Boulder police chief exonerates Fleet and Priscilla White in death of JonBenet Ramsey

  • #221
  • #222
February 25, 2000:
"District Attorney Alex Hunter has turned over new information to Boulder police and the FBI that he says could provide a major breakthrough in solving the 3-year-old JonBenét Ramsey murder case.

The information is from testimony and documents provided voluntarily by a 37-year-old California woman who was brought forward by Boulder attorney Lee Hill. The woman said she has suffered a lifetime of sexual and physical abuse, beginning at age 3. Her story, if true, could mean the Ramsey case is tangled in sexual abuse and involves more people than originally thought."
[1]


August 24, 2000:
"Boulder police are investigating a complaint against the Daily Camera that alleges criminal libel in a Feb. 25 newspaper article on the unsolved murder of JonBenét Ramsey.

...

Fleet and Priscilla White filed [the] criminal-libel complaint Aug. 3 with the Boulder Police Department."
[2]


August 26, 2000:
"Several news organizations and journalists are targets of a Boulder police investigation into whether they criminally libeled Ramsey murder case witness Fleet White.

Denver lawyer Tom Kelley, a specialist in libel and other First Amendment issues, said Friday the criminal libel statute has never been used against a news organization or journalist.

Boulder Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise said Friday that "multiple" organizations and journalists are being investigated, but he would not identify them.

The investigation focuses on reports earlier this year that a California woman had suggested 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey died during an adult sexual party.

...

Wise said the police investigation, requested earlier this month by White and his wife, has produced a 600-page file."
[3]


September 6, 2000:
"A Boulder County district judge has appointed a Pueblo prosecutor to review a case that alleges criminal libel by news media covering the unsolved slaying of JonBenet Ramsey.

Chief Judge Roxanne Bailin on Friday named Pueblo District Attorney Gus Sandstom to decide whether the criminal libel case, which arose out of an Aug. 3 complaint filed by Fleet and Priscilla White, has enough merit to warrant filing criminal charges."
[4]


June 14, 2001:
"Three appellate justices ordered the case dismissed June 5 after the Whites' lawyer failed to file a response to a motion to dismiss.

...

[Chief Judge Roxxane] Bailin ended the investigation, saying she did so at the Whites' request. They denied asking that the matter be dropped."
[5]



Sources:
[1,2,4,5]http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/headlines/index00.html
[3] http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0826libe3.shtml
 
  • #223
The DNA nonsense is just that. Anyone could have touched her underwear...even in the manufacturing process. She hadn't been bathed in days. There is evidence of hymen stretching...abuse? Someone was touching her inappropriately way before any so called Intruder could have come on the scene. The DNA really means little in the totality of the evidence. Fleet White and his wife have been defamed long enough! They probably know a lot of things we don't. They were innocent bystanders. Who really calls all their friends over to contaminate a crime scene when they are waiting for a ransom call if the kidnapper may be watching the house? No one. JMO
 
  • #224
RSBM: Regarding Assumptions Discounting DNA Evidence

The DNA nonsense is just that.
LE does not share your POV.
"Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, whose department has been widely criticized for the way it handled the case, said that DNA samples from 200 people have been compared with the mystery DNA without a match.

Investigators hope to find a match in a growing national database with more than 5 million offenders’ DNA profiles.

'We are hopeful that this new development will lead to the identification and successful prosecution of this child’s killer,' Beckner said in a statement.


MissJ said:
Anyone could have touched her underwear...
Sources that might have innocently deposited DNA, have been ruled out as possible contributors of the evidentiary DNA, found in multiple (incriminating) locations on numerous occasions.

MissJ said:
even in the manufacturing process.
The amount of foreign DNA (~1 nanogram) found in the single bloodstain analyzed in 2003 discounts "the factory worker theory". As do the 2008 DNA analyses.

"Earlier, there was speculation that the DNA on JonBenet’s underwear could have been left by a garment worker, a theory discredited by the discovery of the same DNA left on her long johns."


Source: http://www.redorbit.com/news/genera...jonbenet_case_in_new_direction_da_says_tests/
 
  • #225
RSBM: Regarding Assumptions Discounting DNA Evidence

LE does not share your POV.
"Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, whose department has been widely criticized for the way it handled the case, said that DNA samples from 200 people have been compared with the mystery DNA without a match.

