John Ramsey on Oprah

[BBB167893]

"Agenda?" Let me be clear, sir: my agenda is justice for JonBenet. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I have to be true to myself. I hope you can understand that. I simply can't be the man you want me to be. I MUST be true to myself. As I would encourage you to be."


Not at all trying to offend you with that even though we disagree. Quite frankly, you are a true gentleman. And I mean that with great respect.

I have no problem with your disagreement. I just weigh all this stuff out in my head, and it comes out the same.

You're all right yourself.

 

[BBB167893]

I agree with you that the DNA is important. But, the test that was done on it doesn't tell us when it was left there. It could have come from a panty factory worker, as Henry Lee said. The panties came in contact with the longjohns...so that's why touch DNA was found in both places. Have you ever seen the sample of Patsy's RN and the real one? How many young people do you know that can spell attaché, or calls people Gentlemen? Patsy on the other hand, was asked to write a letter. She wasn't told what to write..and in it she says..."there are two gentlemen beside of me", she was writiing about what was going on at the time. Also, her q's and the RN author's look like the figure 8, so what are the chances in that? We will just have to agree to disagree.

It's not a question of us not believing in DNA science. It's about us knowing that one kind of crime scene DNA is not equal to another kind.

Semen from a rape is one kind of DNA evidence; skin cells on clothing are a completely different animal.

I can post some side-by-side comparisons of the writing, if anyone wishes.

 

[BBB167893]

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

AH! We don't know it WASN'T!

Just after this "development" broke, they did a televised demonstration of how this "Touch DNA" test is done. During the test, it said that the machine destroys any DNA that doesn't match what they are looking for.

That help?

 

[BBB167893]

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.

But a whole lot of other stuff was found that DOES indicate that.

I can't change anyones mind anyway and no one can change mine.

Then why bother?

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.

People distrust them because of the evidence, not their personal choices.

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.

That's twice you've hinted that they may not be innocent in the grand scheme of things. I can't figure you.

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.

That's another myth accepted as truth.

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

And if it turns out to be nothing?

 

[twinkiesmom]

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.

This statement shows a lack of reasoning. If someone is assaulted as JBR was using a foreign object (as opposed to a functioning male member) and then wiped down afterward, you're not necessarily going to find DNA.

On the other hand, if you have a young child actively playing with other kids, dirty fingernails, rubbing clothes against toilets, having non family members assist in toileting (as has been reported), it's not really surprising that you come up with foreign DNA on the child.

If you have a pair of underwear out of the package without being washed, it's not surprising to find foreign DNA on various parts of the underwear as the factory worker would have stretched and pulled it while making each of those seams on the sewing machine.

Factory worker has not been exonerated as the source of the DNA.

 

[Sivart24]

There are many people who are not ruled out as contributing to the DNA - me, you, the underwear factory, kids she played with, the people they visited that night, toilets used by JB - many chances to contaminate any part of her clothing just from normal contact with surfaces. I think the Ram lawyers were still putting pressure on a weak DA to clear PR from being a suspect just because she's dead. And the DA caved in and fell for it. Any person is going to have "foreign" dna on them, dead or alive, common sense. That doesn't erase all the other things! You can't forget about the "war and peace of ransom letters" - I believe in PR's "disguised" writing!! Too many other things point to PR, in my opinion. He's really lost it if he thinks this little tidbit of a news story makes the majority of people think "all the sudden" they are innocent. And if Oprah falls for his crap, I won't be surprised. Puhlease!! Let Nancy Grace interview him. I will never believe anything but PR/immediate family. Too much weird history from her side of the family. They just want to point to this one little thing and hope we forget about all the other things/circumstances that point straight at the family. JMHO
And I knew the Karr thing was not true from get-go. Didn't even fall for that one. IF JR wants to believe his wife is cleared in his cob web mind....then let him. :crazy: I don't.

 

[DeeDee249]

This statement shows a lack of reasoning. If someone is assaulted as JBR was using a foreign object (as opposed to a functioning male member) and then wiped down afterward, you're not necessarily going to find DNA.

On the other hand, if you have a young child actively playing with other kids, dirty fingernails, rubbing clothes against toilets, having non family members assist in toileting (as has been reported), it's not really surprising that you come up with foreign DNA on the child.

If you have a pair of underwear out of the package without being washed, it's not surprising to find foreign DNA on various parts of the underwear as the factory worker would have stretched and pulled it while making each of those seams on the sewing machine.

Factory worker has not been exonerated as the source of the DNA.

