The Ramseys are Cleared

[thesleuther]

I can't ignore the mountain of evidence against the Ramseys. But if John Ramsey repeatedly sexually abused his daughter, he still may not have been the pervert who killed her.

At the same time, I still think there could be legitimate reasons as to how the DNA could have been on the long johns. If she wore them ANYwhere else...to a pageant, etc, some adult could have picked them up to move them over, or help Patsy get their things together.

And then if the DNA on the long johns touched the panties as JBR was being dressed, then that DNA could have gotten on the panties.

We are not talking an actual finger print, right? Just some shedded skin cells? Shedded skin cells could be everywhere.

I"m sure they couldn't DNA test EVERYone the Ramsey's knew.

It's hard for me to discount all the other evidence against the Ramseys.

I can't remember, but did they ever get phone records to see if PR could have called someone to help her cover it up? If I remember correctly, the Ramseys didn't want to provide their phone records but eventually consented to do so, or were forced to provide them.

I do think this DNA is enough to legally exonerate the Ramseys. I do think if I was on a jury, i couldn't say they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I would still have plenty of doubts, though.

There has never been any actual evidence against the Ramseys. They were in the house of the time of the murder and that's why it's so easy to pin it on them. Remember Elizabeth Smart. If she hadn't been found, the same people who screamed guilty at the Ramseys would still be spewing forth the putrid vomit about Ed Smart and his brother and their nonexistent sex ring.

 

[RiverRat]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/09/ng.01.html

GRACE: Back out to Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor and author.

Wendy, the evidence we were discussing earlier regarding the erosion of JonBenet Ramsey`s hymen and the evidence of repeated, over time, molestation, where did that come from?

MURPHY: This is a direct quote from the autopsy. And I sure do hope that the other guests who claim to have examined all of the important evidence in this case can resurrect it so that they`ll know what we all know.

Chronic inflammation is seen in the vagina mucosa, epithelial erosion, and as I mentioned, an eroded hymen.

Nancy, those are very important words to anybody and I think Dr. Perper can even get to answer some of these questions about what does that mean. To some of us who`ve done these kinds of cases, it`s very clear, to a layperson not so much. The word erosion, the word chronic -- those are terms of art in medicine that mean over time.

GRACE: You know what, Wendy? They certainly are.

Dr. Perper, weigh in, explain what they mean.

PERPER: Well, an abrasion means a scratch and chronic means long standing, so it means that those scratches were there for a significant period of time over and over if they are, indeed, chronic manifestation of physical injury.

 

[Wudge]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/09/ng.01.html

GRACE: Back out to Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor and author.

Wendy, the evidence we were discussing earlier regarding the erosion of JonBenet Ramsey`s hymen and the evidence of repeated, over time, molestation, where did that come from?

MURPHY: This is a direct quote from the autopsy. And I sure do hope that the other guests who claim to have examined all of the important evidence in this case can resurrect it so that they`ll know what we all know.

Chronic inflammation is seen in the vagina mucosa, epithelial erosion, and as I mentioned, an eroded hymen.

Nancy, those are very important words to anybody and I think Dr. Perper can even get to answer some of these questions about what does that mean. To some of us who`ve done these kinds of cases, it`s very clear, to a layperson not so much. The word erosion, the word chronic -- those are terms of art in medicine that mean over time.

GRACE: You know what, Wendy? They certainly are.

Dr. Perper, weigh in, explain what they mean.

PERPER: Well, an abrasion means a scratch and chronic means long standing, so it means that those scratches were there for a significant period of time over and over if they are, indeed, chronic manifestation of physical injury.

GRACE: Well, Sheeba, let me tell you something. If the same DNA was found in your underwear, you might have a -- then there`d be a case. But simple touch DNA on the outside of the body is not enough for a conviction. But I understand your theory.

Out to the lawyers -- to Renee Rockwell, is there any way, now that they`ve been exonerated, that, for instance, a lawsuit can be filed on behalf of Patsy Ramsey?

 

[thesleuther]

If this was a sex crime committed by an intruder why didn't he rape the child?

While there WAS evidence of long term sexual abuse found, and the child was assaulted w/the paint brush, leaving a tiny amount of blood, she was not raped by a man?

Why not? This fact seems to me to blow the idea of a sexually based offender out of the water entirely.

I don't think that most of us can think like a pedophile so that can't be answered.

There was no evidence of long term sexual abuse; that was disinformation put out by the Boulder PD.

They've been vindicated.

 

[islanders]

You must not know much about this case to say this. You must look at the source and in this case the source is Mary Lacy who has trouble differentiating between winding her butt and scratching her watch!

You mean I must have formed a complete and accurate assessment based on the evidence in the case.

