what would make you think that?
Lacy isn't hard to read...try this for starters: www.forstevethomas.com
she didn't earn the name 'Spacey Lacy' for nothing.she has an agenda.
Low copy number (LCN) DNA = Ramsey's far from cleared
- Thread starter cynic
- Start date
-
Give Us This Day Our Daily Thread December 1st through December 31st 2025- Latest: killarney rose
Lacy isn't hard to read...try this for starters: www.forstevethomas.com
she didn't earn the name 'Spacey Lacy' for nothing.she has an agenda.
What everyone here seems to be forgetting is that Mary Lacy already said that every single thing has been made public knowledge.
We also seem to be forgetting that no one in the DA's office can keep his or her mouth shut. If there was more, we'd know.
I get you, Roy23. Sometimes I have my doubts. Admittedly, such moments don't last long, but you know...
Well, I don't think anyone is pushing a conspiracy theory as you call it. But if you mean they have a good idea as to who did it, I can live with that.
Maybe this will help illustrate my point: back when JMK was all over the news, there was a radio host named Alan Stock who decided to throw his two cents in. He said something that kind of stuck with me. He said he didn't necessarily buy the idea that the parents had killed her, but that there was enough evidence to suggest to him that they participated in the coverup. A few months later, Henry Lee said that there was more than enough evidence to file charges against the Ramseys on those cover-up charges, and he named a few of them specifically: obstruction of justice. But he pointed out that under Colorado law, you can't charge someone with anything relating to a murder case when murder charges have not been filed. So that was out. A technicality.
Is that what you mean? You seem (maybe I'm reading you wrong) open to the idea that the Rs are not completely innocent.
Any of this help?
No, I don't think you do. I personally heard all I needed to hear five years ago when her go-round with Tom Haney became public knowledge. Real professional, this one.
Well, I know where I stand. But I sympathize.
Don't hold your breath.
I agree. I don't think Mary Lacy ever wanted this case solved. Let me rephrase that: I think solving it took a backseat to helping out her friends.
Uh-huh. And just what misinformation would that be on Conservapedia, JMO? (Actually, I have to thank you. I never would have found that site if not for you!)
Okay, I will answer both of you in one post. I understand all the disdain for Mary Lacy and her actions. Let me just give you my opinon on the case and you can take it from there. I believe the DNA is a MAJOR part of this case. It is transference from a killer. All these experts that you guys refer to will basically reluctantly tell you that is almost certain NOW but not before. Yes, more testing, if not done, should be. They say the DNA only creates more questions but still no answers. They are referring to exonerating the Ramsey's is presumptuous because it still doesn't prove that the Ramsey's are not involved. The talk of the DNA being not important is over with the new testing and probably testing that we do not know about.
Also, this stuff about the public being totally informed is garbage(my opinion). Imagine if we did get a codis hit for a moment. Any DA would have their work cut out for them with all the information and opinions expressed on this case. Are we going to have Steve Thomas and Henry Lee as defense witnesses for a pedofile whose DNA was on JBR. One of the reasons that JM Karr was ever even a part of this case was because too much information was on the internet in the first place. I think they are trying to avoid that happening again with new developments.
The first two paragraphs above are things that I believe very strongly in and I also think others should too. Now, I don't believe that the Ramsey's are involved but I understand why others do. A lot of questions remain unanswered by the Ramsey's. Here is why in my opinion. I think the police singled them out almost immediately. It turned into a tug of war to the point that Ramsey lawyers took over. Sure it made the Ramsey's look guilty but they felt railroaded. And to an extent they were. I don't think they felt it was in the best interests to help the investigation, and the media brutalized them.
I really feel that JBR was sexually assulted. I think the DNA points to that. I see why some would say staging but a liquid DNA was found in her panties and then corroborated in other areas that would be pertinent. I just don't believe that in a rage JBR was killed and then they call someone to assault and then wipe down JBR. It is not logical to me.
I don't have an answer to the Pineapple or any other inconsistancy that the Ramsey's story has. To me, the DNA trumps it all. I also believe that when this case is solved, EVERYONE will feel foolish when we learn the facts. I believe that someone who dispised the Ramsey's did this crime. Probably a low-life who was jealous of John and knew about his bonus. I think something that had so many unanswered questions will ultimately reveal a simple answer.