Which is why it was so reckless of DA Lacy to state that the DNA belongs to the KILLER. There is no proof of that. Because it is "touch" DNA, the DNA can't even to be proved to belong to someone who touched JBR. It could have rubbed off of the hands of whoever touched JBR and her clothes, including JBR herself.
Right now, there is NO evidence linking that DNA to JBR's killer. it doesn't even prove that the donor was present when she was killed. It doesn't prove the donor had anything to do with the crime. All is proves is that skin cells from an unknown male are present on her clothes. Now- if that same DNA is present on the paintbrush handle, the cord and the tape, now you have some solid evidence. But I'd bet they never tested it to see if there was a match on any of THOSE items.

 

[Roy23]

"But a whole lot of other stuff was found that DOES indicate that."

Name one piece of evidence that would indicate that the Ramsey's killed their daughter. Make it something that an average DA would take to trial. This board is a lynching crew that is ignoring the basics of DNA. And I will swear to you that as Dr. Lee and other experts keep talking you will have to let this go. There is a persons DNA out there who was in JBR's panties and clothes. It is not a factory workers DNA. And there is also a whole lot of information that you and I are not privy to that allowed Mary Lacy and numerous experts make the decision they made.

I have been involved in a number of cases that i have been wrong. I have learned how to not put all my eggs in one basket. I have learned from my mistakes. I have learned not to listen to the media or people who want to profit on the case. I have also learned that in a case like this they will find the source of this foreign DNA. And when they get him, the defense attorney is going to have a field day with all the screwups. Read my lips---Bank on it.

 

[BBB167893]

"But a whole lot of other stuff was found that DOES indicate that."

Name one piece of evidence that would indicate that the Ramsey's killed their daughter. Make it something that an average DA would take to trial.

Frankly, it's not a question of showing one thing; it's a combination of everything. Each piece of evidence is part of the larger puzzle, and a good DA has to put all of them together. There are a lot of pieces that, in a vacuum, don't specifically point to them killing her (covering it up, maybe), but that's the key: when you take the whole gestalt, it gets more interesting.

Also, you just nailed it: an AVERAGE DA. As in one who has actually taken a murder case to trial in the last 20 years.

Okay, let's start from the beginning:

Fibers from the sweater Patsy Ramsey was known to have worn that night were found on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth. Several people have tried to claim that this proves nothing because the tape had been removed from JonBenet's mouth by her father and handled by others, thus they could have transferred innocently. But those same fibers were found inside the blanket that JonBenet was wrapped up in, and were found inside the little box that Patsy Ramsey kept her art supplies in. Remember, one of her brushes had formed the handle of the ligature that JonBenet was strangled with. But most notably, those fibers were found tied into the knots of the cord itself. No such fibers were found directly on JonBenet's body. What's more, she made no attempt to answer the question and give a possible innocent explanation. Two years later, she told a CBS reporter that her fibers had transferred to JonBenet that morning because Patsy, who had been wearing the same clothing she had worn at the party, laid on top of her. But this cannot explain it. In their own book, Death of Innocence, John Ramsey writes that by the time Patsy came near the body, JonBenet was already fully covered. This is borne out by the police reports.

I've got more, a LOT more. But you'd probably just brush them off as coincidences. And, to be fair, because you deserve honesty, some of it didn't necessarily have to be done specifically by them. We can only draw the inference. Here's an example:

JonBenet had vaginal injuries that were older than the night she was killed. She had been molested prior to the night she was killed. Expert analyses have put it anywhere from three to ten days prior. Like I said, by itself, that's not a lead-pipe cinch it was one of them. But it sure narrows the field.

This board is a lynching crew

You're wasting time with that nonsense.

that is ignoring the basics of DNA.

The basics of DNA are that not all DNA is related to a crime. Nedthan Johns named a case not too long ago where DNA got the wrong person.

And I will swear to you that as Dr. Lee and other experts keep talking you will have to let this go.

I haven't heard too many, including Lee, say this is the end-all be-all.

There is a persons DNA out there who was in JBR's panties and clothes. It is not a factory workers DNA.

That's one man's opinion.

And there is also a whole lot of information that you and I are not privy to that allowed Mary Lacy and numerous experts make the decision they made.

I doubt it. Mary Lacy herself said that everything was already public.

I have been involved in a number of cases that i have been wrong.

You're a cop? Pardon my asking.

I have learned how to not put all my eggs in one basket.

If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I could hardly be accused of bandwagon thinking.

I have learned not to listen to the media or people who want to profit on the case.

