Henry Lee's comment on the Touch DNA

[Ames]

"My disgust is that poor JB will never find justice."


I agree with that sentiment pretty much. Of course my opinion differs from yours in that I now believe there is a chance that this will be solved. I also felt bad for the Ramsey's if they of course were innocent. The one thing that makes me feel better when I think about this case is my belief in theory of our justice system. Many more innocent people have been put in jail or put to death based on opinions in other countries.

Because of our system protecting citizen's rights, we have developed more precise science to prove innocence or guilt. I want JB to have justice but no matter what we believe, I just don't think there is enough to say one way or another. I believe someone else killed her and you don't. I think a jury would render a not guilty verdict and it would not even be close. Now that doesn't mean that you are wrong but just saying.

Roy, do you know about the "warehouse full of evidence" that has YET to be examined? They talked about it on the show "48 Hours", the 10th Anniversary JB Special. I am NOT the only person that heard it, or watched it.

 

[Roy23]

Roy, do you know about the "warehouse full of evidence" that has YET to be examined? They talked about it on the show "48 Hours", the 10th Anniversary JB Special. I am NOT the only person that heard it, or watched it.

No, Ames, I don't know about that. But I do know that "foreign DNA" better be matched to somebody. Ordinary persons have different views on DNA technology. I don't agree with you and some others. Like the conversation we had about Dr. Lee. You read one thing and I read another. Dr. Lee has been consistant over the years in promoting it as have most other scientists. Now Dr. Lee may have seen other evidence that made him think the Ramsey's may be guilty. But he and others now have a problem that most people here won't admit.

In a nutshell, these experts are all paid to say one thing or another in trial. Whether DNA in one case is more pertinent than others are questions that we can all debate. In reality, no matter where this case is located the defense would easily be able to create monumental reasonable doubt unless there is mountains of evidence that we haven't heard.

 

[BBB167893]

True, true.

Just remember: I'm the man trying to keep all of this straight.

The other occupants of the house in which a murder takes place are naturally each going to have some amount of implicating evidence, even if they had nothing to do with it.

Guilt by osmosis?

Guilt by guilt. In this case it's not "Some" amount of implicating evidence. It's "MUCH" implicating evidence and a complete inability to account for it.

Like I always say, Holdon: you have to appreciate the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

Incidentally, you said something earlier:

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat
Thanks. Interesting that the spiral staircase IS the path one would take to go from JBR's room to the basement, while avoiding the parent's end of the house.

I hardly see how you could come to that conclusion, since the spiral staircase and main stairs were adjacent to each other.

Very odd, though, that an intruder would presume the parents to take those stairs while looking for JBR. Why not put it on the stairs connecting the R's bedroom to JBR's bedroom? Or better yet, on the main stair landing at the 2nd floor. That would be the most obvious.

Right. EXACTLY!

 

[BBB167893]

I understand that holdon is in a minority here but he is bringing his A game here.

He always does. So do we.

When so little is known and the facts are so disputed in a case like this, it is so easy to point blame at JR and PR.

I believed their story for five years.

They had 12 years to make a case against them and failed.

They didn't fail. They never TRIED.

Now more evidence is pointing to a alternate solution. There are too many holes to make a case against the Ramsey's even with all of this information.

We can thank the DA's office for that.

So you guys really think that one of the Ramsey's were sexually abusing their daughter for forty minutes after bashing her in the head before finally strangling her to death.

We don't have to believe it. That's what the pathologists reported. But to be absolutely pedantic about it, no: I think that she was struck, the parents fought, decided to save their own necks, made a sloppy attempt at staging sexual assault, THEN strangled her to death (thinking she was already dead.

A lot has been said and many books written. Had they waited until like 2008 to write their books, I think the tone and content would be different.

Maybe. But it don't change what was in the police file.

This case is old news to many and not much money to be made on it anymore.

I hope that wasn't a personal attack.

Anyhow, Holdon, I don't think you are being unreasonable at all.

No surprise there.