Investigators hope to find a match in a growing national database with more than 5 million offenders’ DNA profiles.

'We are hopeful that this new development will lead to the identification and successful prosecution of this child’s killer,' Beckner said in a statement.


Sources that might have innocently deposited DNA, have been ruled out as possible contributors of the evidentiary DNA, found in multiple (incriminating) locations on numerous occasions.

The amount of foreign DNA (~1 nanogram) found in the single bloodstain analyzed in 2003 discounts "the factory worker theory". As do the 2008 DNA analyses.

"Earlier, there was speculation that the DNA on JonBenet’s underwear could have been left by a garment worker, a theory discredited by the discovery of the same DNA left on her long johns."


Source: http://www.redorbit.com/news/genera...jonbenet_case_in_new_direction_da_says_tests/

Speaking of DNA, when LE ran out of leads for DNA of a predator (no matched DNA in the database of known perps) they resorted to something newer called "familial" DNA.........and caught the "Grim Sleeper" murderer.

Fascinating stuff.
 
  • #226
RSBM: Regarding Assumptions Discounting DNA Evidence

LE does not share your POV.
"Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, whose department has been widely criticized for the way it handled the case, said that DNA samples from 200 people have been compared with the mystery DNA without a match.

Investigators hope to find a match in a growing national database with more than 5 million offenders’ DNA profiles.

'We are hopeful that this new development will lead to the identification and successful prosecution of this child’s killer,' Beckner said in a statement.


Sources that might have innocently deposited DNA, have been ruled out as possible contributors of the evidentiary DNA, found in multiple (incriminating) locations on numerous occasions.

The amount of foreign DNA (~1 nanogram) found in the single bloodstain analyzed in 2003 discounts "the factory worker theory". As do the 2008 DNA analyses.

"Earlier, there was speculation that the DNA on JonBenet’s underwear could have been left by a garment worker, a theory discredited by the discovery of the same DNA left on her long johns."


Source: http://www.redorbit.com/news/genera...jonbenet_case_in_new_direction_da_says_tests/

The way I'm reading this article, the above quotes are not in context. This is how comments appear in article...

Earlier, there was speculation that the DNA on JonBenet’s underwear could have been left by a garment worker, a theory discredited by the discovery of the same DNA left on her long johns.

“Now you’ve got in three more places exactly the same DNA on the clothing that demonstrate exactly what happened: her leggings and panties were pulled down, then pulled back up after she was violated,” Haddon said. “It’s enormously compelling evidence.”

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, whose department has been widely criticized for the way it handled the case, said that DNA samples from 200 people have been compared with the mystery DNA without a match. Investigators hope to find a match in a growing national database with more than 5 million offenders’ DNA profiles.

“We are hopeful that this new development will lead to the identification and successful prosecution of this child’s killer,” Beckner said in a statement.

Skepticism will continue


Read more at http://www.redorbit.com/news/genera..._direction_da_says_tests/#igyW3IvPyF2ZgQJ5.99

BBM, the "discrediting" that the DNA could be the result of transfer is made by Haddon, right???and that's credible how?

You also state this, which I don't see in the article, perhaps I missed it. Although I read it several times

Sources that might have innocently deposited DNA, have been ruled out as possible contributors of the evidentiary DNA, found in multiple (incriminating) locations on numerous occasions.

The amount of foreign DNA (~1 nanogram) found in the single bloodstain analyzed in 2003 discounts "the factory worker theory". As do the 2008 DNA analyses.

Ruled out by whom, you are giving a source that only relates to part of what you're quoting. And what does "found in multiple locations, numerous times mean?" :confused:

As far as Beckner's statement is concerned, it's a rather canned response IMO. He isnt stating he believes definitely that the tDNA is associated with the crime scene. He's simply stating that "he hopes this could lead to the child's killer."

Why wouldn't he feel that way?
 
  • #227
RSBM
The way I'm reading this article, the above quotes are not in context. This is how comments appear in article...