Also, this stuff about the public being totally informed is garbage(my opinion). Imagine if we did get a codis hit for a moment. Any DA would have their work cut out for them with all the information and opinions expressed on this case. Are we going to have Steve Thomas and Henry Lee as defense witnesses for a pedofile whose DNA was on JBR. One of the reasons that JM Karr was ever even a part of this case was because too much information was on the internet in the first place. I think they are trying to avoid that happening again with new developments.
The first two paragraphs above are things that I believe very strongly in and I also think others should too. Now, I don't believe that the Ramsey's are involved but I understand why others do. A lot of questions remain unanswered by the Ramsey's. Here is why in my opinion. I think the police singled them out almost immediately. It turned into a tug of war to the point that Ramsey lawyers took over. Sure it made the Ramsey's look guilty but they felt railroaded. And to an extent they were. I don't think they felt it was in the best interests to help the investigation, and the media brutalized them.
I really feel that JBR was sexually assulted. I think the DNA points to that. I see why some would say staging but a liquid DNA was found in her panties and then corroborated in other areas that would be pertinent. I just don't believe that in a rage JBR was killed and then they call someone to assault and then wipe down JBR. It is not logical to me.
I don't have an answer to the Pineapple or any other inconsistancy that the Ramsey's story has. To me, the DNA trumps it all. I also believe that when this case is solved, EVERYONE will feel foolish when we learn the facts. I believe that someone who dispised the Ramsey's did this crime. Probably a low-life who was jealous of John and knew about his bonus. I think something that had so many unanswered questions will ultimately reveal a simple answer.
Hey Roy, ya ,,,, I guess we're all operating under different suspicions .....
for me .... well I just can't negate the FBI handwriting analysis and the panel of forensic experts and the Grand Jury .... and LA 'suspicions' and how the cranial injury fits a pattern of abuse .... suggested staging ...and more
but fore sure, JR comments of the 'inside job' theory now ring 'true' ..... now that he's been publically exhonerated. And as you say ... the case, regardless of the previous history, is in a whole other direction ....
actually ....stagnant ....waiting for a hit on codis or 'new info'.
As for wiki ....public information. It's a start for me.
Just for JR exhoneration to be valid ... and the 118 thou ransom note suggesting a degree of intimacy with the Ramseys .. to be 'real', ....well I'm caught between a conondrum and a catch 22.
unless the ramsey involved a third party ... or the IDI is known to be deceased ...or .
To me, the DNA trumps it all. I also believe that when this case is solved, EVERYONE will feel foolish when we learn the facts. I believe that someone who dispised the Ramsey's did this crime. Probably a low-life who was jealous of John and knew about his bonus. I think something that had so many unanswered questions will ultimately reveal a simple answer.
cool. Roy. I guess that'll be THE DAY!
I guess that has to be an assumption for DNA to trumph.
so ... do you believe that the preexisting sexual abuse within the family existed? or that the evidence doesn't support this claim or that the claimed previous sexual abuse was not perptrated by the 'intruder?
How does Linda Arndt's observations re the 'Insect dynamic' fit into this scenario?
ok, so I've been wondering ....
dna transfer and gloves....
was it luck of the draw that the longjohns/pyjammas tested positive for male dna (liquid source but not semen)...
ie did the contamination occur after JR brought the body upstairs, or were the logjohns previosly worn, the dna transfer/contact being the result of casual transfer by someone or lack of protocol during autopsy or handling of the body.....
or did they,
the Ramseys, use someone's scarf or gloves to handle the body? dna source being salava, musus, sweat ....
Did 'they', the Ramseys use latex gloves? what type of gloves? powdered. What type of gloves are used with the PBD etc.....
What were the flashlight and batteries wiped with? No fibers remaining?
Could the Ramseys have known how to contaminate the 'evidence' using a source' of someone elses dna or was it accidental transfer from someone's gloves, scarf ....that they used to handle the body.
Is the intruder dna found on the toilet seat that was taken as evidence?
can dna be purposely transfered?
