The Ramseys are Cleared

[philamena]

I would like to know why they haven't find this DNA evidence until now?

Ditto.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I am sure someone at the party helped JB go potty. It could be theirs or the DNA of whoever made tights or the panties. DNA would get transfered with her tights and undies moving down and up on each other. This means nothing except the da copped out for John and his family. Bet she will be taking a trip buy new things soon.

I thought the dna found in her panties were found in a drop of blood?

And that DNA just happens to match with what was found on her long underwear?

I don't believe in coincidences...especially in murder cases.

Plus if that were true that person would be easily found.

imoo

 

[lilywhite]

Please read~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The paintbrush!~

The paintbrush was touched by the killer to make the garrote. The paint brush was touched by the killer to insert the end of it into JBR.

The killer had to hold the paintbrush to break it. If there were ALREADY male DNA on the paintbrush, when the killer broke the paintbrush to make the garrote, he/she could have gotten it on his hands and it would have transferred to the sides of JBR's long johns as well as off of the inserted paintbrush to intermingle with her blood and onto her panties!

Someone please tell me how this is not a logical transferrance of DNA to both places...

If the killer wore gloves his/her dna might not located anywhere but the male dna already on the painbrush sure would....

I read it, I promise! And replied. Poor Websleuths is groaning under the strain I think.

 

[MrsMush99]

I am sure someone at the party helped JB go potty. It could be theirs or the DNA of whoever made tights or the panties. DNA wouls get transfered with her tights and undies moving down and up on each other. This means nothing except the da copped out for John and his family. Bet she will be taking a trip buy new things soon.

So I guess you think the forensics lab was bought off also?? And again you are saying that who every made the tights and the panties, that's their DNA??? Same person make the panties and the tights?? I find that highly unlikely.

 

[reefshadow]

There was such a miniscule amount of it that it wasn't til 12 years later that they could identify it? It must be a MICROPSCOPIC amount.

And yet..........no other DNA from this person anywhere......not on the broken paintbrush, the blanket, the clothes he changed her into. He wasn't even sweating when he wrote on her hand?

There are a couple of different reasons this would be possible. Clothing fibers are very porous and will "catch" the skin cells better than other materials, certainly much better than the slick surface of a paintbrush or tightly woven garrote. These are also small hand held items, and if he had worn gloves wouldn't have been in contact with his skin.

It is also possible that the perp was wearing gloves and the skin cells were transferred to the clothing by him accidentally brushing his arms across them, not from his fingers/hands at all. Putting clothing on and *only* touching it with your hands is very difficult, and with the inert body of a child was probably impossible. The blanket, I'm not sure. If she wasn't wrapped tightly in it it may have been possible for him to manage without touching it with anything but gloved hands. It is also possible that there is evidence on these items and they just haven't detected it yet.

I'm not saying that I believe the Ramseys are cleared- just that this evidence is real and it is entirely possible it belongs to an unknown perpetrator.

I think the only way they will truly be cleared is if a murderous pedophile's DNA is found to match- probably after he has killed again and been caught.

 

[TexMex]

Panties, check. Long johns, check.

But (for the sake of argument) how do we know the killer wasn't (for example) Patsy, with some random DNA on her hands from, I don't know, shaking someone's hand at the Christmas party? Getting change at the convenience store? With the infinitessimal (sp?) amount of DNA we seem to be debating, how can we know?

Hi lily

But how would Patsy transfer some dudes saliva into the crotch her daughter's underwear?

I just never believed a stage four cancer survivor would get upset her daughter wet the bed so she kills her....nobody I know who has gone through the Big C sweats small stuff like that. They enjoy every moment of life they have with the loved ones they have.

 

[evelyn24]

Becklynn, Fox News got it right. Please read the rough draft of my press release. This is just the beginning of all the things wrong with Lacy's stupid crap she is pulling..AGAIN.

For Immediate Release July 9th 2008
From: Forums for Justice.org
Contact: Tricia Griffith [email protected]

HERE WE GO AGAIN. BOULDER D.A. MARY LACY MAKES A FOOL OF HERSELF IN THE RAMSEY CASE.
You would think Lacy would have learned something from her John Mark Carr fiasco​

Today, true justice for 6 year old murder victim JonBenet Ramsey has been thwarted by the very person elected by the people to protect her.

Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy has given the Ramseys a parting gift as she leaves office; she has cleared them of having any connection to the murder of JonBenet.