BBM, the "discrediting" that the DNA could be the result of transfer is made by Haddon, right???and that's credible how?
The statement is the product of knowledge re: DNA science & the application of logic, not Haddon.

bettybaby00 said:
You also state this, which I don't see in the article, perhaps I missed it. Although I read it several times
The article isn't necessarily "my source", although there is information supporting my argument; "compared DNA samples from 200 people." Kolar discusses the DNA (# of people tested, who submitted DNA, quality assurance standards applied, etc), as do Schiller, Thomas, Whitson...

bettybaby00 said:
Ruled out by whom, you are giving a source that only relates to part of what you're quoting. And what does "found in multiple locations, numerous times mean?" :confused:
The CBI/FBI. '97, '01, '03, & '08
 
  • #228
I think the Whites have every right to these files. I think they have been more than patient. If I were them, I'd be throwing an old fashioned "hissy fit" about this!

JMO
 
  • #229
If your post has been removed, please don't repost it.

Salem
 
  • #230
Sorry...I shouldn't have quoted that post. :)
 
  • #231
****
RSBM
Quote:
The statement is the product of knowledge re: DNA science & the application of logic, not Haddon.

The article isn't necessarily "my source", although there is information supporting my argument; "compared DNA samples from 200 people." Kolar discusses the DNA (# of people tested, who submitted DNA, quality assurance standards applied, etc), as do Schiller, Thomas, Whitson...


*****

But that's not the point. Two of your references use the cited URL as a source. Those quotes are not in that article. The 1st assertion is nothing more than the authors BIAS, she then uses the quote by Haddon as if he's the expert. She doesn't say, 'according to FBI, CBI or the lab'

Does anyone else recall the lab report that has the big IF qualifier on the tDNA?

Also regarding the tDNA, http://www.bioforensics.com/CV/KraneCV01-12.pdf
This is according to Dr. Dan Krane

And I have no reason to doubt his expertise. He doesn't peddle false perceptions, over and over, and over again.

Two
The much vaunted DNA evidence that Mary Lacy, Lin Wood have shamelessly paraded around would NOT BE ADMISSIBLE in court because it is a mixed profile with dropout.

Dr. Krane:

“… there is no generally accepted means of attaching a reliable statistical weight to a mixed DNA profile where allelic drop out may have occurred."
Listen at 54:38 – 58:25

Continuing on with Mary Lacy, Dr Krane said that if she based the exoneration exclusively on the DNA evidence then that was
dr. Krane:
– “THAT THAT CONVEYS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF DNA.”
Listen at 58:42 – 61:00

Thank you Tricia, Cynic, & of course AJK. :heart:

ETA:
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=185839&postcount=5"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Ramsey Case - DNA report & miscellaneous evidence[/ame]

I hope it's ok to post that link.

Am I correct, that IF a single component besides JRB then it excludes those people, yet forensically that's an overreaching conclusion b/c the panty sample is considered a mixed sample. Meaning when that part of the evidence is factored in those people aren't necessarily excluded? Right?

I hope I'm making sense. :blushing:
 
  • #232
Oops :)
 
  • #233
****
RSBM
Quote:
The statement is the product of knowledge re: DNA science & the application of logic, not Haddon.

The article isn't necessarily "my source", although there is information supporting my argument; "compared DNA samples from 200 people." Kolar discusses the DNA (# of people tested, who submitted DNA, quality assurance standards applied, etc), as do Schiller, Thomas, Whitson...


*****

But that's not the point. Two of your references use the cited URL as a source. Those quotes are not in that article. The 1st assertion is nothing more than the authors BIAS, she then uses the quote by Haddon as if he's the expert. She doesn't say, 'according to FBI, CBI or the lab'

Does anyone else recall the lab report that has the big IF qualifier on the tDNA?
No, you're mistaken.

bettybaby00 said:
Also regarding the tDNA, http://www.bioforensics.com/CV/KraneCV01-12.pdf
This is according to Dr. Dan Krane

And I have no reason to doubt his expertise. He doesn't peddle false perceptions, over and over, and over again.
I don't doubt his expertise either.

bettybaby00 said:
Thank you Tricia, Cynic, & of course AJK. :heart:

ETA:
Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Ramsey Case - DNA report & miscellaneous evidence

I hope it's ok to post that link.

Am I correct, that IF a single component besides JRB then it excludes those people, yet forensically that's an overreaching conclusion b/c the panty sample is considered a mixed sample. Meaning when that part of the evidence is factored in those people aren't necessarily excluded? Right?

I hope I'm making sense. :blushing:
The lab report lists the 1997 DNA results. I think you are confused, and I don't really know how/where to begin...
 
  • #234
No, you're mistaken.



