Henry Lee's comment on the Touch DNA

[DeeDee249]

There is nothing that is factually connected to anyone. Handwriting is not factually connected to anybody. DNA is not factually connected to anyone. 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.

You are right (never thought I'd say THAT) - yet Lacy has "factually connected" the DNA to the "killer". We all know that if you don't know who the killer is- you can't say for sure they DNA belongs to the killer. The DA's office still can collect samples from all the White's male party guests (even the kids) to see if there WAS an innocent transfer. But I bet they won't. Lacy wants to go out as having exonerated the Rs and finding the killer.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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

Wha?

Here's the floor plan of the Ramsey home.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jonhouse1016.htm

You're wrong, I think. Look at the 2nd floor layout. A set of stairs from the 3rd to the 2nd floor are adjacent to the spiral, yes, but the main stairs were at the eastern end and connected all three floors.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You are right (never thought I'd say THAT) - yet Lacy has "factually connected" the DNA to the "killer". We all know that if you don't know who the killer is- you can't say for sure they DNA belongs to the killer. The DA's office still can collect samples from all the White's male party guests (even the kids) to see if there WAS an innocent transfer. But I bet they won't. Lacy wants to go out as having exonerated the Rs and finding the killer.

I don't think so. I'll look for the article, but I think she used the term 'highly likely' or equivalent.

Found it:

"The unexplained third-party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence," Lacy said. "It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder."

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't think so. I'll look for the article, but I think she used the term 'highly likely' or equivalent.

Found it:

"The unexplained third-party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence," Lacy said. "It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder."

But she has cleared the Rs based on that evidence. So admittedly she based her statements on something that isn't really factually connected to the murder at this point. The "innocent explanation" could be that someone who legitimately touched those 3 places (like JBR herself or JR and PR- both have admitted touching her waistband (PR when she pulled them on her, JR when he carried her body up holding her around the waist) whose HAND touched a male's hand who was at that party could have transferred the skin cells innocently to those 3 places.

 

[Chrishope]

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.

It's just like Kaczynksi - we'll only solve it with a confession or by Burke talking. Even then, the "exoneration" and general mismanagement of the case will prevent any R from ever being convicted.

You can't blame me for playing the same game you play. There are no factual connections in the sense that a court of law has said they are facts. All we have is some evidence and theories. The only way to get a handle on the case now is to look at the evidence and ask what reasonable conclusions can be drawn. Most of us think it's reasonable to conclude that the Rs did it.

 

[Chrishope]

"The unexplained third-party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence," Lacy said. "It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder."

The dna is not factually connected to any individual. Lacy's opinion on "liklihood" is just that - an unfounded opinion not based on evidence or facts.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

"The unexplained third-party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence," Lacy said. "It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder."

The dna is not factually connected to any individual. Lacy's opinion on "liklihood" is just that - an unfounded opinion not based on evidence or facts.

For a long time, the 'analysis' of the 911 call was thought to be powerful evidence. Now you've got unidentified male DNA showing up at the crime scene and you would have us believe it is not powerful evidence. It IS powerful evidence, EVEN for RDI. The only way unidentified male DNA showing up at the crime scene isn't powerful evidence for RDI is if RDI already made its mind up and is unable to cope with any contradictory information.

 

[Chrishope]

For a long time, the 'analysis' of the 911 call was thought to be powerful evidence. Now you've got unidentified male DNA showing up at the crime scene and you would have us believe it is not powerful evidence. It IS powerful evidence, EVEN for RDI. The only way unidentified male DNA showing up at the crime scene isn't powerful evidence for RDI is if RDI already made its mind up and is unable to cope with any contradictory information.

By your own admission, nothing is factually linked, and you've said that it won't be until it's connected to an individual. The dna evidence can't become "powerful" until it's linked to an individual.

As it stands now, the dna could belong to a serial child molester/killer who was in Boulder that night, or it could belong to a kid that was at the party.

It's been running through CODIS for years w/o a match. The notion that it's "powerful" is merely a claim. It has no basis in fact. If it's never identified it will never be powerful.

Perhaps you meant it is potentially powerful?

The 911 tape, by contrast, is linked to the Rs, and clearly Burke is asking "What did you find" which contradicts the Rs statement that Burke was in bed at the time.

 

[angelwngs]

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.

Exactly! And nobody can tell me that the connection of Alex Hunter owning a building with several of the Ramsey's lawyers was not a conflict of interest! Alex Hunter should have immediately recused himself from the case! It was all "political" with the bottom line boiling down to the almighty dollar. I hope Alex Hunter gets his due in the next life...for his underhanded, ruthless actions because I don't see it happening in this life...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

By your own admission, nothing is factually linked, and you've said that it won't be until it's connected to an individual. The dna evidence can't become "powerful" until it's linked to an individual.

As it stands now, the dna could belong to a serial child molester/killer who was in Boulder that night, or it could belong to a kid that was at the party.

It's been running through CODIS for years w/o a match. The notion that it's "powerful" is merely a claim. It has no basis in fact. If it's never identified it will never be powerful.

Perhaps you meant it is potentially powerful?

The 911 tape, by contrast, is linked to the Rs, and clearly Burke is asking "What did you find" which contradicts the Rs statement that Burke was in bed at the time.

Uh, I didn't mean anything. Lacy used the word powerful, not me. As far as I'm concerned, the DNA doesn't have to belong to the killer at all.

