John Ramsey on Oprah

[Ames]

This is crazy. I am sorry to say that but it is true. A factory worker is not going to have his DNA in all of these places. I truly wish Henry Lee could read this and set this straight from the new developments. It would end this nonsense.

Your wish is my command....

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008...tion-still-co/


"Lee, who originally was called in to help on the case by former District Attorney Alex Hunter, has not been contacted by Lacy’s office to assist. But, Lee said, he wants to know if advancements in the “touch DNA” method of testing might turn up more supportive DNA on other pieces of evidence, such as the rope used in JonBenet’s death.
“And they still have this note problem,” Lee said of the three-page ransom letter recovered at the scene. “Those issues are just like pieces of a puzzle that cannot fit together at this point.”
Lee said if the DNA that’s turned up now on both JonBenet’s panties and long johns shows up on other pieces of evidence, that would be even more powerful. But whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.
“It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said. “That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”

 

[angelwngs]

I could see Patsy buying longjohns at a yard sale, but not panties. I don't know though. I still think that the DNA arrived on the panties and longjohns via transference from something or someone....(other than an invisible intruder), for example...JB played with other kids at the party, she could have even used the White's toilet, the Ramsey's (as another poster mentioned...was it you?) could have shook hands with someone and then transferred the touch DNA, that is just how easy the stuff transfers from one place to another. All you have to do is touch someone or something...and then touch another person, or another item...and viola....THEIR touch DNA is on the object that YOU touched.

I agree. Panties are not something many mothers would normally buy used. However, Patsy said that JBR found those panties which she had bought for a gift at Bloomingdales for her niece and JBR "begged" to have them because they were just like her set of Days of the Week panities.
Maybe part of this is true. Maybe the part about JBR begging to have the panties was true.

Imagine, you are standing at a yard sale. The owners are standing in front of you and your child is pitching a fit for a pair of undies just like she already has a set. The undies cost a dime or a quarter. Are you going to fight with your child and explain in front of the seller that you don't buy used undies or are you going to pay the quarter and plan to explain it later. Actually, I can totally see Patsy doing this and then bringing them home and never havig a converstaton w/JBR about it and letting her wear them too!

 

[Ames]

I agree. Panties are not something many mothers would normally buy used. However, Patsy said that JBR found those panties which she had bought for a gift at Bloomingdales for her niece and JBR "begged" to have them because they were just like her set of Days of the Week panities.
Maybe part of this is true. Maybe the part about JBR begging to have the panties was true.

Imagine, you are standing at a yard sale. The owners are standing in front of you and your child is pitching a fit for a pair of undies just like she already has a set. The undies cost a dime or a quarter. Are you going to fight with your child and explain in front of the seller that you don't buy used undies or are you going to pay the quarter and plan to explain it later. Actually, I can totally see Patsy doing this and then bringing them home and never havig a converstaton w/JBR about it and letting her wear them too!

I suppose that forensic experts can tell if they were used or fresh out of the package. I thought that Henry Lee even said that they were unused and fresh out of the package. Ahhhh..who knows with this case. It gives me a headache everytime I think about it.

 

[Ames]

http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/2008/07/factual-evidence-in-jonbent-ramsey-case.html


"Apparently, Lacy thought this was enough to disregard every other piece of evidence in the case. Imagine spilling out a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle on a table in front of you. Find two red pieces and match them together. Throw out the other 498 pieces and tell yourself, "I don't need to finish this, I know what it is, it's a picture of an apple!" When, in fact, the picture was a large, red, barn with horses out front. Mary Lacy is clearly not proficient in puzzle solving."

 

[angelwngs]

The fact that PR went to yard sales shows that she was on the inside totally different than she projected on the outside. She even had to justify going to yardsales by saying that she loved to weed through the "junk" to find "treasures". She had to "put down" the idea of a yard sale, yet justify her going to one by suggesting that people sometimes were so ignorant that they sold 'treasures' at a bargin price. This sometimes does indeed happen that people don't realize the value of something they are selling, but my point is that Patsy couldn't just say that they 'loved to go to yard sales' without trying to justify it by putting others down in order to build herself up in the minds of others.

Patsy was a person that, had I met her in real life, I would have run. I would have run like the wind to get away from her.