While you on the other hand resort to complete nonsense to promote your missinformed and irresponsible conspericy theory?

haha... my only concern is finding the real killer and the truth, while yours is to continue to accuse an innocent family of this crime.

Im sure pedophiles everywhere approve of your theory to accuse the victims of the crime.

please don't be offended if I don't respond to your nonsese

 

[thesleuther]

I disagree, Karr was exonerated because he was NOT IN BOULDER on the night of the crime, not even in the state of Colorado.

Not true. He was exonerated because of dna. That they couldn't find evidence he was in the state wouldn't have been enough. It was the dna.

 

[Medea]

I don't think that most of us can think like a pedophile so that can't be answered.

There was no evidence of long term sexual abuse; that was disinformation put out by the Boulder PD.

They've been vindicated.

The panel of pediatricians said there was evidence of long term sexual abuse, remember the eroded hymen.

How can this be disinformation from the Boulder police, it came from a physician panel?

I think that most of us can google cases where children have been sexually abused or abducted by a stranger and overwhelmingly the time the child is RAPED. Samantha Runnion. Jessica Lundsford. Carlie Brucia. Polly Klaus.

These girls were abducted by sex offenders and they were raped.

JonBenet was not attacked by a sex offender and that is why she wasn't raped, her mother staged a sexual assault, in all probabiltiy to cover up the long term sexual abuse.

 

[thesleuther]

Conviently the headline on Fox on line is DNA MAY clear the Ramseys. I hate Faux news.

Why? Does the truth bother you?

 

[Medea]

Not true. He was exonerated because of dna. That they couldn't find evidence he was in the state wouldn't have been enough. It was the dna.

So, if he was proven to be in Boulder the night of her disappearance, and he had been seen in the neighborhood, and he gave a credible account of how he got in and out of the house and what he did to JonBenet fit the autopsy...he would still have been exonerated because the trace DNA that isn't semen didn't match him. I doubt that very much.

 

[TexMex]

You mean I must have formed a complete and accurate assessment based on the evidence in the case.

While you on the other hand resort to complete nonsense to promote your missinformed and irresponsible conspericy theory?

haha... my only concern is finding the real killer and the truth, while yours is to continue to accuse an innocent family of this crime.

Im sure pedophiles everywhere approve of your theory to accuse the victims of the crime.

please don't be offended if I don't respond to your nonsese

Hi islanders


If you don't think the Ramsey's are evil pagent people child molesters who kill their own daughter for wetting the bed....you "don't know much about this case".

Throw out DNA....she ate pineapple!

 

[thesleuther]

I thought we already knew that the DNA didn't match anyone in the family????? Am I going crazy here? Wouldn't they have already know YEARS ago that the DNA did not match?

Yes, and that's one of the sad things about the case. They knew very early on that the dna didn't match the Ramseys. But, they were so focused on them that they said it could have been there from the point of manufacture. However, later on, it cleared the nut arrested in Thailand.

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

Do you think a parent would kill their child, then turn around and write their own ransom note?

Yes. These parents at least.

 

[Karole28]

Mark Car claimed responsibility and the DNA exonerated him.

The evidence in the case excludes the family as the killers.

Have some of you even considered the possibility that you are accusing an innocent family that was the victim of the murder of their daughter?

It's becoming apparent that you have no consideration for the victims of these kinds of crimes.

The evidence does NOT exclude the family.

We do have consideration for the victim (of these kinds of crimes) and especially this one. Some of us have dedicated years to studying it.

And, still continue to believe the Ramseys very much under the "umbrella of suspicion."

 

[Cherokee]

Make no mistake about it; this was Mary Lacy's parting gift to the Ramseys. She was going to clear them come hell or high water, with or without an intruder, before she left office.

Touch DNA on the long johns means nothing because it could have been secondary transfer from another source or contaminant contact transfer from the partial DNA in the panties; especially since the long johns were tight fitting and would have needed to be pulled up over the too-big panties.

In addition, lab contamination is a big problem that was recently highlighted in a book exposing the problems even within the FBI.

Why is there none of this male DNA on anything else the intruder supposedly touched? Were they wearing gloves? If so, why did they take off the gloves when they allegedly left less than microscopic bits of DNA on the panties and long johns?

The ransom note is a direct link to the perp unlike the less-than-microscopic partial DNA. In the past few years, why has Lacy, or the Ramseys, never mentioned the ransom note as being an important connection to JonBenet's killer? The Ramseys quit talking about the ransom note as soon as people could see the match between it and Patsy's handwriting and linguistics.

It seems Mary Lacy has forgotten she made the following statement on August 28, 2006.

Mary Lacy: "You know, no-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone."

