Patsy Ramsey

[bettybaby00]

Just wanted to :bump: so to speak since ML and her actions are being used to validate the DNA...

Boulder DA, Stan Garnett interviewed by Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQqV9NslMM0

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h092gdO5Avw

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Be5LTOLxk


Dan Caplis: And Stan, so it would be fair to say then that Mary Lacy’s clearing of the Ramseys is no longer in effect, you’re not bound by that, you’re just going to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Stan Garnett: What I’ve always said about Mary Lacy’s exoneration is that it speaks for itself.
I’ve made it clear that any decisions made going forward about the Ramsey case will be made based off of evidence…
Dan Caplis: Stan, when you say that the exoneration speaks for itself, are you saying that it’s Mary Lacy taking action, and that action doesn’t have any particular legally binding effect, it may cause complications if there is ever a prosecution of a Ramsey down the road, but it doesn’t have a legally binding effect on you, is that accurate?
That is accurate, I think that is what most of the press related about the exoneration at the time that it was issued.
…
Craig Silverman: I’d say the headline out of our show, is once again you established out of your questioning of Stan Garnett that that letter (of exoneration) isn’t worth the paper it’s written on as far as Stan Garnett is concerned.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5701132&postcount=1"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - The Ramseys are no longer “cleared” according to Stan Garnett[/ame]

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

So the people who have access to all the information, both the old DA and the new DA who didn't charge them are all part of some evil conspiracy that trumps the expertise of people online gossiping about alleged theories who don't have access to the actual data.

Gotcha!

You can't produce a data report that states there is matching DNA because that report does not exist. That report does not exist because there is no matching DNA. All you have is the word of Mary Lacy. IMO.

 

[Venom]

What some forget about in the dna exclusion is the big qualifier IF

"IF THE MINOR COMPONENTS FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M WERE CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY, PATRICIA RAMSEY, BURKE RAMSEY, JEFF RAMSEY, FLEET WHITE, PRISCILLA WHITE, AND MARVIN PUGH WOULD BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED."

From: [ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=191279"]DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book - Page 3 - Forums For Justice[/ame]
It's also been talked about on here, I just don't have the link bookmarked like I do that one.

Take it how you may :shrug:

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Minor components and Michael Tracey were good enough for Mary Lacy. She was biased and delusional from the beginning.

 

[2 percent]

I'm curious...has anyone actually laid eyes on this DNA report Lacy refers to?
I'm reminded of both the MacDonald and Routier case where interpretation is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

I'm curious...has anyone actually laid eyes on this DNA report Lacy refers to?
I'm reminded of both the MacDonald and Routier case where interpretation is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

No.

The closest you can get is what is published in Kolar's book which is a description of the results not the data itself.

 

[bettybaby00]

What some forget about in the dna exclusion is the big qualifier IF

"IF THE MINOR COMPONENTS FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M WERE CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY, PATRICIA RAMSEY, BURKE RAMSEY, JEFF RAMSEY, FLEET WHITE, PRISCILLA WHITE, AND MARVIN PUGH WOULD BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED."

From: DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book - Page 3 - Forums For Justice
It's also been talked about on here, I just don't have the link bookmarked like I do that one.

Take it how you may :shrug:

The if qualifier is extremely significant IMO b/c we know it was a mixed sample

Eta: post #29 gives a great summary.

 

[questfortrue]

The if qualifier is extremely significant IMO b/c we know it was a mixed sample

Eta: post #29 gives a great summary.

Appreciation to you and Venom on bringing forward the DNA info.

And with all due respect to everyone, it’s a no-brainer that all posters are not going to agree on the DNA and its relevance. (Even ML who used it to exonerate the R’s once indicated some reservations, by agreeing it could be artifact. "The [Ramsey case] DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s." - Boulder DA Mary Lacy, 8/28/06)

Also aware that any of the behavior evidence can be interpreted differently. Any of the behavior indicatives of “unnormal” behavior will apparently strike people differently depending on what side of the fence one views the information. (IDI or RDI) Poster Meara provided a consistent viewpoint from RDI perspective, looking at this from the outside and observing what seems like signs of issues. The only item I would emphasize more emphatically than she referenced is the role of “chronic” sexual abuse, and I take my understanding of that from Dr. McCann. This post explicates McCann’s background as an expert on this topic. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227531&highlight=chronic+abuse+McCann&page=7 – Post #163.