 

[BBB167893]

Okay, that is your opinion. I find it very hard to swallow that although Patsy is guilty of this to many, that John would be complicit.

Just so I have this, because I don't want to paint myself into a corner here, are you saying you could buy one or the other but not both? Plenty like that, too.

The very thought that John sexually abused his daughter and Patsy killed her is pretty farfetched.

Read Marilyn Van Derbur's Miss America By Day.

Believe me that I know that someone can quote a book that will give some theory as to why that might be true but I am not buying it.

Then I won't bother.

Like I said previously, until the foreign DNA is resolved, this case will never see any convictions. Whether that is fair or not, I don't know. But that is the way it is.

I get you. It's cool. I don't think it IS fair, but I can sympathize.

 

[BBB167893]

First to answer angelwngs' question:

Does anyone know Boulder's current track record (2000-2008) for plea bargains vs prosecutions of major crimes?

Lousy, to be polite. About two cases per attorney per year actually make it to court, by Dan Caplis's statement

No, Ames, I don't know about that.

Given the source, Roy, I don't put too much stock in it myself.

Like the conversation we had about Dr. Lee. You read one thing and I read another. Dr. Lee has been consistant over the years in promoting it as have most other scientists. Now Dr. Lee may have seen other evidence that made him think the Ramsey's may be guilty.

Given what he has written and said, I'd say that's a damn fine bet. (Pardon my French.)

But he and others now have a problem that most people here won't admit.

We keep going. Can't do anything else.

In a nutshell, these experts are all paid to say one thing or another in trial. Whether DNA in one case is more pertinent than others are questions that we can all debate.

I can think of something off the top of my head.

In reality, no matter where this case is located the defense would easily be able to create monumental reasonable doubt unless there is mountains of evidence that we haven't heard.

You could be right. On the one hand, what angelwngs is trying to say is that in those cities she mentioned you have tough, smart prosecutors who can actually win cases. You don't have that in Boulder. Maybe someday they will. And I hope we're all still around to see it when they do.

My personal feeling is that once the Ramseys themselves got on the stand, they'd be eaten alive. If it were me, I'd just annihilate 'em.

But I get what you mean, too. OJ Simpson leaps to mind: he walked, and the only thing they DIDN'T have was the proverbial busload of nuns as eyewitnesses.

 

[Chrishope]

Like I said previously, until the foreign DNA is resolved, this case will never see any convictions. Whether that is fair or not, I don't know. But that is the way it is.

I'll go you one better. At this point the case is so completely botched, and so much time has passed, and Mary Lacy has "exonerated" the Rs, so even if the Rs did it, there will never be an R convicted. The only satisfaction RDIs can hope for now is a confession, and judging by JR's appearance on Oprah, I don't think that is going to happen.

Even if the DNA is shown to be benign (e.g. belonging to someone who couldn't have comitted the crime - another child at the White's party for instance) the DA won't swing to an RDI theory.

IDIs of course hold out hope that the DNA will be matched by CODIS. But it's already been run through CODIS for years, and no match. The odds are poor that there will ever be a match.

This case will be like Jack the Ripper, crime buffs will still debate it 100 years from now. But there will be no way to prove 'who done it'.

 

[Roy23]

"They didn't fail. They never TRIED."

Dave,

This is where I think you are totally wrong. At one point, everybody in that town was there pointing fingers at a family who just lost their daughter. Boulder PD screwed up the case and couldn't keep their mouths shut. They leaked information some of it a bunch of crap. The doggone Mayor and the DA's office even getting into the act. The Ramsey's were cooperating until they threatened to hold JBR's body to get another interview.

They failed and tried everything. They just did not have enough evidence. I know you probably stand behind them being complicit together and use that as a reason for them not indicting. It is the only way you can go. This case never saw a courtroom because there is not enough evidence. I can buy that Mary Lacy has made a mistake but Lacy knows the witch hunt that occured with the police leaking false evidence and creating a media frenzy. And now we have DNA and corroborated with some more.