Lacy "cleared" the Ramseys based on new DNA evidence called "Touch DNA."
Touch DNA is exactly that. A test so sensitive that it can pick up a few microscopic skin cells left behind by someone touching an object.

Lacy claims there is unknown DNA on the long-johns and underwear JonBenet was wearing when she died, therefore (and only Mary Lacy could make this leap) the Ramseys are innocent.

Forums for Justice.org would like to remind Mary Lacy of what she said two years ago,

""The [Ramsey case] DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s." - Boulder DA Mary Lacy, 8/28/06

I guess now Mary Lacy has changed her mind.

If this Touch DNA belongs to the "real killer" why isn't it all over the following items: ligature, paintbrush handle, tape, the white blanket, JonBenet's shirt, the flashlight, the spoon, and the bowl of pineapple the "real killer" fed JonBenet before he wrote the ransom note and killed her.

MARY LACEY PLEASE SHOW US THE SAME DNA YOU FOUND ON THE LONGJOHNS AND UNDERWEAR ON THE OTHER ITEMS USED IN THE MURDER. DID THE "REAL KILLER" TAKE OF HER GLOVES WHEN SHE LEFT A COUPLE OF SKIN CELLS ON THE PANTS THEN PUT THEM BACK ON AS TO NOT LEAVE ANY MORE DNA?

Patsy Ramsey stated she put the long-johns on JonBenet. Her DNA must be on the long-johns too. So why isn't she mentioned?

Lacy claims the DNA on the long-johns match DNA on the undewear. It would be nice if Lacy could make the very logical conclusion that there was transference of a few skin cells since the long-johns WERE PULLED OVER THE UNDERWEAR.

Forums for Justice.org would like to ask Mary Lacy one final question; WHAT ABOUT THE 2 1/2 PAGE RANSOME NOTE. The note has been matched to Patsy Ramsey's handwriting by several well respected handwriting analysts.

There are hundreds of other examples of common sense observations in the JonBenet Ramsey case that escape those in the Boulder D.A's office.

In Mary Lacy's world of Ramsey common sense does not exist.

Tricia Griffith
Forums for Justice.org
[email protected]

PS. It will be interesting to see where Mary Lacy ends up in the private sector.

Thank you. :blowkiss:

 

[Pepper]

I think we are doing a lot of speculating here, and none of us have the inside track to the labs, LE, the DA, etc............. And there is nothing wrong with speculating. But I also believe that there are many here that are so invested with their opinion that the Ramseys are guilty, they will never waiver their opinion no matter what evidence surfaces.

I've always questioned the "guilty" opinion relating to the Ramsey family, and this is definitely not an "I told you so" but I would like everyone to realize that your persona is not DEPENDENT upon the Ramseys being found guilty or being totally exonerated. Don't take it personally. I thought that the Karr confession was a breakthrough. I was proven wrong. So what? Get over it, I say! I just hope we are one step closer to finding the killer, no matter who that person may be!

Thank God for modern technology! Maybe one day there will be no "maybes" but only positive proof of one's guilt or innocence. I can only hope.

 

[lilywhite]

Hi lily

But how would Patsy transfer some dudes saliva into the crotch her daughter's underwear?

So the panty DNA was definitely from saliva then? I'm really not smart about DNA. Ask me a grammar question and I can bore you to tears in under five minutes. Fairly good at math as well. But science, got a D in high school. Only D I ever got! LOL

 

[azwriter]

Just because the dna does not match any of the Ramsey family does not mean that they are innocent in the murder of JBR. The dna found could have been on the undies prior to JBR ever wearing them. To announce that the Ramseys are "cleared" implies, at the very least, that they are innocent, which I will never believe.

Agree! Agree!
But, what I don't understand is - if they were never charged, how can they be cleared? Sounds to me like the Boulder Cops are cleaning out their files or under strict orders from someone up higher.
JMO

 

[LI_Mom]

Hi lily

But how would Patsy transfer some dudes saliva into the crotch her daughter's underwear?

I just never believed a stage four cancer survivor would get upset her daughter wet the bed so she kills her....nobody I know who has gone through the Big C sweats small stuff like that. They enjoy every moment of life they have with the loved ones they have.

Well we know Patsy was sweating the small stuff when she & JB argued about what she had to wear to the party.