Never mind the media. What about all the LE agents?

I have also learned that in a case like this they will find the source of this foreign DNA. And when they get him, the defense attorney is going to have a field day with all the screwups. Read my lips---Bank on it.

I wouldn't bet on any of that, given what I know.

 

[JMO8778]

Now, new DNA is found and the argument Lee was making of factory workers is H-I-S-T-O-R-Y.

so YOU say.....but not quite.

 

[JMO8778]

There are many people who are not ruled out as contributing to the DNA - me, you, the underwear factory, kids she played with, the people they visited that night, toilets used by JB - many chances to contaminate any part of her clothing just from normal contact with surfaces. I think the Ram lawyers were still putting pressure on a weak DA to clear PR from being a suspect just because she's dead. And the DA caved in and fell for it. Any person is going to have "foreign" dna on them, dead or alive, common sense. That doesn't erase all the other things! You can't forget about the "war and peace of ransom letters" - I believe in PR's "disguised" writing!! Too many other things point to PR, in my opinion. He's really lost it if he thinks this little tidbit of a news story makes the majority of people think "all the sudden" they are innocent. And if Oprah falls for his crap, I won't be surprised. Puhlease!! Let Nancy Grace interview him. I will never believe anything but PR/immediate family. Too much weird history from her side of the family. They just want to point to this one little thing and hope we forget about all the other things/circumstances that point straight at the family. JMHO
And I knew the Karr thing was not true from get-go. Didn't even fall for that one. IF JR wants to believe his wife is cleared in his cob web mind....then let him. :crazy: I don't.

great post..welcome to WS!!

 

[JMO8778]

I guess we can't go any further then. Some food for thought. I know and understand that I have foreign DNA on me right now.

..and if you were killed,any dna found on you wouldn't necessarily be that of the killer's.
if it was on your underwear and or LJ's,then that simply could have come from you going to the restroom.

 

[JMO8778]

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.

thanks,Ames

 

[Roy23]

Frankly, it's not a question of showing one thing; it's a combination of everything. Each piece of evidence is part of the larger puzzle, and a good DA has to put all of them together. There are a lot of pieces that, in a vacuum, don't specifically point to them killing her (covering it up, maybe), but that's the key: when you take the whole gestalt, it gets more interesting.

Also, you just nailed it: an AVERAGE DA. As in one who has actually taken a murder case to trial in the last 20 years.

Okay, let's start from the beginning:

Fibers from the sweater Patsy Ramsey was known to have worn that night were found on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth. Several people have tried to claim that this proves nothing because the tape had been removed from JonBenet's mouth by her father and handled by others, thus they could have transferred innocently. But those same fibers were found inside the blanket that JonBenet was wrapped up in, and were found inside the little box that Patsy Ramsey kept her art supplies in. Remember, one of her brushes had formed the handle of the ligature that JonBenet was strangled with. But most notably, those fibers were found tied into the knots of the cord itself. No such fibers were found directly on JonBenet's body. What's more, she made no attempt to answer the question and give a possible innocent explanation. Two years later, she told a CBS reporter that her fibers had transferred to JonBenet that morning because Patsy, who had been wearing the same clothing she had worn at the party, laid on top of her. But this cannot explain it. In their own book, Death of Innocence, John Ramsey writes that by the time Patsy came near the body, JonBenet was already fully covered. This is borne out by the police reports.

I've got more, a LOT more. But you'd probably just brush them off as coincidences. And, to be fair, because you deserve honesty, some of it didn't necessarily have to be done specifically by them. We can only draw the inference. Here's an example:

JonBenet had vaginal injuries that were older than the night she was killed. She had been molested prior to the night she was killed. Expert analyses have put it anywhere from three to ten days prior. Like I said, by itself, that's not a lead-pipe cinch it was one of them. But it sure narrows the field.



You're wasting time with that nonsense.



The basics of DNA are that not all DNA is related to a crime. Nedthan Johns named a case not too long ago where DNA got the wrong person.



I haven't heard too many, including Lee, say this is the end-all be-all.



That's one man's opinion.



I doubt it. Mary Lacy herself said that everything was already public.



You're a cop? Pardon my asking.



If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I could hardly be accused of bandwagon thinking.



Never mind the media. What about all the LE agents?



I wouldn't bet on any of that, given what I know.