 

[Chrishope]

"They didn't fail. They never TRIED."

Dave,

This is where I think you are totally wrong. At one point, everybody in that town was there pointing fingers at a family who just lost their daughter. Boulder PD screwed up the case and couldn't keep their mouths shut. They leaked information some of it a bunch of crap. The doggone Mayor and the DA's office even getting into the act. The Ramsey's were cooperating until they threatened to hold JBR's body to get another interview.

They failed and tried everything. They just did not have enough evidence. I know you probably stand behind them being complicit together and use that as a reason for them not indicting. It is the only way you can go. This case never saw a courtroom because there is not enough evidence. I can buy that Mary Lacy has made a mistake but Lacy knows the witch hunt that occured with the police leaking false evidence and creating a media frenzy. And now we have DNA and corroborated with some more.

And now we have DNA and corroborated with some more.

I don't understand what you mean. Corroborated with some more what? We have DNA that matches in 3 places, but we don't know who it belongs to, or how it got there.

The Ramsey's were cooperating until they threatened to hold JBR's body to get another interview.

Not so. Cooperating means talking to the police, not hiding behind lawyers. The fact that the police had to threaten to keep the body to get another interview shows they weren't cooperating.

Had the Rs been ordinary people, both JR and PR would have been taken in for questioning. They were under no obligation to talk, but if they'd been ordinary people who couldn't lawyer up almost instantly, with some of the best lawyers in CO, they'd have talked, and the case might have been solved in '97.

 

[BBB167893]

"They didn't fail. They never TRIED."

Dave,

This is where I think you are totally wrong. At one point, everybody in that town was there pointing fingers at a family who just lost their daughter. Boulder PD screwed up the case and couldn't keep their mouths shut. They leaked information some of it a bunch of crap. The doggone Mayor and the DA's office even getting into the act.

There are many books and articles written about how the DA's office was weak in this case. How the FBI told the police that the DA's office may well have been criminal in it's handling of the case. How several members of the DA's office thought they knew more about the case than the actual police. How they constantly interfered in police interviews and in one case chewed out one of the finest cops in the country for being too tough. How members of the DA's office were business partners with members of the Ramseys' law firm. How several members of the DA's office, including "Trip" DeMuth and the current DA Mary Lacy had their minds made up within the first few weeks BEFORE any evidence was in that the Ramseys couldn't have done it because they weren't the "type" of people to do these things. How the current DA has hired only people who agree with her, has never made any attempt to even talk to the actual investigators who worked this case for six years before she took over against their wishes. I can cite chapter and verse, literally.

The Ramsey's were cooperating until they threatened to hold JBR's body to get another interview.

Sadly, Roy, that is another myth that has been accepted as truth.

They failed and tried everything. They just did not have enough evidence.

How can you say they tried everything? The police wanted to arrest the Ramseys and jail them to get a confession. Even Lou Smit says he would have done that the first day. The DA wouldn't go for it.

Michael Kane and Bruce Levin were the only prosecutors on that team worth a damn. They agree with me: by the time they got there, the DA's office had already made up its mind. But, in fairness, Kane has said that you could go either way. He just thinks that they were involved. He has a track record that gives him credibility in several ways. Just saying.

I know you probably stand behind them being complicit together and use that as a reason for them not indicting. It is the only way you can go.

Not complicit, just weak and naive. Living in an insular bubble totally shielded from other points of view has a tendency to do that. (Ask Ward Churchill if you don't believe me.)

This case never saw a courtroom because there is not enough evidence.

You are both right and wrong, in my view. Not enough evidence against one or the other. Vincent Bugliosi agrees with that.

I can buy that Mary Lacy has made a mistake

A SERIES of mistakes.

but Lacy knows the witch hunt that occured with the police leaking false evidence and creating a media frenzy.

Witch-hunt my eye. She just couldn't believe that a woman could kill her own daughter. She had her mind made up from the start. And I implore you: Don't take my word for that. Ask Frank Coffman. Ask Jeff Shapiro. Ask Tom Haney.