....hmmmm
dna transfer and gloves....
was it luck of the draw that the longjohns/pyjammas tested positive for male dna (liquid source but not semen)...
ie did the contamination occur after JR brought the body upstairs, or were the logjohns previosly worn, the dna transfer/contact being the result of casual transfer by someone or lack of protocol during autopsy or handling of the body.....
or did they,
the Ramseys, use someone's scarf or gloves to handle the body? dna source being salava, musus, sweat ....
Did 'they', the Ramseys use latex gloves? what type of gloves? powdered. What type of gloves are used with the PBD etc.....
What were the flashlight and batteries wiped with? No fibers remaining?
Could the Ramseys have known how to contaminate the 'evidence' using a source' of someone elses dna or was it accidental transfer from someone's gloves, scarf ....that they used to handle the body.
Is the intruder dna found on the toilet seat that was taken as evidence?
can dna be purposely transfered?
....hmmmm
DNA and fingerprints can't be "dated". It can't be discerned when they were left, so we can't tell if he longjohns were contaminated before or after she was brought up, but supposedly they made sure there was no contamination at autopsy. Also, the "liquid source" was from the panties not the longjohns. The longjohns were "touch DNA" (in other words, skin cells).
If it was a transfer from a scarf or glove, there would be fibers or other evidence. Latex gloves won't leave fibers, but they will leave a residue.
It was not stated what the flashlight was wiped with.
DNA can be purposely transferred, but not in the way I think you mean. I think you mean that could the killer deliberately have touched someone then handled JBR (either dead or alive). In theory, but I don't think that happened. There would be so many things that the killer would have had to touch first, skin cells are microscopic, you'd have no way to know whether you still had any on you. IMHO, the reason why the "male DNA" was ONLY found on the body was because it was put there by JBR herself. She touched things at the Whites, and then touched her own clothing.
Hi DeeDee.
ya right ty....oops
the "liquid source" was from the panties not the longjohns. The longjohns were "touch DNA" (in other words, skin cells) -DD
and yes for sure JBR had the greatest contact with others at the White's party ..... just trying to think of a source of non ramsey dna within the Ramseys home that might have transfered the dna.
ya right ty....oops
the "liquid source" was from the panties not the longjohns. The longjohns were "touch DNA" (in other words, skin cells) -DD
and yes for sure JBR had the greatest contact with others at the White's party ..... just trying to think of a source of non ramsey dna within the Ramseys home that might have transfered the dna.
No, I don't believe in the prior sexual abuse. And I especially don't see any evidence of past history of a Ramsey male being a sexual predator. As far as DNA transference, you have skin cells and a liquid in her panties. Of course the technology did not exist at the time to test for this(skin cells). If all this DNA were of this type, I would understand the skepticism.
This combined with the liquid makes a pretty strong case against an innocent transference or planting. I think it is possible as well that had LE done their job properly from the beginning that maybe they would even have more evidence that they trusted.
I am not familiar with the "Insect Dynamic" if you care to share. And I have read nothing that even makes it likely that Patsy wrote that note. I really don't like to go into farfetched theories but it could be possible that someone who did this was not only familiar with John's bonus but also the writing styles of Patsy. I hate writing that by the way. As I said, I believe the DNA at least proves that the Ramsey's did not perform an act of killing. It is really hard to argue against it if you understand the science.
Then why trust her?
I get that.
They can speak up any time. My ears are wide open.
Well...
That'll be the day, pilgrim.
Isn't that the truth!
That's a very interesting question.
Possibly. But I doubt it. I have no doubt that they would have hung it on JMK if they thought they could have gotten away with it.
If I had a nickel, Roy...
Right.
In more ways than one. In ways I'm pretty sure would get a lawyer in my region of the country disbarred. Or worse.
Well, then they would be the first innocent parents to think that. The Van Dams, the Smarts, etc. all felt it was better to be at the forefront. And they had far less financial werewithal to do it.
I think it was just luck. Let me elaborate on that. I was watching Bill O'Reilly's show and he had on a criminologist. The conversation turned to this case. She said that this is a problem that law enforcement will eventually have to face: that as DNA testing methods become more and more sensitive and thorough, the more likely they are to turn up DNA that is just an artifact, a contaminant. Unfortunately, and again, these are her words, some in law enforcement are so enamored of DNA technology, they won't even admit that such a problem exists. I think that's what happened here. MY OPINION, but I have good reason for it.
