Do you think this case will ever be solved?

[michelle]

My dad, uncle, brother and husband were all in the military Michelle...my brother was in the first war in Iraq, and survived an explosion on his ship. I just want to tell you to tell your brother THANK YOU for serving our country, and I will pray for him. (I saw your signature at the end of your post!)

Awww, Thank you that is sweet. They can all use the prayer that is for sure.:blowkiss:

 

[Dru]

No offence, BlueCrab, but I don't agree with your theory. However, since it is your theory and you do know about Colorado law in connection with this, does shielding a child who has committed a major crime mean, in effect, that no adults who helped in the perpetration or cover-up of the crime can possibly be charged? Because, if so, that seems like a particularly dangerous legal loophole.

For instance, suppose an adult in CO gives a minor a gun and tells him to stick up a convenience store; he does, and kills a store clerk. Does the fact that the child has committed the crime and must be protected automatically mean that the adult cannot be charged with being an accessory before the fact in a murder case?

Or, to refer to this case, does the fact that the BPD 'knows' that BR has committed this crime mean that the police can never charge his parents with being accessories after the fact, evidence tampering, and obstruction of justice, just to name a few?

I find that incomprehensible, but am willing to be instructed.

For myself, I do think it possible that this case may be solved and even prosecuted, but I admit that's because I think JR did it!

 

[coloradokares]

No offence, BlueCrab, but I don't agree with your theory. However, since it is your theory and you do know about Colorado law in connection with this, does shielding a child who has committed a major crime mean, in effect, that no adults who helped in the perpetration or cover-up of the crime can possibly be charged? Because, if so, that seems like a particularly dangerous legal loophole.

For instance, suppose an adult in CO gives a minor a gun and tells him to stick up a convenience store; he does, and kills a store clerk. Does the fact that the child has committed the crime and must be protected automatically mean that the adult cannot be charged with being an accessory before the fact in a murder case?

Or, to refer to this case, does the fact that the BPD 'knows' that BR has committed this crime mean that the police can never charge his parents with being accessories after the fact, evidence tampering, and obstruction of justice, just to name a few?

I find that incomprehensible, but am willing to be instructed.

For myself, I do think it possible that this case may be solved and even prosecuted, but I admit that's because I think JR did it!

They can indeed be charged. Whether they would be or not is almost at DA descretion. Lets give Blue Crabs theory a bounce and see where the ball lands. John cannot be compelled to testify against Patsy or Patsy John. If Burke copped to it all..... then it'd be hard to press. However......that is if Blue Crab is correct. Thats a big if. As for Karr.....that he's had more than 15 minutes already is ludicrous enough. Why should I keep the clock ticking.

 

[JMO8778]

They can indeed be charged. Whether they would be or not is almost at DA descretion. Lets give Blue Crabs theory a bounce and see where the ball lands. John cannot be compelled to testify against Patsy or Patsy John. If Burke copped to it all..... then it'd be hard to press. However......that is if Blue Crab is correct. Thats a big if. As for Karr.....that he's had more than 15 minutes already is ludicrous enough. Why should I keep the clock ticking.

what if...BR didn't do it,but JR and PR put the blame on him anyway..without him knowing it?? I haven't thought about it much so I don't know if the idea fits or not..but seeing as they so willingly threw a lot of their close friends under the bus..maybe they would do the same w their own son..they seemed to be willing to do almost anything to save their arse.

 

[Solace]

I think there are ppl who know *exactly what happened;and I suspect there are other outsiders who have figured it out per the evidence that was released,like Mark Fuhrman,for example.

JMO,

Can you direct me to the evidence that Mark Fuhrman released. Really appreciate it. Thanks, Solace

 

[Ames]

JMO,

Can you direct me to the evidence that Mark Fuhrman released. Really appreciate it. Thanks, Solace

I would love to be directed to this source too...should be quite interesting.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I think that the case has already been solved, but that no one will ever be formally charged or imprisoned for the crime.

Me too.

 

[BlueCrab]

JMO,

Can you direct me to the evidence that Mark Fuhrman released. Really appreciate it. Thanks, Solace

Solace,

I don't think JMO meant that literally. I don't know of any significant evidence that Mark Fuhrman released on the Ramsey case. However, a long time ago on a panel show he did say something about Ramsey DNA markers, not JonBenet's, being in the sample from JonBenet's panties. When he said it the camera swung over to Dr. Michael Baden who was caught shaking his head silently in the affirmative.

BlueCrab

 

[coloradokares]

Solace,

I don't think JMO meant that literally. I don't know of any significant evidence that Mark Fuhrman released on the Ramsey case. However, a long time ago on a panel show he did say something about Ramsey DNA markers, not JonBenet's, being in the sample from JonBenet's panties. When he said it the camera swung over to Dr. Michael Baden who was caught shaking his head silently in the affirmative.

BlueCrab

I'd not heard that.....please Blue Crab explain further. Ramsey DNA markers, not JonBnet's being in the sample from JonBenet's panties?!?!?!?!? Do you have any way that you can think of to verify that. Such as a transcript of that panel show. I respect Dr. Micheal Baden.......

