Henry Lee's comment on the Touch DNA

[Roy23]

Roy23,
You may be correct. Although if the touch dna results are consistent with the parents version of events, why not release it, this would demonstrate that what they say should be taken seriously and that an intruder may have killed JonBenet?

Furthermore the same unknown touch dna discovered on any other crime-scene artifacts other than JonBenet's clothing really would make an intruder theory relevant!


Dr. Lee agrees with you. He said the touch DNA is powerful but said it would be more powerful if they tested other areas. And they may have or plan to. It is frustrating that we don't know what they have or have not done. But I understand it. Many investigators of this case released too much information.
People like you and I love it but as we know their are some nutcases out there. There is so much blame to go around but my opinion is that this case should be used as an example of what not to do in a murder case. I find fault at every level, including the Ramsey's.

If they are smart, they release no information to us or the killer. All we do is question it anyway.

 

[Ames]

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.

Well, geez...if they would ever take the time to go through that "warehouse full of evidence" that has yet to be examined....maybe they would find mountains of evidence pointing in one direction or the other.

 

[Roy23]

Well, geez...if they would ever take the time to go through that "warehouse full of evidence" that has yet to be examined....maybe they would find mountains of evidence pointing in one direction or the other.

Ames,

They may have by now. The evidence they test now is on lockdown. The days of bookwriting and speaking to the media are over. We can only hope that they are continuing the search. Any more evidence that even clears the Ramsey's will not be heard.

 

[BBB167893]

I think it would make more sense if you guys and gals just said that the DNA evidence was planted. It does not have to connect to a killer. It was found in her panties and elsewhere that they deemed to test their theory. They hit a homerun.

In your opinion.

That can't connect certain things used in the murder to the Ramsey house. If the DNA was planted and they got rid of things in the middle of the night by driving it somewhere, maybe some of this makes more sense.

Planting DNA? Never really thought about it. As for getting rid of things by driving them somewhere, unlikely.

In Mr. Thomas book, he explains the conversation he had with Lou Smit. It is powerful.

Darn right.

But I will read it again. There is no smoking gun.

Contrary to what we see in the movies, Roy23, very FEW cases have a smoking gun. Something like 90% of cases are circumstantial. It's a question of putting the pieces together (as I constantly urge) and what inferences a reasonable person can draw from those pieces.

That's the big problem in this case: everyone's trying to reinvent the wheel.

The police went with a theory and tried to find evidence to prove that theory. Especially after they screwed up so bad in the first place. They went on tv and had the Ramsey's convicted before finishing their investigation.

That's the Ramsey version of the story. One that several sources, including PMPT reject.

I don't blame the Ramsey's one bit. They could have gotten phone records immediately. Let's not make it sound like all that is the DA's fault. Keep reading up on that.

We have. We've also read on how the members of the DA's office had their minds made up from the beginning (Thomas's book contains several instances of this), how Mary Lacy chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during her 1998 interview (think about that: an assistant DA who had never even tried a murder telling one of the country's finest homicide detectives he's too tough for using standard interview techniques that the greenest rookie on a beat would know), ad nauseam.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the status of this case.

Agreed.

We can argue until we are blue in the face but for justice to be served, the source of that DNA has to be found. I truly hope they continue to investigate other areas and not just wait for a Codis hit.

Also agreed.

The one thing we all agree on is that the guilty party in some fashion is a Ramsey or connected to a Ramsey.

Interesting...

It is hard to explain that note. That is the key reason this case is so baffling to everybody. We have theories about it but it is not CLEAR.

Agreed again.

I wish the Ramsey's would have worked with LE more on this and vice versa.

Agreed again.

It is time to investigate the intruder theory now. By doing so it may solve this case, and it may come back and point to a Ramsey. But not now.

Well, I have an idea, but it's probably not doable.

 

[Roy23]

I saw the DA on television. Don't you remember that? He was pretty much pointing the finger at the Ramsey's.

 

[BBB167893]

I saw the DA on television. Don't you remember that? He was pretty much pointing the finger at the Ramsey's.

Actually, at the time I was very pro-Ramsey, and I was shocked at how restrained he was.