Just for another viewpoint on the idea of “normal”, echoed by “Doc” M in the first chapter of his book, which was only published in Japan. (http://www.tommillerlaw.com/Chapter...ution-of-Justice-by-Thomas-C-Doc-Miller.shtml)

"John, in carefully selected and prepared interviews, emphasizes his and Patsy's "normal" behavior, their "normal" household and their "normal" family. Should his normal voice convince us? Is it normal to refuse to talk to a nine-year-old boy about a crisis concerning his sister? Is it normal to ignore the threats of a ransom note so thoroughly and immediately? Is it normal to proceed with vacation plans to Michigan (or Atlanta) on the morning of the day your daughter has been kidnapped? Is it normal to put on your make-up at 5:30 a.m. for a private flight? Is it normal to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours dressing and training your daughter to enroll in beauty pageants, only to dismiss it as a "Sunday afternoon thing?" Is it normal to invite friends over to witness your shock and grief at your daughter's kidnapping? Is it normal to finger your housekeeper and your family friends, as well as your business associates, for the murder of your daughter? Is it normal to host a freak show display such as the Ramseys did on Dec. 26, 1996including your daughter's garroted and sexually abused corpse under the Christmas tree, and then to refuse to talk to police?"

Just guessing here, but my take on “Doc” M’s view is lots was not normal in the family. JMHO

 

[bettybaby00]

Appreciation to you and Venom on bringing forward the DNA info.

And with all due respect to everyone, it’s a no-brainer that all posters are not going to agree on the DNA and its relevance. (Even ML who used it to exonerate the R’s once indicated some reservations, by agreeing it could be artifact. "The [Ramsey case] DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s." - Boulder DA Mary Lacy, 8/28/06)

Also aware that any of the behavior evidence can be interpreted differently. Any of the behavior indicatives of “unnormal” behavior will apparently strike people differently depending on what side of the fence one views the information. (IDI or RDI) Poster Meara provided a consistent viewpoint from RDI perspective, looking at this from the outside and observing what seems like signs of issues. The only item I would emphasize more emphatically than she referenced is the role of “chronic” sexual abuse, and I take my understanding of that from Dr. McCann. This post explicates McCann’s background as an expert on this topic. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227531&highlight=chronic+abuse+McCann&page=7 – Post #163.

Just for another viewpoint on the idea of “normal”, echoed by “Doc” M in the first chapter of his book, which was only published in Japan. (http://www.tommillerlaw.com/Chapter...ution-of-Justice-by-Thomas-C-Doc-Miller.shtml)

"John, in carefully selected and prepared interviews, emphasizes his and Patsy's "normal" behavior, their "normal" household and their "normal" family. Should his normal voice convince us? Is it normal to refuse to talk to a nine-year-old boy about a crisis concerning his sister? Is it normal to ignore the threats of a ransom note so thoroughly and immediately? Is it normal to proceed with vacation plans to Michigan (or Atlanta) on the morning of the day your daughter has been kidnapped? Is it normal to put on your make-up at 5:30 a.m. for a private flight? Is it normal to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours dressing and training your daughter to enroll in beauty pageants, only to dismiss it as a "Sunday afternoon thing?" Is it normal to invite friends over to witness your shock and grief at your daughter's kidnapping? Is it normal to finger your housekeeper and your family friends, as well as your business associates, for the murder of your daughter? Is it normal to host a freak show display such as the Ramseys did on Dec. 26, 1996including your daughter's garroted and sexually abused corpse under the Christmas tree, and then to refuse to talk to police?"

Just guessing here, but my take on “Doc” M’s view is lots was not normal in the family. JMHO

I didn't know Miller's book was published. Unfortunately only in Japan. How weird? I would love to get my hands on it as his first chapter is amazing IMO, and I've found myself referring to it over and over again.

Anyway, back to DNA. Within the FFJ link was another informative post re: DNA "evidence" found at the scene which was unrelated to the crime.

What's also of interest is that none of the DNA evidence found was described as a "partial, mixed sample profile." Also of note, each case was also considered "circumstantial."

Post # 47

And I almost forgot. Amazing to me that Lacy first said the DNA could be artifact, and then did a 180, claiming this same "could be artifact" DNA proves the Rs are innocent.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No.

The closest you can get is what is published in Kolar's book which is a description of the results not the data itself.

Which is not proven to be true. It is only his word and his interpretation.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I know why you avoid identifying that person.

That would be Mary Lacy, the felon.

Really? Was she charged and convicted of something? What would that be?

Thanks.

 

[Venom]

Here you can find a picture of the lab report.
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9867"]Ramsey Case - DNA report & miscellaneous evidence - Forums For Justice[/ame]

 

[pukasonqo2]

I didn't know Miller's book was published. Unfortunately only in Japan. How weird? I would love to get my hands on it as his first chapter is amazing IMO, and I've found myself referring to it over and over again.