Well, don't beat yourself up over it.
I wish I could agree. But I can't.
That goes for me, too.
There wouldn't happen to be a "raspberry" smiley on here, is there?
That's interesting. Why not?
Ah, but that's where you may have gone wrong, from my perspective. While I don't pretend to be able to read your mind, you seem to have fallen into the classic mistake: that someone who molests a child is by definition a pedophile with a history. That's not necessarily so. I actually write about that at some length in the book, Roy. In it, I explain how there are different types of molesters than the kind you seem to suggest here. The first kind are pedophiles. In the true sense, this applies to people who have recurring sexual attractions and urges toward children; no one really knows why they do this. I think it's just cross-wiring of the brain. The second kind are situational or surrogate molesters. These are people who are not sexually attracted to children per se, but see a child as a substitute for an adult object of attraction. For example, a woman who molests her son because her husband walked out on her. We'll skip number three because I think it's in the second category wherein lies the rub.
Follow me on this. One has to remember that Patsy's temporary victory over ovarian cancer came with a price tag: operations that rendered sexual activity difficult. Enter JonBenet, prancing around in those showgirl outfits, expertly put together by her mother. In his starved brain, he may have thought, "Patsy is saying 'here she is. She's all yours. I've prepared her for you.'" JonBenet was "safe." She wasn't old enough to get life-destroying cancer, and she wasn't old enough to get herself killed driving a car. She was easy to manipulate and control. A perfect "playmate." Situational molesters don't have to have histories. First time molesters are found in their sixties. (Please keep in mind this is my opinion. No one that I know of here on Websleuths.com shares it or put me up to it. This is an idea--not even really a conclusion--that I arrived at myself using everything I know. The puzzle pieces are there. I just put them together.)
Did you find that disturbing, Roy? If you did, I don't blame you. Every time I read that, it makes me sick to my stomach. As I write at the end of the chapter, "That's the trouble with trying to get into people's heads. Sometimes you come out feeling like there's not enough soap in the world that will get me clean again."
But if it helps expand someone's understanding of crime, then I can sleep with a clear conscience.
Moreover, who says it was a Ramsey male? Tell me something, Roy; have you ever considered a Paugh male? Patsy's father, for example? I cannot take credit for this. My ever-loving brother laid this one on me one night.
"Guv," he said, "do you think Patsy was abused herself?"
I turned and sort of stared at him. "What do you mean?"
"Guv," he said, "haven't you ever wondered why her sister Pam never got married, never had children and let her appearance go to he**?"
And I knew what he was getting at. He had me riveted, if disturbed. "Go on."
He proceeded to point out how dramatically Patsy's mood changed when the subject was brought up by Det. Haney. How her toughness just evaporated? How she became so timid and quiet? She's afraid of something." He then outlined to me how the cycle repeats. I knew what he meant.
I have to admit, that one kind of stuck with me.
I don't know. I've read since that the DNA in the panties was not a liquid base, but was turned into liquid when JB's blood came in contact with it.
You know, every time I think about how I think the cops should have handled this, I come back to the same question: WWVMD?
If Tadpole won't, I will. First of all, it's "Incest Dynamic." And like Tadpole said, it comes from Det. Linda Arndt. Here's the actual quote from Arndt's testimony:
Q: This is incest between John Ramsey and JonBenet?
A: Yes, to the whole incest dynamic in the family.
Q: But involving John Ramsey and JonBenet, any other members?
A: Well, specifically because she's the one who's dead.
Q: But when you refer again to incest, it could involve any number of
family members. I'm just trying to identify the family members when you
use that term.
A: Well, there's a whole dynamic, because everybody's got a role in the
family.
Q: The incest has an effect on family members, does it not?
A: Well, in general terms that covers it when you talk about an act, but
I'm talking about the dynamic.
Q: I understand about the dynamic, but I want to get the predicate first.
The participants in the incest, when you refer to incest, you're
referring to John Ramsey and JonBenet and no other family members?
A: I refer to every member of the family. Every member has a role.