Dave,

I could argue any of the points you made, but putting a lot of pieces together with the evidence you are providing is necessary. The prior sexual abuse, which is not absolute, is absolutely critical to your case. I think your book and case needs to explain the DNA in a much better way than is listed as possibilities on this site. You pieces will never fit without doing so. You drill on Lacy, but she doesn't have jack to with the DNA findings. You are not wanting to accept the foreign DNA for what it is. Two months ago the case changed and it wasn't Lacy who did it. It was a reputable DNA lab and I can promise that.

The FBI helped get this case on track. There are hundred of cases where LE have DNA matches but no suspect. In most of those cases, most of the evidence is not public knowlege. This case never went to trial for a specific reason. LE did everything in their power but it did not add up. A Ramsey will never be proven or even go to trial unless the foreign DNA is explained and revealed because a real person was there and was there THAT NIGHT.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

I could argue any of the points you made

As I said: any one thing is arguable, but the whole gestalt is daunting, indeed.

but putting a lot of pieces together with the evidence you are providing is necessary.

I said that too, did I not?

But that was just the opener.

The prior sexual abuse, which is not absolute,

It's not absolute, I grant, in this sense: it would be ideal if JonBenet could tell us herself, but she can't. It's strong enough for me.

I am curious: what's your take, either way? I mean, surely you realize that the molester and the intruder COULD be the same person, right?

is absolutely critical to your case.

I would agree with that, but only in terms of MY specific theory. I devoted and entire chapter to that one. I can't speak for everyone else.

I think your book and case needs to explain the DNA in a much better way than is listed as possibilities on this site.

Sometimes the answers we hear are the only ones that can be given, Roy23. It took me a long time to realize that. But you make a good point. I don't feel I've expanded on it enough. I will say this though: enough forensic scientists have said that DNA (in general) is not necessarily the end-all, be-all.

You pieces will never fit without doing so.

That's another thing I've learned about crime: not every piece needs to fit. You don't have to reinvent the wheel. I have yet to find a case where every single element clicks together as kosher as it does in the movies. It just doesn't work that way. Maybe I'm prejudiced because of that, I don't know.

You drill on Lacy, but she doesn't have jack to with the DNA findings.

"Jack to" do what? Roy23, are you telling me that you are legitimately unaware of what Lacy has done in this case from day one? Because I can quote chapter and verse.

You are not wanting to accept the foreign DNA for what it is.

For what the DA SAYS it is, you mean.

Two months ago the case changed and it wasn't Lacy who did it. It was a reputable DNA lab and I can promise that.

The lab found it, but it was Lacy's opinion that it meant something. And she's made her feelings very clear.

The FBI helped get this case on track.

Absolutely! That's what I said! And then Lacy knocked it off track. She's never even talked to them. One of several sources she's never talked to. I can go down the list.

There are hundred of cases where LE have DNA matches but no suspect. In most of those cases, most of the evidence is not public knowlege.

This isn't most cases.

This case never went to trial for a specific reason.

RIGHT! Because they could never figure out which parent killed her and which one just aided the coverup. That's not just my opinion: Vincent Bugliosi, Wendy Murphy, Pete Hofstrom, all said the same thing.

LE did everything in their power but it did not add up.

The COPS did everything in their power. The DA didn't TRY to add it up. My book is very specific on that. I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my rear-end, you know.

A Ramsey will never be proven or even go to trial unless the foreign DNA is explained and revealed because a real person was there and was there THAT NIGHT.

Sadly, you're probably right. And even then, you can't prosecute the dead.

Make no mistake: even if Patsy Ramsey killed her, I don't hate her for it. I make that very clear.

 

[Roy23]

As I said: any one thing is arguable, but the whole gestalt is daunting, indeed.



I said that too, did I not?

But that was just the opener.



It's not absolute, I grant, in this sense: it would be ideal if JonBenet could tell us herself, but she can't. It's strong enough for me.

I am curious: what's your take, either way? I mean, surely you realize that the molester and the intruder COULD be the same person, right?



I would agree with that, but only in terms of MY specific theory. I devoted and entire chapter to that one. I can't speak for everyone else.



Sometimes the answers we hear are the only ones that can be given, Roy23. It took me a long time to realize that. But you make a good point. I don't feel I've expanded on it enough. I will say this though: enough forensic scientists have said that DNA (in general) is not necessarily the end-all, be-all.




That's another thing I've learned about crime: not every piece needs to fit. You don't have to reinvent the wheel. I have yet to find a case where every single element clicks together as kosher as it does in the movies. It just doesn't work that way. Maybe I'm prejudiced because of that, I don't know.



"Jack to" do what? Roy23, are you telling me that you are legitimately unaware of what Lacy has done in this case from day one? Because I can quote chapter and verse.