I don't doubt his expertise either.



The lab report lists the 1997 DNA results. I think you are confused, and I don't really know how/where to begin...


Ever ask yourself why oh why won't Bode Technology or Mary Lacy release the actual lab results???
I also want to see Cellmarks originals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • #235
****
RSBM
Quote:
The statement is the product of knowledge re: DNA science & the application of logic, not Haddon.

The article isn't necessarily "my source", although there is information supporting my argument; "compared DNA samples from 200 people." Kolar discusses the DNA (# of people tested, who submitted DNA, quality assurance standards applied, etc), as do Schiller, Thomas, Whitson...


*****

But that's not the point. Two of your references use the cited URL as a source. Those quotes are not in that article. The 1st assertion is nothing more than the authors BIAS, she then uses the quote by Haddon as if he's the expert. She doesn't say, 'according to FBI, CBI or the lab'

Does anyone else recall the lab report that has the big IF qualifier on the tDNA?

Also regarding the tDNA, http://www.bioforensics.com/CV/KraneCV01-12.pdf
This is according to Dr. Dan Krane

And I have no reason to doubt his expertise. He doesn't peddle false perceptions, over and over, and over again.



Thank you Tricia, Cynic, & of course AJK. :heart:

ETA:
Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Ramsey Case - DNA report & miscellaneous evidence

I hope it's ok to post that link.

Am I correct, that IF a single component besides JRB then it excludes those people, yet forensically that's an overreaching conclusion b/c the panty sample is considered a mixed sample. Meaning when that part of the evidence is factored in those people aren't necessarily excluded? Right?

I hope I'm making sense. :blushing:
Dr. Krane: “… there is no generally accepted means of attaching a reliable statistical weight to a mixed DNA profile where allelic drop out may have occurred.

Krane was not referring to the tDNA. Krane’s comment refers to mixed samples with drop out. The tDNA samples are not mixed samples.

Krane’s comment regarding mixed samples with drop out is, in general, true. But, it is not true in this case. This comment refers to the mixed sample from the blood on the victim’s panties, and, we know that a male sample was isolated from that and that that sample was accepted by CODIS. CODIS does not accept samples to which no “reliable, statistical weight” can be attached.
...

AK
 
  • #236
Dr. Krane: “… there is no generally accepted means of attaching a reliable statistical weight to a mixed DNA profile where allelic drop out may have occurred.

Krane was not referring to the tDNA. Krane’s comment refers to mixed samples with drop out. The tDNA samples are not mixed samples.

Krane’s comment regarding mixed samples with drop out is, in general, true. But, it is not true in this case. This comment refers to the mixed sample from the blood on the victim’s panties, and, we know that a male sample was isolated from that and that that sample was accepted by CODIS. CODIS does not accept samples to which no “reliable, statistical weight” can be attached.
...

AK

Does not matter. That's my understanding. Cynic was very specific. It's still considered a mixed sample. The "isolated" tDNA had to be coaxed/amplified (idk the correct term) to get to the required # of markers.

Yes?
 
  • #237
Does not matter. That's my understanding. Cynic was very specific. It's still considered a mixed sample. The "isolated" tDNA had to be coaxed/amplified (idk the correct term) to get to the required # of markers.

Yes?
BBM
No.
 
  • #238
The right fingernails indicated that two further unique profiles were present, unidentified male #2, and a unique unknown female profile. (JonBenet could not be excluded as a contributor)
The waistband, seams, and crotch of panties (Distal Stain 007-2) CODIS all matched and produced the profile that has been entered into the CODIS database, unidentified male #3 (Strength/weakness of profile: 10 markers)

The above profiles were determined through typical STR DNA testing.
Touch DNA (TDNA) testing, all presumably done at the Bode facility revealed one matching profile and a further two unique profiles, both male:
TDNA on the waistband of leggings matching DS 007-2 male #3
TDNA on the wrist bindings – male #4 (Strength/weakness of profile: 6 markers)
TDNA on the “garrote” – male #5 (Strength/weakness of profile: 7 markers)

(Also, TDNA on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét was identified as belonging to BR and PR.)

A full CODIS profile has 13 markers; any profile with fewer markers is a partial profile. All DNA profiles in this case are partial profiles
The highest quality DNA, and the only profile in this case that has been entered in the CODIS database, at 10 markers, is Distal Stain 007-2
All other DNA is weaker, in other words, less markers.