Q: But in terms of the sexual act that's implicit in the term of
"incest," you're referring to John Ramsey and JonBenet?
A: Yes
I'll be glad to provide that, too.
Roger L. DePue is a former head of the FBI Behavioral Sciences Unit. In 2006, he told reporter Ronald Kessler that Patsy Ramsey fit the profile of the person who wrote the ransom note. "The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested," the note says. Depue called that an unusual instruction. "The statement sounds caring, motherly." "You will also be denied her remains for proper burial." Depue said. "In my opinion, proper burial is of more concern to a female than to a male," Depue said. "The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them," the note says. The idea of "gentlemen watching over" has a feminine tone, Depue said. "Watching over" is also a caring concept, he said. In Depue's opinion, "The writer is a well-educated, middle-aged female. The writer used the term 'fat cat,' suggesting that the person is middle aged. 'Fat cat' is a term used in the 1960s and 1970s. The writer," Depue said, "is a close relative, friend, or business associate, in that order." Depue said that conclusion and the circumstances surrounding the note fit the profile of Patricia Ramsey.
former FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt was interviewed several times over a period of days. During an interview with cable news outlet MSNBC, Van Zandt said that he and several other profilers had studied the note and concluded that the writer was either a woman or a "very genteel male." He listed ten points of interest. Here are a few of them:
- Despite threats of violence throughout the note, Van Zandt says, it has a 'softness' suggesting its author was a woman or perhaps a 'genteel man.'
- The note's salutation is formal, but here the overall tone becomes more familiar and casual. Van Zandt thinks the writer may be suggesting a personal acquaintance with John Ramsey.
Robert K. Ressler is founder of the FBI Behavioral Sciences Unit. He echoed many of DePue's sentiments, saying "There's an almost maternal quality to comments like, 'the delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. A hardened criminal would never use those terms. the acronym at the bottom of the note was done with periods between each letter, as was 'FBI.' Putting periods between letters in acronyms is a grammatical touch that has not been standard since the late 1960s. Patsy was born on December 29, 1956 and would have been a kid learning her English lessons in school before then. In those turbulent times, many organizations came along with "alphabet soup" names, and none of them used periods. There was SDS--Students for Democratic Society; PLO- Palestinian Liberation Organization; NOI-- Nation of Islam; SLA-- Symbionese Liberation Army (the people who kidnapped Patty Hearst and made the term "Stockholm Syndrome" famous); and the list goes on and on. Patsy was known to sign her letters to friends with acronyms with periods in them. One that stood out was 'To B.V.F.M.F.A. from P.P.R.B.S.J.' That meant 'To Barbara V. Fernie, Master of Fine Arts from Patricia Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Journalism.' Patsy Ramsey had graduated college as a journalism major. Ressler also pointed out the use of the word "attaché." It's a word with French origins. It is usually spelled with the accent over the "e" to denote the sound of an "a." Patsy had studied French and lived in Atlanta, which has a strong undercurrent of French heritage. JonBenet's own name is a pseudo-French version of her father's first and middle names, John Bennett. It is always spelled with the accent over the second "e." Who else would bother with something like that?
In Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Chet Ubowski, the handwriting expert from the CBI, told his boss, Peter Mang, that he believed Patsy Ramsey wrote it, but he couldn't say so with courtroom certainty. In 2002, Ubowski was reported by FOX News to say that the bleeding ink from the felt-tip pen and the disguised letters kept him from saying she wrote it 100%.
Edwin Alford said he couldn't be sure, but he said that he couldn't rule her out. Leonard Speckin said he couldn't say she wrote it either, but conceded that it was unlikely that anyone could have had as many similarities.
David Leibman, president of the National Association of Document Examiners, said he found fifty-one similarities and was 90-95% certain she wrote it.
Cina Wong, who had worked for John Grisham and Bank of America and has roughly the same experience as Ubowski said she was certain she wrote it. Donald Lacy, Richard Williams and Larry Ziegler, all of whom had instructed the FBI, also said she wrote it.
Tom Miller said she wrote it, and was targeted by Ramsey private investigators for his opinion. He even got one of them, David Miller (no relation), to admit in court that they were trying to sabotage him.