And don't forget, Roy: DA's are still politicians. And if there's one thing I know, it's that what a politician says is not necessarily the same as what he does.

As Det. Thomas said, at least Hunter would listen to all viewpoints, regardless of his own. Lacy is more like "The Boxer," if you know what that means. He summed it up well: makes Hunter look like Rudy Giuliani.

 

[Roy23]

Actually, at the time I was very pro-Ramsey, and I was shocked at how restrained he was.

And don't forget, Roy: DA's are still politicians. And if there's one thing I know, it's that what a politician says is not necessarily the same as what he does.

As Det. Thomas said, at least Hunter would listen to all viewpoints, regardless of his own. Lacy is more like "The Boxer," if you know what that means. He summed it up well: makes Hunter look like Rudy Giuliani.

He stated that the Ramsey's were under an umbrella of suspicion. I have no doubt that he talked out of both ends. I don't get Det. Thomas though. I don't see why he is so adamant that the Ramsey's are guilty. I kind of like him but he doesn't seem to understand that he did not have much evidence.

 

[BBB167893]

He stated that the Ramsey's were under an umbrella of suspicion.

True. But that's a rather vague statement, is it not?

I have no doubt that he talked out of both ends.

That's a rather amusing image! (Not that I disagree, though)

I don't get Det. Thomas though. I don't see why he is so adamant that the Ramsey's are guilty.

Well, I suppose the best way to find out would be to ask him, but I doubt that's doable. I can only guess, Roy. And that guess would be that as time went on, and as he became more involved with the pathologists and FBI agents and even Marc Klaas (let's face it: when you compare the Ramseys to Klaas, Erin Runnion, the Van Dams and the Smarts, it's like night and day) things just started to snowball. That, and as he mentions several times in the book, he did what I keep telling people to do: he looked at the big picture.

Don't forget: Tom Haney figured they did it as well. Ane he had one thing in common with Thomas: he interviewed Patsy. He said, "she's not a very good actress, is she?" That may have had something to do with it.

I couldn't say, really. I only spoke to Det. Thomas once, and that was several years ago. And neither of us went into much detail. I consider it a wasted opportunity.

All I can say is that I only have my own experience going from where I was to where I am now to draw upon, and I doubt that would help much.

I kind of like him but he doesn't seem to understand that he did not have much evidence.

Well, perhaps he remembered that line from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

In all seriousness, that seems to be the feeling I get. Mike Kane, Tom Wickman and Henry Lee have all, in the past, seemed to agree with both of us: Me, in that the Ramseys did it; you, in that it would take a lot to convict them without a confession.

"We know everything; we can prove nothing."

 

[JMO8778]

Roy,we don't know what evidence ST had.We are not seeing all of it..I think his book is a good example of that.He left out the size 12 underwear altogether (this implicates John,IMO,pls read UKguy's posts),he didn't name a murder weapon (b/c it was the flashlight,IMO),and there was an underlying theme of molestation throughout the whole book;I could go on.
The R's hinky book hints at this as well..John and Patsy both had excuses flying right and left,re: fingerprints on several objects,inc. the night vision goggles and walk-in fridge,John's underwear fibers in the hallway and near JB's bed,and many other things,inc. even excuses to cover their bases in case someone had overheard some discussion in their bedroom at the Stine's house..Patsy attempts to explain this away by saying there was a white noise machine in there.
We don't really know what evidence we're not seeing,but these are darn good hints that there is indeed lots MORE.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well, I have an idea, but it's probably not doable.

Right.

I have an idea too but its not doable either.

I was surprised to find out that you didn't know exactly how JBR's floor was laid out. Considering all the possible RDI scenarios seems pointless without a good understanding the layout of the house.

Maybe RDI is 'good to go' with all that expert opinion on chronic abuse, and therefore doesn't need to know the house layout exactly. I suppose the layout is irrelevant to RDI.

It is not irrelevant to IDI at all. In any intruder scenario, the layout of the house comes into play because the object for any intruder was to move JBR without waking other occupants of the house.

 

[Chrishope]

I think we can assume the Rs were familiar with the layout of their house.

