that some private laboratories were conducting a new methodology described as "touch DNA."

I'm reminded when I read this that the Ramseys refused to take LE and FBI polygraph tests, instead hiring and paying professional polygraphers to administer private tests years after the crime. It took Patsy 3 tries to pass. Even the hired help couldn't help her with it. I believe John passed the first time. Mark Beckner released a statement about it saying the results would not be accepted by LE investigating this case.

My question here is , why is it ok to accept the results of a DNA test from a private laboratory on the findings of DNA and yet a polygraph administered by hired private polygraphers is not acceptable?

Seems to be a descrepency in protocol.
Or .....a difference in who is calling the shots and deciding which evidence is acceptable and which is not. It falls along the same lines as I said in a post before. Mary Lacy only released results that would give her justification to clear the Ramseys. Private polygraphs were not ok with Beckner, private laboratory results are A-OK with Mary Lacy. I wonder really how many items were tested before they came up with the results she was looking for. If she didn't test anything but the long johns, that is suspicious.

 

[ConfusedPopsicle]

John's shirt fibers were found in JB's panties. Care to explain that? I'm not buying the "laundry" theory.

Er, I wasn't explaining away anything, I was asking a question about how it could be said for sure that said fibers were from John/Patsy. SuperDave explained it very well for me..I'm not sure why you are asking me this?

 

[santos1014]

John's shirt fibers were found in JB's panties. Care to explain that? I'm not buying the "laundry" theory.

Considering the fact that the panties were brand new out of a newly opened package....never made it to the laundry...where, by the way, John's wool sweater would have never been in the first place.
Makes it a bit hard to explain away.
This all just smells.

 

[Adalena935]

That pervert'd be John. I agree that Patsy dressed her up trashy like a grown woman.

Your comment reminds me of trials before civil rights. Any female who had the misfortune to be murdered or raped was asking for it. Defense lawyers had the handy out to always say; "What was she wearing?", "Was she tempting them?" as if the poor victim deserved raping or strangled for being born female.

All it did was reward rapist and murderers so long as they stuck to killing/raping women and encouraged them to do more of the same. And discouraged women who managed to live thru a brutal rape from coming forward because she knew she'd be the one on trial; instead of her tormentor.

That's illegal in any court of law since civil rights outlawed the unjust prejudice.

It's very sad anyone thinks so little of poor innocent little children. Our laws forbid murder of prostitutes or hardened inmates no matter who the human life might belong to. This was a 6 year old baby who deserved life. It's the most basic right our nation holds dear. The right to life.

 

[hipmamajen]

It just occurred to me, I found Websleuths during the whole weird John Mark Karr thing. I thought it was amazing how fast the board was moving, and how many people knew so many things about this case.

And here we all are again, full circle for me!

This thread is fascinating...

 

[reefshadow]

Mmmm would those involved with the dna info care to explain JOHN RAMSEY'S FIBERS FROM HIS SHIRT FOUND IN JONBENET'S CROTCH AREA?? didn't think so....

Family laundry done together? I know I wash my baby's clothes with ours... from the amount of lint in the trap I would say that fibers get *everywhere*.

 

[Niteowl]

for those who missed it
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/09/ng.01.html

 

[santos1014]

for those who missed it
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/09/ng.01.html

Nancy is a trip..she is pissy one second and then so sweet to her callers, then back to berating most of the people on her panel LOL

 

[maya.morgen]

what great news.....NOT:boohoo:

 

[reefshadow]

Well I'm glad with the new DNA evidence most people will not look at John Ramsey with suspiscion anymore. The killer was obviously some nut with a mental problem who watched alot of kidnapping-ransom flicks that he obsessed over. He probably had some run in with John over something really petty and John probably can't even remember it. The nutcase felt slighted in some manner and became obsessed with him. It could be something really small that nobody would think twice about, but it mattered alot to a mentally ill stalker. The guy that shot president reagan and john lennon were other obessed mentally ill guys with bizarre ideas that make no sense and I think the killer of JonBenet was also one of these types of people. The true motive may not be sexual abuse of the girl or kidnapping, but rather revenge on John. Either that or he is a thrill killer in the BTK league of killers or serial killers. He likes to wait around in the house and that's all part of the excitement for these nutcakes. The crazy note and the thrill of getting caught is also all part of the excitement. BTK loved writing crazy notes that eventually got him caught. Killing is probably something that sexually excites him more than actual sexual assault. BTK never raped or sexually molested any women, he just masterbated over their dead body after he got done torturing or killing them. Being in the house and killing the girl right in the house may have been what he decided to do because it's what he felt like doing in the moment. A nutjob probably has his head racing full of crazy ideas that are constantly evolving.