And now we have DNA and corroborated with some more.

Maybe. Maybe.

 

[Roy23]

They were cooperating Dave. They got statements, blood, and saliva from them. They got samples of handwriting. For every expert you got to say the handwriting is similar, there is another that says no way.

That DA's office couldn't keep their mouth shut either. They followed right along with the police convicting the Ramsey's. I have read about their evidence, it is not enough. Let me tell what was sad though. When the media, like in most cases, got something wrong the police did not correct it. From no footprints in the snow, to no sign of forced entry, Ramsey being a freak, and the list goes on.

There were signs of an intruder and there were signs that the Ramsey's got their facts wrong. But to say that they had a case they could win, please Dave. They didn't and you are fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

 

[Chrishope]

There were signs of an intruder ...

What signs? To paraphrase Mr. Hat - there is absolutely nothing that is factually connected to an intruder.

 

[angelwngs]

ST Book- pg.214 par 5- "No matter what mistakes the police made, they have been exponentially compounded by blunders and improprieties in the DA's office," Bardach (of Vanity Fair Article) wrote. She published a list of the DA's actions that ranged from asking advice from Hal Haddon, head of the defense team, to giving away confidential information. Former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary was quoted as saying that the sharing of vital information was "unprecdented and unprofessional and an obstruction of justice. It's criminal.....It's possible you could make a case for prosecutorial malfeasance. It completely undermines the investigation."

 

[BBB167893]

They were cooperating Dave. They got statements, blood, and saliva from them. They got samples of handwriting.

That's the Ramsey version of cooperating. The police would have gotten that anyway: it's called non-testimonial evidence. That's not cooperatiing, not by a long shot.

For every expert you got to say the handwriting is similar, there is another that says no way.

Number one, that's to be expected. Number two, it's not quite accurate. There are far more who say it's similar.

That DA's office couldn't keep their mouth shut either. They followed right along with the police convicting the Ramsey's.

Alex Hunter was a fool, there's no denying.

I have read about their evidence, it is not enough.

Well, that may be true, but like I always say: there's a big difference between knowledge and wisdom.

Let me tell what was sad though. When the media, like in most cases, got something wrong the police did not correct it. From no footprints in the snow, to no sign of forced entry, Ramsey being a freak, and the list goes on.

Well, I seriously doubt that, with all that they had to do, they had much time to correct all of that. I actually talk about that at length in chapter...12 or 13 I think.

There were signs of an intruder and there were signs that the Ramsey's got their facts wrong.

I can work from that premise.

But to say that they had a case they could win, please Dave. They didn't and you are fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

Oh, make no mistake, Roy: I have doubts, myself. But you don't seem to get what I mean: the DA set up a definition of doubt that NO ONE could win, and they let their prejudices decide the case. Bottom line.

IOW, striking out is one thing. Not even getting up to bat is another.

That said, I personally think that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is too high a standard. What do ANY of us know beyond a reasonable doubt in our day-to-day lives? How do we know that Hadron Collider won't open up a black hole and destroy the planet? I hate to get all philosophical on you; I know you didn't come here for that, but I prefer to lay my cards on the table.

 

[Roy23]

"IOW, striking out is one thing. Not even getting up to bat is another."


I guess we don't see things the same way. Okay, they could maybe get an indictment but you know what they say about that. I can't believe that you don't believe in "beyond a reasonable doubt". This is the absolute perfect case for it. No real history of abuse or violence either.

Dave, with what you know and believe could you convict the Ramsey's or a Ramsey with murder?

 

[angelwngs]

They were cooperating Dave. They got statements, blood, and saliva from them. They got samples of handwriting. For every expert you got to say the handwriting is similar, there is another that says no way.

That DA's office couldn't keep their mouth shut either. They followed right along with the police convicting the Ramsey's. I have read about their evidence, it is not enough. Let me tell what was sad though. When the media, like in most cases, got something wrong the police did not correct it. From no footprints in the snow, to no sign of forced entry, Ramsey being a freak, and the list goes on.