 

[DeeDee249]

I saw the DA on television. Don't you remember that? He was pretty much pointing the finger at the Ramsey's.

Keep in mind that a DA, an elected official in this case with links to the defense team, had to at least SEEM to be looking where the evidence pointed (the Rs). From Day 1 he should have stepped down from this case because of his business and personal dealings with the defense team.
The failure to release all evidence in the case at this point under the ruse of it being an "active" (HA) investigation is bull, plain and simple. It may be unsolved, but it is far from active.
There was recently a case in the news where a child rapist/killer was caught after 33 years- DNA has finally linked him to the murder of a little girl in the 70s. Again here - he was out on parole for the sex killing of another girl and during a brief period (during which this murder occurred) he was known to be in the area.
As far as some online sicko inserting himself into the case- well, as far as Karr goes, it was the comedy team of Tracy and Lacy who inserted him into the case. Before them, he was just another pathetic misfit child molester who fantasized about JBR. I believe he had no knowledge of her at ALL until she was killed, and like many, he was fascinated by the tabloid and media coverage of this child beauty queen- a tiny beauty in a pink and silver cowgirl outfit, a showgirl outfit, lipstick and eyeshadow. Those images were seared into his twisted brain and he pictured every step of her molestation and murder as if he were right there doing it. If it wasn't for the comedy team, we'd never even know his name, and we'd be blissfully unaware of his pathetic existence.
Could there be others like him, looking to link themselves forever with her? Probably are. Even if EVERYTHING in evidence was made public- and some other sicko tried to say he did it based on what he knew- all you have to do to rule it out then is a DNA match, and of course, proving he was actually in Boulder on Dec. 25/26 1996.

 

[JMO8778]

Right.

I have an idea too but its not doable either.

I was surprised to find out that you didn't know exactly how JBR's floor was laid out. Considering all the possible RDI scenarios seems pointless without a good understanding the layout of the house.

Maybe RDI is 'good to go' with all that expert opinion on chronic abuse, and therefore doesn't need to know the house layout exactly. I suppose the layout is irrelevant to RDI.

It is not irrelevant to IDI at all. In any intruder scenario, the layout of the house comes into play because the object for any intruder was to move JBR without waking other occupants of the house.

and I think we all know enough to know there was a door there at the end of the staircase..and there would be no good logical reason for an intruder to nix taking her out that way,(where he could insure he would have her forever),instead of spending more time in the house,making his way to the basement and risking getting caught.a tiny child is not going to do something so uncontrollable that an intruder would need to regroup and carry her to the basement.(one hand over her mouth could keep her quiet).and even if she did,it would still make more sense to go out the door.that an intruder needed to regroup and carry JB to the basement instead,just doesn't fly,any way you look at it.

 

[angelwngs]

and I think we all know enough to know there was a door there at the end of the staircase..and there would be no good logical reason for an intruder to nix taking her out that way,(where he could insure he would have her forever),instead of spending more time in the house,making his way to the basement and risking getting caught.a tiny child is not going to do something so uncontrollable that an intruder would need to regroup and carry her to the basement.(one hand over her mouth could keep her quiet).and even if she did,it would still make more sense to go out the door.that an intruder needed to regroup and carry JB to the basement instead,just doesn't fly,any way you look at it.

This is the single most LOGICAL point in the whole case that totally disqualifies the idea of an intruder, IMO.

 

[Ames]

and I think we all know enough to know there was a door there at the end of the staircase..and there would be no good logical reason for an intruder to nix taking her out that way,(where he could insure he would have her forever),instead of spending more time in the house,making his way to the basement and risking getting caught.a tiny child is not going to do something so uncontrollable that an intruder would need to regroup and carry her to the basement.(one hand over her mouth could keep her quiet).and even if she did,it would still make more sense to go out the door.that an intruder needed to regroup and carry JB to the basement instead,just doesn't fly,any way you look at it.

Yep, this is just another HUGE thing that MAKES me know that there was no intruder. I have NEVER heard of an intruder that breaks into a home, to kidnap a child..and doesn't take her from her own home If fact, that is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard...a kidnapper that heads to the BASEMENT instead of out the front door. And again I say...

