Low copy number (LCN) DNA = Ramsey's far from cleared

[Solace]

Your statement makes no sense. Do you know what ad-hominem means?

Jayce,

You have to lighten up a bit.

When they have substantial DNA proof, we will all listen. This latest fiasco is just that another travesty brought on by the powers that be in Boulder; namely, Lacy and the Ramsey folk. Not only has this since died rather quickly, it is not being taken seriously by anyone "in the know" about this case. There were a few days of "wow the Ramseys have been cleared" and then it was gone. Nothing else. Apparently, no one, not even the shark like tv stations are going for it. Lacy can write all the letters she wants, but it means very little in the scheme of things. The grand jury did not indict - this latest letter is merely an extension of the DA's bs they have been trying, and with some success; e.g. you, to perpetrate on the public.

As far as taking the Fiber evidence seriously, I believe you said it is no way as definitive as DNA evidence, something along those lines. I don't have time to look up your post re same. However, when fibers from the mother are found directly under the tape over her child's mouth, that is INCRIMINATING. Patsy says the reason her fibers are on Jon Benet is because she hugged her when John brought her up. The tape was still in the basement. She says she was not down there, way down there in that "nasty" room, as John puts it. Those fibers were airborn, yes indeedy.

Dr. Lee does say the Ramseys were cleared by the Grand Jury. WE have been over the things he has said about this case and he most definitely feels the Ramseys could be charged with other crimes relating to this case. I suspect he meant obstruction of justice. But why would two people want to obstruct, only if they had something to hide. Dr. Lee is being evasive in his answers and I suspect that he feels the parents are guilty, but he is not going to say that - not yet.

 

[Solace]

Hey SuperDave,

Being new to the forum, it is interesting for me to see the various personalities that post a lot. It is pretty clear that you have spent a lot of time studying and thinking about the Ramsey case. It is also interesting to me that most people here are convinced that the Ramsey's are guilty. I didn't expect this when I joined the board.

Jaycee,

You might want to check out Forums For Justice and also there is Syckamore if you can stand it. You will have a plethora of posters willing to back up your theory. I think Crime Library is another, if they are still up.

 

[Jayce]

Here is what Lee said on July 10th:

"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.”

And the beat goes on and on and on. Lee apparently wants to see more tests done on the note the rope, etc. And then that is interesting. Right now it is subject to interpretation says Lee.

I don't disagree with anything Lee says here. Of course it would be even more powerful if the same DNA shows up on other pieces of evidence. No where does Lee discuss secondary transfer.

 

[Solace]

I don't disagree with anything Lee says here. Of course it would be even more powerful if the same DNA shows up on other pieces of evidence. No where does Lee discuss secondary transfer.

Moot, since it is open to interpretation. And especially since he would like more objects tested.

 

[Jayce]

Moot, since it is open to interpretation.

My point isn't moot. Nothing Lee said has anything to do with secondary transfer.

Its not even clear from Lee's quote what he means when he says its all open to interpretation. It seems that the most likely meaning is that he doesn't know whether the evidence is enough to publicly exonerate them. I don't either.

 

[Medea]

After the Phil Spector trial I don't see how anyone can take either Henry Lee or Michael Baden seriously, how can anyone know when they're giving their legitimate opinion based on science or when they've sold their opinion to the highest bidder??

 

[Solace]

My point isn't moot. Nothing Lee said has anything to do with secondary transfer.

Its not even clear from Lee's quote what he means when he says its all open to interpretation. It seems that the most likely meaning is that he doesn't know whether the evidence is enough to publicly exonerate them. I don't either.

Nah, it is moot. The story is dead. Haven't heard a thing about it after 48 hours of it breaking. Nobody places much credence in it. The Ramseys had been cleared by the GJ, but anyone familiar with the case knows they are in it up to their eyeballs and then some. Berke should probably get some psychiatric help before Torrettes starts to set in. What with all these secrets he has to keep, anything is possible.

From what Lee says, it is clear he thinks they are guilty as sin also, or at the very least guilty of obstruction. Nobody likes anyone obstructing in a murder case, you know.

 

[Jayce]

After the Phil Spector trial I don't see how anyone can take either Henry Lee or Michael Baden seriously, how can anyone know when they're giving their legitimate opinion based on science or when they've sold their opinion to the highest bidder??

Not sure if you are implying this...but my opinion does not in any way whatsoever rely on Lee.

 

[Solace]

After the Phil Spector trial I don't see how anyone can take either Henry Lee or Michael Baden seriously, how can anyone know when they're giving their legitimate opinion based on science or when they've sold their opinion to the highest bidder??

This is true. He was kind of repulsive at the Spector trial. I do agree with that.

 

[Solace]

Not sure if you are implying this...but my opinion does not in any way whatsoever rely on Lee.

You were just using him for backup, right Jayce. We understand.

 

[Jayce]

Nah, it is moot. The story is dead. Haven't heard a thing about it after 48 hours of it breaking.

Thats merely due to the nature of the news cycle. Not surprising.

Nobody places much credence in it.

Unsupported assertion.

The Ramseys had been cleared by the GJ, but anyone familiar with the case knows they are in it up to their eyeballs and then some.

Unsupported assertion.

 

[Solace]

Thats merely due to the nature of the news cycle. Not surprising. Unsupported assertion. Unsupported assertion.

Don't worry Jayce. You will come around eventually. Many have tried to be as stoic in their beliefs as you, but they have succumbed to the truth when they start dissecting this case. Don't be upset. We all get emotional about this case. It's expected. We completely understand.

 

[Jayce]

You were just using him for backup, right Jayce. We understand.

No, I wasn't using him for backup.

 

[Jayce]

Don't be upset. We all get emotional about this case. It's expected. We completely understand.

What would give you the indication that I am upset? Lets get back on point...

You just asserted that "Nobody places much credence in it." and...

"The Ramseys had been cleared by the GJ, but anyone familiar with the case knows they are in it up to their eyeballs and then some. "

Please provide support for these assertions.

 

[BBB167893]

Unsupported assertion.

Would you like a list of how deep they're in it?

 

[Solace]

Would you like a list of how deep they're in it?

Yes, we would and thank you so much for offering. Cant wait.

 

[Jayce]

Would you like a list of how deep they're in it?

I want him to support his assertion that "anyone familiar with the case knows they are in it up to their eyeballs and then some".

Obviously, there are people familiar with the case that don't believe the Ramsey's are "in it up to their eyeballs"

 

[BBB167893]

I suppose that's true, but most of the people you mention were not involved with the case as heavily.

Solace doesn't need my help, but I'll start the ball. Mike Kane believes it, at least last I knew.

 

[Jayce]

I suppose that's true, but most of the people you mention were not involved with the case as heavily.

Solace doesn't need my help, but I'll start the ball. Mike Kane believes it, at least last I knew.

I'm not disputing that there are people, heavily involved in the case, that believe the totality of the evidence points to the Ramsey's being guilty. Obviously that is true. I am disputing Solace's point that anyone who is familiar with the case knows the Ramsey's are "in it up to their eyeballs". Obviously that is not true.

 

[BBB167893]

Fair enough.