For what the DA SAYS it is, you mean.



The lab found it, but it was Lacy's opinion that it meant something. And she's made her feelings very clear.



Absolutely! That's what I said! And then Lacy knocked it off track. She's never even talked to them. One of several sources she's never talked to. I can go down the list.



This isn't most cases.



RIGHT! Because they could never figure out which parent killed her and which one just aided the coverup. That's not just my opinion: Vincent Bugliosi, Wendy Murphy, Pete Hofstrom, all said the same thing.



The COPS did everything in their power. The DA didn't TRY to add it up. My book is very specific on that. I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my rear-end, you know.



Sadly, you're probably right. And even then, you can't prosecute the dead.

Make no mistake: even if Patsy Ramsey killed her, I don't hate her for it. I make that very clear.

Dave,

I cannot argue but with any of your points except for one. And that is the analysis or Mary Lacy's analysis of the DNA. It clearly points to another person in that house that night. And with that, it points squarely at another killer no matter what Patsy or John knows. The experts clearly state it as well even though other groups of evidence points elsewhere.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

I cannot argue but with any of your points except for one.

Roy, I have to hand it to you: you're doing your best to be openminded about this. At least for argument's sake. I like that.

And that is the analysis or Mary Lacy's analysis of the DNA. It clearly points to another person in that house that night.

I have yet to hear a lab person say how it got there, Roy. Only the DA has said that.

And with that, it points squarely at another killer no matter what Patsy or John knows. The experts clearly state it as well even though other groups of evidence points elsewhere.

Well, you just kind of said it for me: even if I were to agree there was another killer, that still leaves me wondering what they knew and when they knew it.

See my problem? (Not asking you to agree with it; just if you can understand it.)

Now, I'm going to say something, and I'm hoping you won't be offended: you seem to be bothered when a prosecutor acts inappropriately. Am I wrong?

What if I were to show you that happened in this case? Just saying.

 

[Roy23]

Well, you just kind of said it for me: even if I were to agree there was another killer, that still leaves me wondering what they knew and when they knew it.

See my problem? (Not asking you to agree with it; just if you can understand it.)

Now, I'm going to say something, and I'm hoping you won't be offended: you seem to be bothered when a prosecutor acts inappropriately. Am I wrong?

What if I were to show you that happened in this case? Just saying.


Dave,

I am not defending John or Patsy Ramsey's character or what they knew and did not know. I am defending DNA evidence that I believe and I am reading the experts clearly say is sound and solid. They are saying it EXPRESSLY.

You could show me anything and I might believe it. As long as the DNA is seen for what it is. Take this for example. What if there was other touch DNA that was done on the rope or other areas like Dr. Lee said would make it even more powerful. If so, or if it already has been, it will not be released to the public.

The best I can give is that Mary Lacy may have made a mistake by clearing the Ramseys but only by the act of killing.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

I am not defending John or Patsy Ramsey's character or what they knew and did not know. I am defending DNA evidence that I believe and I am reading the experts clearly say is sound and solid. They are saying it EXPRESSLY.

Just asking a private opinion, is all.

You could show me anything and I might believe it.

Hmm.

The best I can give is that Mary Lacy may have made a mistake by clearing the Ramseys but only by the act of killing.

I can live with that.

 

[Ames]

This statement shows a lack of reasoning. If someone is assaulted as JBR was using a foreign object (as opposed to a functioning male member) and then wiped down afterward, you're not necessarily going to find DNA.

On the other hand, if you have a young child actively playing with other kids, dirty fingernails, rubbing clothes against toilets, having non family members assist in toileting (as has been reported), it's not really surprising that you come up with foreign DNA on the child.

If you have a pair of underwear out of the package without being washed, it's not surprising to find foreign DNA on various parts of the underwear as the factory worker would have stretched and pulled it while making each of those seams on the sewing machine.

Factory worker has not been exonerated as the source of the DNA.

A thought just occurred to me. I know that when we lived in Montana, (not far from Colorado) in the winter months, my then 8 year old daughter always wore long johns under her clothing. WHAT IF JB was wearing those longjohns under the pants that she wore to the White's party, and since she was known to ask ANYBODY to wipe her...she could have gotten someone at the party to help her pull her pants and longjohns down, since longjohns are tight. Heck, it could be that person's touch DNA on her long johns..and it transferred to her panties. There is no telling where that touch DNA came from. Just because it is there, doesn't mean that it belongs to some unknown intruder/killer.