 

[angelwngs]

http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/2008/07/factual-evidence-in-jonbent-ramsey-case.html


"Apparently, Lacy thought this was enough to disregard every other piece of evidence in the case. Imagine spilling out a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle on a table in front of you. Find two red pieces and match them together. Throw out the other 498 pieces and tell yourself, "I don't need to finish this, I know what it is, it's a picture of an apple!" When, in fact, the picture was a large, red, barn with horses out front. Mary Lacy is clearly not proficient in puzzle solving."

Very Good Analogy to show exactly what ML did!

 

[Ames]

Very Good Analogy to show exactly what ML did!

Yes, I thought so too. It was written by Stacy Dittrich.

 

[twinkiesmom]

This is crazy. I am sorry to say that but it is true. A factory worker is not going to have his DNA in all of these places. I truly wish Henry Lee could read this and set this straight from the new developments. It would end this nonsense.

It's not crazy...The factory worker made every seam on the panties, right? Do you think he avoided touching the crotch because it was unseamly?

 

[JMO8778]

I think the dna was on either Patsy's on JR's hands (arms if they were wearing gloves).the underwear came in contact w their skin,and whatever was already there transferred to that and to the LJ's.actually this proves the LJ's and underwear were put on her at the same time,as would have been done during staging.
Patsy or John either one could and probably would have shook hands w someone at the White's.
no intruder would bother pulling those back up after she'd screamed.he'd have gotten out of there asap!!

 

[Roy23]

I think the dna was on either Patsy's on JR's hands (arms if they were wearing gloves).the underwear came in contact w their skin,and whatever was already there transferred to that and to the LJ's.actually this proves the LJ's and underwear were put on her at the same time,as would have been done during staging.
Patsy or John either one could and probably would have shook hands w someone at the White's.
no intruder would bother pulling those back up after she'd screamed.he'd have gotten out of there asap!!

Wouldn't Patsy's or John's DNA almost definitely be found on the areas of question if your scenario were true?

 

[Roy23]

Your wish is my command....

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008...tion-still-co/


"Lee, who originally was called in to help on the case by former District Attorney Alex Hunter, has not been contacted by Lacy’s office to assist. But, Lee said, he wants to know if advancements in the “touch DNA” method of testing might turn up more supportive DNA on other pieces of evidence, such as the rope used in JonBenet’s death.
“And they still have this note problem,” Lee said of the three-page ransom letter recovered at the scene. “Those issues are just like pieces of a puzzle that cannot fit together at this point.”
Lee said if the DNA that’s turned up now on both JonBenet’s panties and long johns shows up on other pieces of evidence, that would be even more powerful. But whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.
“It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said. “That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”

Excellent stuff Ames.

Dr. Lee deals in DNA. He is not saying that the evidence does not exonerate the Ramsey's. He is saying that it is powerful evidence. He is saying it is not his call. He is also saying there are other pieces of evidence that cannot be explained yet. So the touch DNA is powerful evidence but it could be made much more powerful if they would go further and find it on the rope or other places.

Your quote where you saying he questioning the validity is him just saying he is not a laywer and it falls out of his scope. But the DNA is powerful when added to the DNA in the panties.

 

[JMO8778]

Wouldn't Patsy's or John's DNA almost definitely be found on the areas of question if your scenario were true?

I don't believe they were even tested,as Patsy said she'd dressed her,and JR carried her up the stairs by the waist when he 'found' her.so their own would be there anyway.

 

[Ames]

Excellent stuff Ames.

Dr. Lee deals in DNA. He is not saying that the evidence does not exonerate the Ramsey's. He is saying that it is powerful evidence. He is saying it is not his call. He is also saying there are other pieces of evidence that cannot be explained yet. So the touch DNA is powerful evidence but it could be made much more powerful if they would go further and find it on the rope or other places.

Your quote where you saying he questioning the validity is him just saying he is not a laywer and it falls out of his scope. But the DNA is powerful when added to the DNA in the panties.

Sounds like he is saying that we need more evidence to fully exonerate them, to me.

 

[Roy23]

I don't believe they were even tested,as Patsy said she'd dressed her,and JR carried her up the stairs by the waist when he 'found' her.so their own would be there anyway.