 

[BBB167893]

Right.

I have an idea too but its not doable either.

Well, my idea is to take the Boulder LE and divide it into task forces: one for RDI, one for IDI.

I was surprised to find out that you didn't know exactly how JBR's floor was laid out. Considering all the possible RDI scenarios seems pointless without a good understanding the layout of the house.

Surprised me, too.

But look again: there's a door to the outside right next to the spiral staircase. Why not just head through it? Seems I'm not alone in that sentiment.

Not only that, but doesn't it seem odd to you that the note was left in a place where Patsy Ramsey habitually left items, such as purses, when she needed to remember them? HMM.

Maybe RDI is 'good to go' with all that expert opinion on chronic abuse,

THIS one is! As good as I need to be.

and therefore doesn't need to know the house layout exactly.

A fluke mistake. It will not happen again.

I suppose the layout is irrelevant to RDI.

I didn't say that. But if you want to make the comparison between the two, yeah, I'd have to say one is a little higher on the totem pole than the other.

It is not irrelevant to IDI at all. In any intruder scenario, the layout of the house comes into play because the object for any intruder was to move JBR without waking other occupants of the house.

I understand that. There's just no way a complete stranger could learn the layout that quickly. And why not just head out the door?

 

[Chrishope]

and I think we all know enough to know there was a door there at the end of the staircase..and there would be no good logical reason for an intruder to nix taking her out that way,(where he could insure he would have her forever),instead of spending more time in the house,making his way to the basement and risking getting caught.a tiny child is not going to do something so uncontrollable that an intruder would need to regroup and carry her to the basement.(one hand over her mouth could keep her quiet).and even if she did,it would still make more sense to go out the door.that an intruder needed to regroup and carry JB to the basement instead,just doesn't fly,any way you look at it.

Exactly. It only flys in the mind of IDIs because they have to keep explaining the abrupt psychological shifts of the intruder. First it's a team from a small foreign faction which hates American but respects John's business. Then it often morphs into a co-worker with a grudge. Then the guy with a grudge becomes a kidnapper. Then suddenly he's no longer a kidnapper, but a paedophile. Then he's not just perv, but also a murderer. No intruder would have taken her into the basement.

 

[angelwngs]

I saw the DA on television. Don't you remember that? He was pretty much pointing the finger at the Ramsey's.

He called D Foster and told him that the parents DID NOT DO THIS...
(which was totally out of line as it could have influenced his results.)

 

[angelwngs]

Yep, this is just another HUGE thing that MAKES me know that there was no intruder. I have NEVER heard of an intruder that breaks into a home, to kidnap a child..and doesn't take her from her own home If fact, that is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard...a kidnapper that heads to the BASEMENT instead of out the front door. And again I say...

Exactly what would "the intruder" have done if one of the parents had awakened and come down to the basement while he was down there???

I guess Lou Smit would say he would have jumped up on the suitcase and made a hasty exit through that window that he used to enter the home...

I wanna scream!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Exactly what would "the intruder" have done if one of the parents had awakened and come down to the basement while he was down there???

I guess Lou Smit would say he would have jumped up on the suitcase and made a hasty exit through that window that he used to enter the home...

I wanna scream!

I've posted before that the placement of the RN is significant in IDI, not significant in RDI (the R's could simply say they found it on the stairs). IDI has to explain what advantage or purpose would an intruder have to place it on the rear spiral staircase.

I always thought the RN placed on the stairs could act as a tripwire to warn intruders that the parents were coming downstairs. Since the basement and spiral stairs are at nearly opposite ends of the house, I now doubt it would be a warning to someone in the basement. It could've been a warning to someone in the kitchen, though. That is, someone in the kitchen watching the main stairs while listening for the spiral stairs. Those are the only two ways to go from the 2nd floor to the first.

In a scenario where three intruders were present, one could've been in the kitchen while the other two were in the basement.

To answer your question, I'd say the parents would've encountered an armed intruder before making it to the basement, because an
intruder as concerned as you think they would be, could have been sitting in the kitchen while watching the main stairs and listening for the rear spiral stairs.