It could belong to one of the two gentlemen who helped.

If you believe that matching unknown male DNA found in three places on clothing JBR was wearing at the time she was murdered isn't powerful, or got their innocently, I've got a bridge or two for sale (LOL).

 

[JMO8778]

By your own admission, nothing is factually linked, and you've said that it won't be until it's connected to an individual. The dna evidence can't become "powerful" until it's linked to an individual.

As it stands now, the dna could belong to a serial child molester/killer who was in Boulder that night, or it could belong to a kid that was at the party.

It's been running through CODIS for years w/o a match. The notion that it's "powerful" is merely a claim. It has no basis in fact. If it's never identified it will never be powerful.

Perhaps you meant it is potentially powerful?

The 911 tape, by contrast, is linked to the Rs, and clearly Burke is asking "What did you find" which contradicts the Rs statement that Burke was in bed at the time.

not to mention,the R's themselves changed their story on that,and admitted he was indeed awake! they had no choice since he was on the tape.they had to explain it somehow.(reminds me of the underwear exchange as well).when things don't fit,they make changes to attempt to make it seem it does fit.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

Alex Hunter: the man who said he didn't try on probable cause. Wouldn't know a conviction if it bit him in the a**.

 

[BBB167893]

Wha?



You're wrong, I think. Look at the 2nd floor layout. A set of stairs from the 3rd to the 2nd floor are adjacent to the spiral, yes, but the main stairs were at the eastern end and connected all three floors.

But how could a stranger know all of that?

 

[BBB167893]

For a long time, the 'analysis' of the 911 call was thought to be powerful evidence.

It is.

Now you've got unidentified male DNA showing up at the crime scene and you would have us believe it is not powerful evidence. It IS powerful evidence, EVEN for RDI. The only way unidentified male DNA showing up at the crime scene isn't powerful evidence for RDI is if RDI already made its mind up and is unable to cope with any contradictory information.

You just described the DA, just in reverse.

DNA is everywhere. And the more sensitive the tests get, the more likely they are to find DNA that is just an artifact. (Lacy's word, by the way)

 

[UKGuy]

It is.



You just described the DA, just in reverse.

DNA is everywhere. And the more sensitive the tests get, the more likely they are to find DNA that is just an artifact. (Lacy's word, by the way)

SuperDave,
If the DNA results are so powerful and truth revealing why are all the results not made public e.g. is John's touch dna on any clothing , likewise Patsy's. Knowing this would help to distinguish between the parents version of events and that of an unknown intruder.

 

[Roy23]

But she has cleared the Rs based on that evidence. So admittedly she based her statements on something that isn't really factually connected to the murder at this point. The "innocent explanation" could be that someone who legitimately touched those 3 places (like JBR herself or JR and PR- both have admitted touching her waistband (PR when she pulled them on her, JR when he carried her body up holding her around the waist) whose HAND touched a male's hand who was at that party could have transferred the skin cells innocently to those 3 places.

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. 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.

In Mr. Thomas book, he explains the conversation he had with Lou Smit. It is powerful. But I will read it again. There is no smoking gun. 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. 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.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the status of this case. 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. The one thing we all agree on is that the guilty party in some fashion is a Ramsey or connected to a Ramsey.

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

 

[Roy23]

SuperDave,
If the DNA results are so powerful and truth revealing why are all the results not made public e.g. is John's touch dna on any clothing , likewise Patsy's. Knowing this would help to distinguish between the parents version of events and that of an unknown intruder.

Do you think in any case that it would be wise to release that kind of information to the public? I hear what you are saying and do not discount all of it but too much information was already released to the public. It may be a no brainer that there was an intruder but that needs to stay in house. Some knucklehead may be sitting on a computer in Thailand or something trying to make himself part of the investigation. Also if it ever goes to trial it could hurt.

 

[UKGuy]

Do you think in any case that it would be wise to release that kind of information to the public? I hear what you are saying and do not discount all of it but too much information was already released to the public. It may be a no brainer that there was an intruder but that needs to stay in house. Some knucklehead may be sitting on a computer in Thailand or something trying to make himself part of the investigation. Also if it ever goes to trial it could hurt.

Roy23,
If its the same dna , whats the problem? All I'd like to know is the touch dna on JonBenet's clothing consistent with the parents version of events, if so, lets hear about it. That should be no touch dna from John on JonBenet's size-12's, similarly for Patsy. Also Patsy's touch dna should be on the longjohns since she stated she redressed JonBenet in those.


.

 

[Roy23]

Roy23,
If its the same dna , whats the problem? All I'd like to know is the touch dna on JonBenet's clothing consistent with the parents version of events, if so, lets hear about it. That should be no touch dna from John on JonBenet's size-12's, similarly for Patsy. Also Patsy's touch dna should be on the longjohns since she stated she redressed JonBenet in those.


.

I understand. Maybe they did find other sources or maybe not. I can't just assume they are hiding results to clear the Ramseys though. I think they have reasons for keeping certain aspects of the case quiet due to people like us and the John Carr's of the world.

 

[UKGuy]

I understand. Maybe they did find other sources or maybe not. I can't just assume they are hiding results to clear the Ramseys though. I think they have reasons for keeping certain aspects of the case quiet due to people like us and the John Carr's of the world.

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!


.
.