Kolar’s book confirmed the speculation that the profile from one of the blood spots that eventually ended up in CODIS originally had only 9 markers.
The male DNA sample, subsequently identified as Distal Stain 007-2, only contained 9 genetic markers, and like the DNA collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails, was of insufficient strength to be entered into the state and national databases. Moreover, the sample was so small that technicians were not able to identify the biological origin of the exemplar.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 140

Eventually a 10th marker was identified which then met the minimum standard for entry into CODIS:

DNA replication technology was utilized in the Denver Police Department’s crime lab, and the 10th marker was eventually strengthened to the point that the unidentified male sample discovered in JonBenét’s underwear was able to be entered into the state and national databases. This laboratory success didn’t take place until 2002, nearly 6 years after the murder of JonBenét
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 140

I met with the man who had worked so diligently to enhance the DNA sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2. Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg Laberge met me for lunch in early December 2005 and advised me that the forensic DNA sample collected from the underwear was microscopic, totally invisible to the naked eye. So small was it in quantity, consisting of only approximately 1/2 nanogram of genetic material, equivalent to about 100 – 150 cells, that it took him quite a bit of work to identify the 10th marker that eventually permitted its entry into the CODIS database.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 303 - 304

The profiles found from the fingernail clippings of JonBenet were presumably not from the non-sterile nail clippers that the coroner was in the habit of using.
DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book - Forums For Justice

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All profiles in this case are partial profiles.
 
  • #239
The right fingernails indicated that two further unique profiles were present, unidentified male #2, and a unique unknown female profile. (JonBenet could not be excluded as a contributor)
The waistband, seams, and crotch of panties (Distal Stain 007-2) CODIS all matched and produced the profile that has been entered into the CODIS database, unidentified male #3 (Strength/weakness of profile: 10 markers)

The above profiles were determined through typical STR DNA testing.
Touch DNA (TDNA) testing, all presumably done at the Bode facility revealed one matching profile and a further two unique profiles, both male:
TDNA on the waistband of leggings matching DS 007-2 male #3
TDNA on the wrist bindings – male #4 (Strength/weakness of profile: 6 markers)
TDNA on the “garrote” – male #5 (Strength/weakness of profile: 7 markers)

(Also, TDNA on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét was identified as belonging to BR and PR.)

A full CODIS profile has 13 markers; any profile with fewer markers is a partial profile. All DNA profiles in this case are partial profiles
The highest quality DNA, and the only profile in this case that has been entered in the CODIS database, at 10 markers, is Distal Stain 007-2

All other DNA is weaker, in other words, less markers.

Kolar’s book confirmed the speculation that the profile from one of the blood spots that eventually ended up in CODIS originally had only 9 markers.
The male DNA sample, subsequently identified as Distal Stain 007-2, only contained 9 genetic markers, and like the DNA collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails, was of insufficient strength to be entered into the state and national databases.
Moreover, the sample was so small that technicians were not able to identify the biological origin of the exemplar.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 140

Eventually a 10th marker was identified which then met the minimum standard for entry into CODIS:

DNA replication technology was utilized in the Denver Police Department’s crime lab, and the 10th marker was eventually strengthened to the point that the unidentified male sample discovered in JonBenét’s underwear was able to be entered into the state and national databases. This laboratory success didn’t take place until 2002, nearly 6 years after the murder of JonBenét
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 140

I met with the man who had worked so diligently to enhance the DNA sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2. Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg Laberge met me for lunch in early December 2005 and advised me that the forensic DNA sample collected from the underwear was microscopic, totally invisible to the naked eye. So small was it in quantity, consisting of only approximately 1/2 nanogram of genetic material, equivalent to about 100 – 150 cells, that it took him quite a bit of work to identify the 10th marker that eventually permitted its entry into the CODIS database.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 303 - 304

The profiles found from the fingernail clippings of JonBenet were presumably not from the non-sterile nail clippers that the coroner was in the habit of using.
DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book - Forums For Justice

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All profiles in this case are partial


:loveyou::loveyou:
 
  • #240

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
61
Guests online
2,585
Total visitors
2,646

Forum statistics

Threads
633,179
Messages
18,637,091
Members
243,434
Latest member
neuerthewall20
Back
Top