Anyway, back to DNA. Within the FFJ link was another informative post re: DNA "evidence" found at the scene which was unrelated to the crime.

What's also of interest is that none of the DNA evidence found was described as a "partial, mixed sample profile." Also of note, each case was also considered "circumstantial."

Post # 47

And I almost forgot. Amazing to me that Lacy first said the DNA could be artifact, and then did a 180, claiming this same "could be artifact" DNA proves the Rs are innocent.

^^
check amazon, i remember seeing the book available there. that is my contribution to the debate


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[pukasonqo2]

Which is not proven to be true. It is only his word and his interpretation.

as many things w this case they are someone's interpretation ,except for scientific facts, as it has been said before of the people who know what happened two are dead and two are not telling the truth


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Really? Was she charged and convicted of something? What would that be?

Thanks.

She is guilty of lying to a Grand Jury, presenting falsified material to a Grand Jury, breaking and entering, among other things. This is one of the things that holds the current DA from proceeding with the case because he would have to go back through what Lacy did.

 

[Chewy]

I too don't get the constant pointing out "in your opinion." Aren't we all discussing "our opinions" here? None of us are privy to all the facts.

I'll point something else out, those who DID have access to all the facts, the Grand Jury did not indict either parent for murder or manslaughter. If the facts so easily pointed that way, then why didn't they?


Let me guess, every single member of the Grand Jury was bought off by the Ramseys as well as two DAs and an entire police force and all the neighbors.

Got it.

 

[Tawny]

To be fair, we don't know what the other indictments were. We only saw a portion of them.

For years, people said "Well the Grand Jury DIDN'T indict so the R's are innocent" when in fact they did, we just didn't know.

 

[Frigga]

I too don't get the constant pointing out "in your opinion." Aren't we all discussing "our opinions" here? None of us are privy to all the facts.

I'll point something else out, those who DID have access to all the facts, the Grand Jury did not indict either parent for murder or manslaughter. If the facts so easily pointed that way, then why didn't they?


Let me guess, every single member of the Grand Jury was bought off by the Ramseys as well as two DAs and an entire police force and all the neighbors.

Got it.

No. Becuase IMOO, Burke did it, the Grand Jury felt the same and indicted the parents for what they did.

They couldn't touch Burke but what his parents did, for him, was against the law, and certainly not behavior protected by the laws that protected Burke!

 

[Chewy]

Burke did it is another thread. And that's not the point I'm making. Those who HAD ACCESS to all the information in the case DID NOT EVER INDICT either Ramsey on murder or manslaughter.

So that rules out the idea that RDI. They were indicted for

The grand jury had alleged that Patricia Paugh Ramsey, who died from ovarian cancer in 2006, and husband John Bennett Ramsey "did ... permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey."

The grand jury also had alleged that each parent "did ... render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

There is nothing in here that states Burke did it either. Or let me guess, Grand Juries are regularly in the habit of not indicting murderers and not naming true suspects of a crime because they feel sorry for them as a kid?

I mean that's how it works right? The GJ was paid off by the Ramseys and decided not to mention Burke. But clever sluthers saw through their rouse.

ooooooor

They don't know who did it and think there is enough evidence to indict the Ramseys for covering up a crime.....indict btw, not convict.

 

[Meara]

Most of the things you describe are completely normal things in a child's life.

There is nothing here that shows a child in crisis. Just normal childhood except for her mothers illness and her dusters death which are what? Life. Just life.

I know many kids that spend more time with adults than kids. That usually means they are smarter and well versed.

None of this points to abuse. None of it points to murder. And since we know the DNA does not connect patsy. That's it.

The criminal who did this left their DNA. They left it in more than one place. The Ramsey's don't match that DNA.

That's all I have to say on this. It's completely simple and if this was the SMITH case it would be the end of it. Imo


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

I see "fun" was more of a challenge. That's what was being addressed, not DNA, or sexual abuse, or crisis, which I choose not to debate here, but thoroughly "normal" and "fun". Can we agree that overlapping chronic infections are not fun; having your mom deathly ill for several years is not fun; needing therapy before 1st grade isn't fun; having screaming sessions with your mom behind closed doors is not fun? These factors (along with encopresis, which is not fun, or normal, either, but typically signals serious disturbance) taken together form a picture of unusually high stress.

I know many kids that spend more time with adults than kids. That usually means they are smarter and well versed.

Thank you! :wink: