The Ramseys are Cleared

[SeekingJana]

My post yesterday got lost in the discussion about prior sexual abuse vs. no prior sexual abuse. The autopsy report makes it clear that the ME was not looking at the anatomical structures of a 6 year old who had not been subjected to chronic sexual abuse. Here's my prior post regarding the possible abuser:

Just wondering: In all this conversation about JBR's chronic sexual abuse, which was detailed in such great depth as to be absolutely clear and understandable by a dear M.D. friend on a forum which no longer exists, why has no one considered that Grandpa Paugh may have been JBR's abuser?
Incest is often multi-generational. GPP was at the Ramsey home until he took a supposed stand by flight to Atlanta late on Christmas Eve. Nothing's ever been too well known about GPP and his second residence, a condo in Boulder, which he did not share with Nedra when he was in Boulder. Nedra's home was in Roswell, and there she stayed, alone without Don most of the time once Access Graphics was up and running in Boulder. He was, I believe, VP. I would have to go through one of the case books to find the answer, but he was an office-holder and paid employee at AG in Boulder while his wife lived in Roswell, GA.

Nothing much has ever been said about Nedra's shocking comment that JBR had been slightly molested. I am paraphrasing but she was the only family member to admit that yes, something had happened to JBR below the waist.

JBR had regressed with her toileting, was said to soil herself both in the daytime and at night at the age of 6 and a half, the timeframe preceeding her death. She was said to be toilet trained at the time Patsy first was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Let's look at that time period as we know it from what the Ramseys have said and written: Who took care of the children quite a bit during those months? Nedra and Don Paugh, along with their father, John . What happened to JonBenet? She regressed to the point of drinking out of a sippy cup again, and displaying other regressive behaviors, such as being back in diapers.

So, looking at the big picture: JBR had two major regressive incidents that we know of: One close to the time of her murder according to Linda Hofffman Pugh and one earlier in her life while her mother couldn't be as watchful of her.
Her Grandpa Paugh was in the family picture during both time periods, and Nedra made an admission of knowledge of some sexual abuse perpetrated upon JonBenet, while the rest of the family was busy denying it existed.

I've always thought he was a viable suspect for the abuse, not the murder

 

[BBB167893]

LinasK, I might have something for you:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/true_crime

Turn up your speakers at about the 28:00 minute mark.

 

[LI_Mom]

Linda Arndt never even tried to search the basement, even when they thought it was a missing child case/kidnap vs. a homicide. She just let John search on his own without her!

In Arndt's defense, I have to say... wasn't it just she & more other officer there? I seem to remember they had to wait forever for OTHERS to arrive.

There's no way 2 over-tired (from the holiday) police officers can secure a crime scene in a house THAT big AND make sure that the bevy of visitors didn't trample all over the place doing whatever they wanted AND do any kind of meaningful search.

And I doubt this group of people were the type to sit quietly & take orders from some blue color worker. People in the Ramsey circle give orders better than they take orders.

Hmmmm.. that just reminded me: "Listen carefully" lol

 

[Wudge]

Welcome robotdog, I agree with your points. Don't let Wudge intimidate you. His bark is worse than his bite.

The top two pieces of evidence are the DNA and the ransom note. The DNA does not match any Ramsey family member. The handwriting on the ransom note was not found to be a match to any Ramsey by any handwriting expert.

It's the evidence that is intimidating, not me The evidence exonerates the Ramseys. That's why the Grand Jury publically embarassed Michael Kane and the BPD by refusing to indict the Ramseys.

Yet despite overwhelming exonerating evidence and a Grand Jury's refusal to indict any Ramsey family member, some people still believe that speculation and mouse farts are proof beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of the Ramseys killed JonBenet.

 

[BBB167893]

The evidence exonerates the Ramseys. That's why the Grand Jury publically embarassed Michael Kane and the BPD by refusing to indict the Ramseys.

Wrong. They couldn't figure out who to charge with what.

Yet despite overwhelming exonerating evidence and a Grand Jury's refusal to indict any Ramsey family member, some people still believe that speculation and mouse farts is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of the Ramseys killed JonBenet.

Beyond a "reasonable" doubt, not beyond ALL doubt. As for it being "speculation," I got a written, numbered list for just such an occasion.

 

[Chrishope]

This touch DNA is scary stuff.

I work in an elementary school. Sometimes I help kids wipe spills off their clothes during lunch. This involves touching the kids (in appropriate places ) and of course touching their clothes. Once or twice I've helped kids get their jackets, snow pants, or boots on/off. I have to assume some of my skin cells could, by the end of the day, find their way down to the underwear.

If one of these kids ends up molested and dead in their basement, the forensics people would likely find my touch dna in at least 3 places on at least 2 different articles of clothing.

Would this automatically exonerate the parents?

 

[BBB167893]

Scary thought, isn't it Chrishope?

But I think it would depend on how competent the prosecutor was. (Hint hint)

 

[Chrishope]

Yes, very scary. But even if I could explain how my skin cells got into someone's undies, it might still create enough doubt to allow the killer(s) to go free. Even with competent prosecution.

 

[BBB167893]

Science is terrific, but as it gets better it picks up more stuff, which may or may not be relevant.

What we have to remember is machines have no mind of their own. They don't know the difference between important and nonimportant.

 

[Wudge]

This touch DNA is scary stuff.

I work in an elementary school. Sometimes I help kids wipe spills off their clothes during lunch. This involves touching the kids (in appropriate places ) and of course touching their clothes. Once or twice I've helped kids get their jackets, snow pants, or boots on/off. I have to assume some of my skin cells could, by the end of the day, find their way down to the underwear.

If one of these kids ends up molested and dead in their basement, the forensics people would likely find my touch dna in at least 3 places on at least 2 different articles of clothing.

Would this automatically exonerate the parents?

No Chris. You would have nothing to worry about. We all know that LE never jumps to conclusions or leaks to the media. Nor would the media falsely villify you and strip away your entitlement to favorable prejudice just so they could improve their profits by castigating you as a pedophile.

I see no reason for concern.

(familes end up destroyed ... all is lost)

 

[BBB167893]

No Chris. You would have nohing to worry about. We all know that LE never jumps to conclusions or leaks to the media. Nor would the media falsely villify you and strip away your entitlement to favorable prejudice just so they could improve their profits by castigating you as a pedophile.

You just described the DA's office perfectly, Wudge.

 

[LI_Mom]

This touch DNA is scary stuff.

I work in an elementary school. Sometimes I help kids wipe spills off their clothes during lunch. This involves touching the kids (in appropriate places ) and of course touching their clothes. Once or twice I've helped kids get their jackets, snow pants, or boots on/off. I have to assume some of my skin cells could, by the end of the day, find their way down to the underwear.

If one of these kids ends up molested and dead in their basement, the forensics people would likely find my touch dna in at least 3 places on at least 2 different articles of clothing.

Would this automatically exonerate the parents?

That's what I've been asking all along.

Doesn't a defense lawyer only have to show that someone else's dna is on a victim's body to cast doubt on HIS client's guilt?

I just don't see how this touch dna can be useful to EXCLUDE anyone.... and unless they can get a complete dna profile from the 'touch dna'.... it's not so great at INCLUDING either.

It's a good tool for helping investigators INVESTIGATE though.

 

[LI_Mom]

Science is terrific, but as it gets better it picks up more stuff, which may or may not be relevant.

What we have to remember is machines have no mind of their own. They don't know the difference between important and nonimportant.

So now you're calling Lacy a machine? lol

 

[BBB167893]

That's another story, LI Mom. What I meant was that computers, etc can only do what we humans tell them to do.

 

[LI_Mom]

That's another story, LI Mom. What I meant was that computers, etc can only do what we humans tell them to do.

Yes, I understood, I was just being funny. (I hope. lol)

Btw, let's hope that computers continue to do what we tell them. There are some who believe it's only a matter of time before that's not true.

 

[Jane Osa]

First of all if the touch DNA were that sensitive you'd be finding Ramseys all over the place - the teacher in a former post shouldn't be afraid.... The DNA - from what I understand blood from her underwear and skin from her leggings - this would seem to put the ramseys not at the scene of the crime, or at least not redressing her w/o gloves or other protection. I am on the fence about this case. The DNA points to an intruder, but, the ransom note and the Ramseys lies are suspicious.