Gideon Epstein is a forensic document examiner who served as the past president of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, is a registered member of the ABFDE, and has authored several authoritative texts in the field. Epstein has appeared in 200 cases over a thirty year period, having examined thousands of documents and has established questioned document laboratories for not only the US government, but for those of Eastern Europe and the Philippines as well, while teaching hundreds of government document examiners their professions. He retired after twenty years as the head of document examination for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, where he had been responsible for tracking down war criminals who had slipped into the United States using false names in the years following World War Two. His most notable catch was Valerian Trifa, an officer in the Iron Guard, Romanian fascists who took over the country and allied with Hitler. The Iron Guard were active participants in the Holocaust. Most people agree that Epstein is one of the world's best. His opinion was that he was, quote, "absolutely certain" (which he clarified in follow-up questioning to mean "100 percent certain") Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom letter.
It should also be noted that the majority of opinion stands today that whoever wrote the captions in the Ramsey family photo album wrote the ransom letter. Patsy Ramsey, when deposed, claimed not to recognize her own handwriting. When she did so, Patsy used the phrase "not particularly", again straight out of the ransom note, as well as "particularly". The ransom letter phrase is "The two gentlemen looking over your daughter do (and the word "not" was inserted here with an inverted v) not particularly like your daughter.
It doesn't help that both of Patsy's sisters and her own mother couldn't tell the difference between her handwriting and the writing on the ransom letter. Even worse is that she was the only person who changed her writing after the crime.
And I'm just getting warmed up!
You never know. That would narrow it down pretty well, though, wouldn't it?
I've been there, man. I understand.
I get you.
Actually, it isn't, if you understand the problems behind the science.
I really don't think I am falling into a trap on this. Just because Patsy was not able to perform her wifely duties, that does not mean that he would take advantage of his own daughter. John has no known history of being a [link removed] to this extent. I understand that it doesn't take a pedofile to abuse a child but normally their is some history. I understand your explanation but you have no solid basis to implicate John nor Patsy. As far as the Paugh's, I really don't know.
I get you and your theory. You have a bunch of pieces of a puzzle. In fact so many little pieces that you would look like a genius if you put it together. But unlike you, I think the DNA is the one piece that is so big and so definitive that I would work using that as my base and then put the little bity pieces next to it. I have seen the note analyzed so many different ways with so many opinions. It doesn't prove that Patsy wrote it. Far from it. Someone familiar with the Ramsey's killed their child and wrote the note, but I don't believe both parents could be complicit or knowing of this. It is kind of ridiculous if you believe the DNA, which you obviously don't.
Easy, Roy. I just meant you may have been victim of an incorrect assumption.
True. And I admit, that was not the only thing which got me to leaning that way. Like I always say, never look at just one thing. I try to take an holistic view.
"Known history." Underline known. But my point was he wouldn't necessarily need a history. He had a history of cheating on wives. We know he cheated on his first wife. Okay. He got caught. Why not go for someone he could control a bit better? And it's not just that. His daughter Beth had been killed, struck down by fate when she was only 22, I think it was. If someone like that isn't safe, who is? He'd lost Beth and it looked like he would lose Patsy (around '93-'94, I mean). Who knows what that would do to someone's mind? That's unimaginable.
Normally, not always. And in those cases, we're talking a legit pedophile, not a situational molester. That was the point I was trying to make.
Good, because I'd hate to go over that again!
In general, or for this? Because like I said, I'm just warming up.
Join the club. But there's just enough that my antenna starts to crackle.
Okay.
You know, I've often said this is like trying to put a puzzle together when you don't even know what the picture is supposed to look like. But I keep trying.
Well, that's the difference between us. I basically start from scratch every time.
Well, I would just remind you that you have to separate the men from the boys (pardon the expression) in an area like that.
Even if it doesn't, the side-by-sides are all I need. Ask RiverRat if you don't know what I mean.
No argument.
Not everyone believes they are. Some people think at least one parent is innocent, or was anyway.
I have good reason not to.
Similar threads
- Poll
Guardians Monthly Goal
Our goal for the month is 50 new Guardians members to sign up. Have you been thinking about becoming a member?
Click here to find out how!
Online statistics
- Members online
- 133
- Guests online
- 1,884
- Total visitors
- 2,017