I want to see the alleged DNA evidence, all the alleles, what few of them they have. I want to see ALL the evidence, the police files, everything. This case is over. It will never be prosecuted. Lacy's John Mark Karr fiasco, and now her love letter to the Ramseys, has guaranteed that. Let's open up those vaults, Lacy. Let's exonerate every one who has come under suspicion. Or is that a privilege only reserved for your friends?

 

[Pepper]

If this was a sex crime committed by an intruder why didn't he rape the child?

While there WAS evidence of long term sexual abuse found, and the child was assaulted w/the paint brush, leaving a tiny amount of blood, she was not raped by a man?

Why not? This fact seems to me to blow the idea of a sexually based offender out of the water entirely.

I wholeheartedly disagree!! As the victim of childhood sexual abuse by an extended member of my family beginning at the age of 4, I was never raped! My abuser got his jollies from fondling only!

I believe that the killer knew JB very well, and probably her parents too. The killer was familiar with the home and JB TRUSTED him like he was a member of the family.

 

[MrsMush99]

The panel of pediatricians said there was evidence of long term sexual abuse, remember the eroded hymen.

How can this be disinformation from the Boulder police, it came from a physician panel?

I think that most of us can google cases where children have been sexually abused or abducted by a stranger and overwhelmingly the time the child is RAPED. Samantha Runnion. Jessica Lundsford. Carlie Brucia. Polly Klaus.

These girls were abducted by sex offenders and they were raped.

JonBenet was not attacked by a sex offender and that is why she wasn't raped, her mother staged a sexual assault, in all probabiltiy to cover up the long term sexual abuse.

Well Steve Thomas has stated that there was NO evidence that she was molested. I already posted this, but I'll post it again:

One of the suspects Thomas said he looked at thoroughly, and eliminated as the killer, was John Ramsey. Initially investigators thought Ramsey had been molesting his daughter, but "there was no pathology, no personality, no history and no evidence indicating any history" that he ever molested any of his children, or anyone else's, Thomas said.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon041000a.htm

So if he is wrong about that, according to several posters, she was molested. What else is he wrong about???? Who was she being sexually abused from??? If not John, and according to Steve it was NOT him, then who? Why would Patsy cover for anyone except her husband and Burke???

 

[MrsMush99]

I wholeheartedly disagree!! As the victim of childhood sexual abuse by an extended member of my family beginning at the age of 4, I was never raped! My abuser got his jollies from fondling only!

I believe that the killer knew JB very well, and probably her parents too. The killer was familiar with the home and JB TRUSTED him like he was a member of the family.

I completely agree. This wasn't a stranger.

 

[mjak]

The presence of the same DNA from the blood spot now found on the waist area of t he longJohns is pretty convincing to me that an unknown person was involved with Jonbenets death. However, this does not mean the Ramseys were not involved with what happened that night. I think Mary Lacey is making the same mystake she made with the whole John Mark Karr fiasco. She is finding new evidence and taking action way to fast. She needs to slow down!! I have been on the fence leaning over toward the Ramseys are involved for 12 years now. Today I have stopped leaning but am in no way convinced the parents are completley innocent. There is just much to much evidence pointing toward their involvment. Until a complete scenerio is known of the events of that night and someone is charged I could never infaticly state the parents are innocent.

mjak

 

[Medea]

Well Steve Thomas has stated that there was NO evidence that she was molested. I already posted this, but I'll post it again:

One of the suspects Thomas said he looked at thoroughly, and eliminated as the killer, was John Ramsey. Initially investigators thought Ramsey had been molesting his daughter, but "there was no pathology, no personality, no history and no evidence indicating any history" that he ever molested any of his children, or anyone else's, Thomas said.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon041000a.htm

So if he is wrong about that, according to several posters, she was molested. What else is he wrong about???? Who was she being sexually abused from??? If not John, and according to Steve it was NOT him, then who? Why would Patsy cover for anyone except her husband and Burke???

The article says John Ramsey was not molesting JonBenet.

I'm sure you already know what Thomas thought of the case, that the sexual abuse was done by Patsy Ramsey as punishment for being a bed wetter and that Patsy Ramsey accidentally killed her in a rage over a bed wetting incident that night and she staged the rest of the scene.

And I agree wholehearteldyl with Thomas on this theory and that John Ramsey was not molesting his daughter.

 

[Rino]

I wholeheartedly disagree!! As the victim of childhood sexual abuse by an extended member of my family beginning at the age of 4, I was never raped! My abuser got his jollies from fondling only!

I believe that the killer knew JB very well, and probably her parents too. The killer was familiar with the home and JB TRUSTED him like he was a member of the family.

And wore gloves through out the entire commission of the crime except when re-dressing her. I have my doubts