We cannot discount the fact that another little girl in Boulder, "Amy" was assaulted by a pedophile who lyed in wait for her in her own home for hours before sexually assaulting her in her bedroom just 9 months after JonBenet was killed. Her and her mother came home at which time mom set the alarm (meaning he HAD to already be in the house). They went to bed but some time later she heard whispering and the sound of a struggle. When confronted the perp ran away from her and escaped. The little girl *attended the same dance class as JonBenet* and the perp threatened to *"bash her head in"* if she made a noise.

The evidence for either side is compelling but the possibility of an intruder cannot be discounted IMO.

 

[JMO8778]

Family laundry done together? I know I wash my baby's clothes with ours... from the amount of lint in the trap I would say that fibers get *everywhere*.

couldn't be,because the underwear was new,right out of the package,and had never been washed.

 

[JMO8778]

sorry,I got the title wrong of the dvd I mentioned,and didn't realize it until someone asked!it's Unlocking the Mysteries of Life,(not unsolving)


http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Mys...=UTF8&coliid=IYVJM6PIQCYW&colid=31GYWGKU02RWI

here's a clip:

http://www.allaboutscience.org/dna-double-helix-video.htm

and one more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r27k-qVQID8&feature=related

 

[dottierainbow]

I have a car that my dog has never been in. You couldn't tell by how much dog hair is in it. It got there by his dog hair attaching itself to my clothes. It does not surprise me in the least that Johns sweater fibers were found on Jon Benet. His fibers were probably all over that house and in the basement too. I know I have sweaters that shed like my dog. Yes, the panties may have been new and unopened but could have been laid on the floor and had contact with the sweater fibers.

 

[reefshadow]

Considering the fact that the panties were brand new out of a newly opened package....never made it to the laundry...where, by the way, John's wool sweater would have never been in the first place.
Makes it a bit hard to explain away.
This all just smells.

It isn't impossible. Consider this scenario- your wife dresses your child in all brand new clothes, after you yourself have dressed in dry cleaned slacks and a nice wool sweater. None of these clothes have ever been washed at all, never mind together.

It is around Christmas time, everybody is feeling good. In a joyful moment you pick up your beautiful daughter and give her a big hug. Unknown to you, hundreds of fibers from all your clothes (hers and yours) have just been
set loose into the air- most will settle to the ground, but some have settled on hair, skin and clothing.

You daughter later goes to the bathroom a couple of times and in the process of pulling down and then pulling up her clothing a few fibers have migrated inside of the clothing, where they stick to moist skin surfaces.

This of course assumes that the fibers are definately from the sweater which cannot be proven conclusively.

We all have hundreds of fibers on our body and clothing from different sources at any given time, nobody really thinks about it until a murder occurs and everything is examined minutely.

Did JonBenet have a bath before going to bed?

 

[reefshadow]

couldn't be,because the underwear was new,right out of the package,and had never been washed.

I realize that and addressed it above

Not that my example exonerates John Ramsey but it *is* possible.

 

[Silmarion]

I'm so glad that the Ramsey family has finally been exonerated for the terrible crime that happened to their little child. I'm so sorry for all the horrors her mother was put through and didn't live to hear what new evidence has been discovered. I never believed they had anything at all to do with it. I believe that the police were totally inexperienced solving a murder case and messed it up very badly. I also think the governor of CO should offer an apology for the words he spoke in attacking the Ramseys after he was elected.

I hope this will begin a new program at every Police Station, in that DNA be taken from anyone arrested, just as they take fingerprints. DNA files should be kept on all offenders, even small crimes. Sometimes an offender can be picked up for just a minor infraction, but the same person may have committed many more serious crimes. In fact, it was fingerprints that brought plenty of criminals to justice, just as DNA can bring many more criminals to justice.

Since some states do not allow DNA taken from everyone they arrest, while fingerprints are taken for the most minor of crimes, it doesn't make sense. DNA is much more powerful than fingerprints. Many criminals wear gloves when entering a home. DNA is the most powerful weapon we have against catching criminals. I think it should be done in every state.

I remember watching a case in San Diego, where a little girl was kidnapped and murdered by a friendly neighbor . She was taken out of the house while her parents were sleeping. The parents, especially the mother was put through the meat grinder in court. In that case the defense already knew their client was guilty, because the prosecution agreed not to seek the death penalty, if he was found guilty, if he would show them where the child's body was. At that time, she still hadn't been found. Naturally, he denied it all the way, and they had nothing concrete on him, and he didn't have a criminal history. Finally, seeing the handwriting on the wall, he relented and agreed to take them to the body. But just then, the child's body was finally found way out in the woods somewhere. Still, the defense went after the parents to save their client when they already knew he was guilty.

I hope they find the killer sometime. Right now, he might be languishing in a jail somewhere for another crime, but there was no DNA taken. Now's the time to do it. Every criminal in jail today should have their DNA taken and put into a national crime lab. Fingerprints are not enough anymore.

I also believe that those who have always believed the parents were guilty will continue to believe it even if the real killer is found and convicted. It's their mindset, and nothing will change that. Too bad.