There were signs of an intruder and there were signs that the Ramsey's got their facts wrong. But to say that they had a case they could win, please Dave. They didn't and you are fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

Roy, PLEASE go Read or reread pages 215-221 of Steve Thomas' book... The DA's office did NOT follow along with the police convicting the Ramsey's...

There are multiple accounts in print of how the DA's office threw up roadblocks at ever point possible to prevent the police from helping find justice for JBR. Yes, the police flat out blew it at the crime scene, but they would have done a much, much better job of the investigation if the DA's office had supported them in their request for search warrants etc... Phone ecords would have been obtained...a million and one vital facts were lost due to the DA's office and their private agenda.

 

[Roy23]

Roy, PLEASE go Read or reread pages 215-221 of Steve Thomas' book... The DA's office did NOT follow along with the police convicting the Ramsey's...

There are multiple accounts in print of how the DA's office threw up roadblocks at ever point possible to prevent the police from helping find justice for JBR. Yes, the police flat out blew it at the crime scene, but they would have done a much, much better job of the investigation if the DA's office had supported them in their request for search warrants etc... Phone ecords would have been obtained...a million and one vital facts were lost due to the DA's office and their private agenda.

I did read it. The DA's office was right on their side until they actually saw how screwed they really were. Don't get me wrong, they could have gotten an indictment but Mr. Thomas hasn't a clue how they would have been destroyed.

 

[angelwngs]

I did read it. The DA's office was right on their side until they actually saw how screwed they really were. Don't get me wrong, they could have gotten an indictment but Mr. Thomas hasn't a clue how they would have been destroyed.

That's why I said "read or reread, please". I disagree totally and completely. Look at the Boulder DA's track record for prosecutions vs plea bargains... How can you say that they were "on their (BPD's) side????? EVER????
The GBI, The FBI and the CBI all could not believe that there had been no arrest of the R's......... all supported the BPD and were shocked that the DA was in the R's pockets. Could all of these people been wrong? Win or loose...there should have been an arrest, IMO.

 

[DeeDee249]

The DA's office was never on the side of LE, not from the very first. They denied warrants for the most standard of things- like phone records, for one. When a child is found dead in their own home and the family was present- one of the first things LE needs to check is who they may have called between the incident and the arrival of LE on the scene. Hunter refused access to the R phone records, and by the time LE was able to get them-the December phone logs had "disappeared" - showing NO activity for the whole month. Now, who doesn't make phone calls for a month- especially December?

Hunter's office operated under the delusion that a case had to be solved beyond a reasonable doubt before they even indicted or even ARRESTED anyone. Hunter never wanted to risk another courtroom failure- he never wanted to try another case at all. That's why we have courtroom trials- so the truth can be exposed.

LE didn't want JBR's body kept for ransom, no matter what Pete Hofstrom said- but to be held longer to try to see of there was anything they missed. Had that happened, we'd know for sure about the stun gun marks. Those abrasions were never tested- they were merely "noted". Had they been, it would have been a huge factor in the evidence trail. But the Rs, and the DA as well, wanted that little girl's body released from custody and buried ASAP. Exhumation can be done, but is difficult and requires a court order in many cases. Not likely to be obtained in this case without parental approval.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

There were signs of an intruder ...

What signs? To paraphrase Mr. Hat - there is absolutely nothing that is factually connected to an intruder.

There is nothing that is factually connected to anyone. Handwriting is not factually connected to anybody. DNA is not factually connected to anyone. And guess what, cord and tape not factually connected to anybody. When you have the right suspect, then it will become factually connected. You would first have to connect it to someone, and then decide if they were an intruder or not.

What, were you expecting to find "an intruder did this" stamped on the side of the broken paintbrush or something?

Its like Ted Kaczynski, as I see it. Was there any factual connection between his letters and him? No. Not until he was found out. Then a connection was made.