I wanted to point out that a lot of people say 'crime of passion, Patsy, or Burke, whomever' hit her over the head then did a 'cover-up'. Remember though, she was strangled first - she apparently was not tied up, had clawed at her throat while being strangled and her blood-vessels under her eyelids burst - then there was the head trauma without much blood because she didn't have blood flow at that time. So, these theories of some outburst resulting in head injury do not add up. This person very purposefully was strangling her then bashed her head.
(a question to those who know: was JBR 'washed'? If so, that makes the intruder hanging out in the house after the murder more absurd...I don't know how your houses are but, I can hear water running through pipes, etc. - it'd make some noise to 'wash' her in a bath/shower)

Either the intruder was setting the Ramseys up to look guilty or the intruder was spontaneous & 'made it up' as they went along (garrote, ransom note, but, not kidnapping her, etc.). Or Ramseys were aware of the killer one way or another and 'helped' for whatever reason and whatever point in time. Either way this 'intruder' knew the Ramseys - knowing the house, their schedules, and the details in the ransom note.

I understand some people thinking it's insane with DNA evidence to not let the Ramseys off - but, for some of us, the ransom note, the fact Patsy was still dressed as she was the night before, the pineapple, the earlier 911 call, the lying about Burke, the fact that the murder weapon (garrote) was made from her paint brush & apparently whittled (not a spontaneous 'let's make a garrote to subdue her to get her out the window' as some 'expert' in the case suggested) and her general contrary testimony plus their refusal to cooperate. Sometimes I think that none of them did it but Patsy is thinking 'maybe John did this' and he's thinking 'maybe Patsy did this' and they're both thinking 'maybe Burke did this' and he's thinking 'did they do this' - so they all act like guilty idiots? The fact Burke may have Asperger's syndrome makes him more suspect rather than less - look this condition up and you'll see why.
The DNA would seem to point to at least one other person in the house aside from the Ramseys..... it's their own behavior & lies that make most of wonder about the truth of that night & not just write them off....

 

[Wudge]

You just described the DA's office perfectly, Wudge.

For every Hunter, there are a hundred Nifongs.

If the Durham D.A., Michael Nifong, had touch DNA, the Duke Lacrosse rape case would almost assuredly have turned out entirely different. Moreover, as regards Chris' concern, it is ridiculously easy to get children and grade school kids to provide ghastly inculpatory evidence that is absolutely untrue. Yet juries believe them.

Even after verdict reversals in the cases of many of the over forty people who were wrongfully convicted in the hysteria of our ritual-abuse, child care debacle, I still have more than a few aged cases on my list of probable wrongful convictions.

 

[Wudge]

That's what I've been asking all along.

Doesn't a defense lawyer only have to show that someone else's dna is on a victim's body to cast doubt on HIS client's guilt?

I just don't see how this touch dna can be useful to EXCLUDE anyone.... and unless they can get a complete dna profile from the 'touch dna'.... it's not so great at INCLUDING either.

It's a good tool for helping investigators INVESTIGATE though.

In this case, the reason the touch DNA is exonerating evidence is because it was found in two places on JonBenet's leggings and also perfectly matched the liquid based DNA that was found on Jon Benet's underwear.

HTH

 

[BBB167893]

For every Hunter, there are a hundred Nifongs.

Quite so! And Lacy is one of them. And I'm not just saying that. Look at her conduct in the Univ. of CO case just to start with.

I'll be honest: I always wondered why Mary lacy didn't get more heat from the pro-Ramsey people in the wake of the Karr debacle. After all, she made herself, and by extension her supporters look like a bunch of jerks! It just gives our side more ammunition.

(More on her later)

The DNA points to an intruder, but, the ransom note and the Ramseys lies are suspicious.

Well, Jane Osa, there are people who think that someone else did the killing and they did the cover-up. Just saying.

 

[BBB167893]

In this case, the reason the touch DNA is exonerating evidence is because it was found in two places on JonBenet's leggings and also perfectly matched the liquid based DNA that was found on Jon Benet underwear.

It's exonerating when they can match it to someone they can prove was there that night.