 

[JMO8778]

JMO,

Can you direct me to the evidence that Mark Fuhrman released. Really appreciate it. Thanks, Solace

he didn't release any that I know of,what I'm saying is that based on what has been publicly released...I think he likely has it figured out.

 

[JMO8778]

Solace,

I don't think JMO meant that literally. I don't know of any significant evidence that Mark Fuhrman released on the Ramsey case. However, a long time ago on a panel show he did say something about Ramsey DNA markers, not JonBenet's, being in the sample from JonBenet's panties. When he said it the camera swung over to Dr. Michael Baden who was caught shaking his head silently in the affirmative.

BlueCrab

I forgot about that,yes,I think they both said they thought it was 'stutter DNA'.

 

[Solace]

I forgot about that,yes,I think they both said they thought it was 'stutter DNA'.

What is stutter DNA?

 

[JMO8778]

What is stutter DNA?

I think it's just duplicate dna of what's already been tested.Like when it's amplified,some of it duplicates more than once,so it isn't really an accurate dna profile at all.I *think it results from weak,artifact dna being amplified,but I'll do a search to see if I can find out more.

 

[docwho3]

What is stutter DNA?

I found this on the web. I hope it helps.

. . .Spurious Peaks. An additional complication in STR interpretation is that electropherograms often exhibit spurious peaks that do not indicate the presence of DNA. These extra peaks are referred to as "technical artifacts" and are produced by unavoidable imperfections of the DNA analysis process. The most common artifacts are stutter, noise and pull-up.

Stutter peaks are small peaks that occur immediately before (and, less frequently, after) a real peak. Stutter occurs as a by-product of the process used to amplify DNA from evidence samples. In samples known to be from a single source, stutter is identifiable by its size and position. However, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish stutter bands from a secondary contributor in samples that contain (or might contain) DNA from more than one person. . .

http://bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html

 

[Solace]

I think it's just duplicate dna of what's already been tested.Like when it's amplified,some of it duplicates more than once,so it isn't really an accurate dna profile at all.I *think it results from weak,artifact dna being amplified,but I'll do a search to see if I can find out more.

But what would there DNA be doing mixed in with the sample found in JonBenet's underwear?

 

[JMO8778]

But what would there DNA be doing mixed in with the sample found in JonBenet's underwear?

It's speculated the male dna is not from the killer,since it's older and degraded,unlike JB's,which was fresh and complete..sounds likely.Even Mary Lacy said the dna may not be the killers.

 

[BBB167893]

So,they spent all that money on Mark Karr,for a charade?

I'm sorely tempted to agree with that assessment.

John Mark Karr? It appears he was deliberately used to further confuse the case and divert attention from the truth. Incidentally, the evidence reveals there was likely more than one perp involved in the killing of JonBenet. Thus, Karr's DNA simply not matching the DNA in JonBenet's underwear does not automatically clear him as one of the perps.

BC, you had me in your corner up to that.

I think that the case has already been solved, but that no one will ever be formally charged or imprisoned for the crime.

I agree.

I don't think JMO meant that literally. I don't know of any significant evidence that Mark Fuhrman released on the Ramsey case. However, a long time ago on a panel show he did say something about Ramsey DNA markers, not JonBenet's, being in the sample from JonBenet's panties. When he said it the camera swung over to Dr. Michael Baden who was caught shaking his head silently in the affirmative.

I don't know if this was the same one, but a few days after Karr was cut loose, Fuhrman and Baden were interviewed on "Hannity & Colmes." Both agreed: the majority of evidence pointed to an inside job.

 

[BlueCrab]

... but a few days after Karr was cut loose, Fuhrman and Baden were interviewed on "Hannity & Colmes." Both agreed: the majority of evidence pointed to an inside job.

I too agree that it was an "inside job". But that doesn't exclude the evidence that points to a fifth person having been invited into the house by a Ramsey that night -- and that person being the killer.

For instance, how did all of that missing crime scene evidence (black duct tape, white nylon cord, nine notebook pages, tip of the paintbrush handle, a stun gun, etc.) get out of the house? How did the ransom note get written in the house, yet the handwriting of no one living in the house can be positively matched to the writing in the note?

And why was the outside security light turned off that night (for the first time in years)?

BlueCrab

 

[Solace]

I too agree that it was an "inside job". But that doesn't exclude the evidence that points to a fifth person having been invited into the house by a Ramsey that night -- and that person being the killer.

For instance, how did all of that missing crime scene evidence (black duct tape, white nylon cord, nine notebook pages, tip of the paintbrush handle, a stun gun, etc.) get out of the house? How did the ransom note get written in the house, yet the handwriting of no one living in the house can be positively matched to the writing in the note?

And why was the outside security light turned off that night (for the first time in years)?

BlueCrab

Maybe John put the evidence in his golf bag.

 

[BlueCrab]

Maybe John put the evidence in his golf bag.

Solace,

The golf bag was taken in as evidence by the cops.

BlueCrab