The one thing that I know was no DNA of the Ramsey's was found that indicated that they either abused or killed their daughter. That is documented and it upset quite a few people involved in the case. There was though DNA found in at least two areas that did indicated that someone unknown to the case did abuse JB sexually.

I can't change anyones mind anyway and no one can change mine. I just read that from Dr. Lee and when I read it I think the majority of this board is looking for a needle in a haystack. I have read a lot of the issues that cause people to distrust the Ramsey's. I understand it. They are weird people. But I understand why they acted the way they did even if I would have done differently. Even though they have no evidence pointing to John or Patsy as having abused or killed JBR, some evidence exists that they are liars and self centered people. The police acted so bad and they did everything wrong that they had to backtrack to avoid embarrassment. I, at minimum, would have lawyered up immediately.

I just want them to find the source of that foreign DNA and go from there.

 

[Roy23]

Sounds like he is saying that we need more evidence to fully exonerate them, to me.

Actually, not at all.

He is saying that the case is colder than it ever was before. Now with the new evidence that proves more conclusive that the Ramsey's are no longer suspects, it is an colder case that at any time.

He does say that more touch DNA testing could be even more helpful.

 

[Ames]

Wouldn't Patsy's or John's DNA almost definitely be found on the areas of question if your scenario were true?

According to the experts, during the process of testing for Touch DNA from an unknown assailant...other DNA from the people that were actually known to have touched the garment..like Patsy, when she admits that she is the one that put the longjohns on JB in the first place, and John...who admitted that he picked JB's body up at the hips, and carried her upstairs...are destroyed. IOW..we KNOW for sure that their Touch DNA would have been on the longjohns, because they admitted to touching the longjohns. Why waste a test on something that we already know as a fact, is I guess the way that the experts look at it. SO...Patsy and John's DNA on that certain part of the longjohns was destroyed in the process of the testing.

 

[Ames]

Actually, not at all.

He is saying that the case is colder than it ever was before. Now with the new evidence that proves more conclusive that the Ramsey's are no longer suspects, it is an colder case that at any time.

He does say that more touch DNA testing could be even more helpful.

This is the part that I am talking about.

"But whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say."

And it sounds like to me that he doesn't agree with the DA, but that his opinion doesn't count, because he is not a lawyer.

“It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said. “That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”

 

[Roy23]

This is the part that I am talking about.

"But whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say."

And it sounds like to me that he doesn't agree with the DA, but that his opinion doesn't count, because he is not a lawyer.

“It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said. “That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”

Exactly.

He can only speak for what he is an expert in. And that is DNA. He says the DNA is powerful evidence. But it could be made more powerful by more testing. He does not say that the DNA evidence exonerates or does not exonerate the Ramsey's for many reasons. One is that is not his job. And another is that the Ramsey's could be guilty but not been the killer.

This is the point that Dave and I were discussing yesterday. I would not discount it. Even though Henry Lee does not definitively say what you or I want him to say exactly, he does say that the touch DNA is valuable evidence. So much so that he thinks finding more would be even more powerful.

 

[Roy23]

I beg some of you to reason this point.

There was a time that Dr. Henry Lee cautioned the DNA in her panties. It got this board into an uproar, even though Lee was not pointing fingers. A lot of the issues went to LE's bungling of the case. Now, new DNA is found and the argument Lee was making of factory workers is H-I-S-T-O-R-Y.

He is praising touch DNA especially if you find more. I hate to be condescending and am not trying to be but it is time that the bell starts to ring on the factory worker theory.

Do any of you remember Barry Scheck on the stand in the O.J. Simpson case? Many on this board remind me of him right now. I think another theory is in order.

 

[Ames]

I beg some of you to reason this point.

There was a time that Dr. Henry Lee cautioned the DNA in her panties. It got this board into an uproar, even though Lee was not pointing fingers. A lot of the issues went to LE's bungling of the case. Now, new DNA is found and the argument Lee was making of factory workers is H-I-S-T-O-R-Y.

He is praising touch DNA especially if you find more. I hate to be condescending and am not trying to be but it is time that the bell starts to ring on the factory worker theory.

Do any of you remember Barry Scheck on the stand in the O.J. Simpson case? Many on this board remind me of him right now. I think another theory is in order.

Well, THAT my friend...explains alot!