Not saying the bed wetting DID set her off your argument doesn't hold up against the facts.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I think we are doing a lot of speculating here, and none of us have the inside track to the labs, LE, the DA, etc............. And there is nothing wrong with speculating. But I also believe that there are many here that are so invested with their opinion that the Ramseys are guilty, they will never waiver their opinion no matter what evidence surfaces.

I've always questioned the "guilty" opinion relating to the Ramsey family, and this is definitely not an "I told you so" but I would like everyone to realize that your persona is not DEPENDENT upon the Ramseys being found guilty or being totally exonerated. Don't take it personally. I thought that the Karr confession was a breakthrough. I was proven wrong. So what? Get over it, I say! I just hope we are one step closer to finding the killer, no matter who that person may be!

Thank God for modern technology! Maybe one day there will be no "maybes" but only positive proof of one's guilt or innocence. I can only hope.

I agree Pepper.

DNA does not lie. DNA does not play favortism.......it is what it is and I hope and pray that now they have the DNA profile of the murderer that justice will be done.

imoo

 

[Adalena935]

Please read~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The paintbrush!~

The paintbrush was touched by the killer to make the garrote. The paint brush was touched by the killer to insert the end of it into JBR.

The killer had to hold the paintbrush to break it. If there were ALREADY male DNA on the paintbrush, when the killer broke the paintbrush to make the garrote, he/she could have gotten it on his hands and it would have transferred to the sides of JBR's long johns as well as off of the inserted paintbrush to intermingle with her blood and onto her panties!

Someone please tell me how this is not a logical transferrance of DNA to both places...

If the killer wore gloves his/her dna might not located anywhere but the male dna already on the painbrush sure would....

Tv news said it was taken from fingerprint on her long johns. I don't believe fingerprints were transferred from the paintbrush handle, to the intruder's gloves, fingerprints then had to have survived the destroying of the paintbrush handle and the garrat construction. Then the DNA would have had to survive the assault.

Then you have to explain the DNA from an unknown in the other 2 places that match. Then the DNA in 3 places on the dead child is still from an unknown.

I don't believe it. It's not even close to being reasonable. I think it's impossible.

It's reasonable it's from an unknown intruder just as the evidence has shown.

source: trutv today

ETA: They may have said partial fingerprint. I don't remember exactly. Cyril Wecht on Fox said the same thing. partial whatever. from the fingerprint of the killer.

 

[azwriter]

They matched the DNA from the skin cells on the tights to the DNA in her underwear. They then ruled out all family members and investigators. They have no idea who the DNA belongs too.

Well, if they have no idea who the DNA belongs to - no body did it!
I can't believe this BS.

 

[philamena]

That's pretty cold indeed for someone in a strange house (have you ever watched the vids or viewed the pics from the inside of that house?)

Have you read Fleet White's version of events when her body was "discovered" by John?

Maybe she should read Steve Thomas's book!
Where is our dear Tricia???

 

[reefshadow]

Panties, check. Long johns, check.

But (for the sake of argument) how do we know the killer wasn't (for example) Patsy, with some random DNA on her hands from, I don't know, shaking someone's hand at the Christmas party? Getting change at the convenience store? With the infinitessimal (sp?) amount of DNA we seem to be debating, how can we know?

The thing is, there is more than enough evidence to satisfy everyone who comes down on either side of this case. Maybe this is like politics and religion -- you can talk about them but it will almost always get ugly and no one will change their mind.

Short of an actual guy being produced who fits the DNA profile (a confession would help too) this will just be one that never gets solved; I really believe that.

I still lean heavily toward the RDI scenario. As a parent, I don't necessarily want to, but I do.

Thank you for your reply; it was kind of obvious, wasn't it? Where's my dunce cap?

The DNA found in the drop of Jon Benets blood was from a secretion of some kind, *not* skin cells. Probably saliva. Unless Patsy had her hands licked while they were being shaked, I just can't see how that would have gotten there. You've got skin *and* secretion DNA from the same unknown person... I have a hard time believing that is a coincidence.

"The thing is, there is more than enough evidence to satisfy everyone who comes down on either side of this case. Maybe this is like politics and religion -- you can talk about them but it will almost always get ugly and no one will change their mind."

That's for sure, and I never have made up my mind. Unless this DNA matches that of a murdering pedo that gets caught in the future I don't think it will ever be solved.

 

[azwriter]

Wow...I used to originally believe they were innocent and then I wavered after reading everything and sometimes believed they were guilty, then more guilty than innocent.
Imagine if they really are innocent. The agony of knowing people thought u were guilty and all the things that were said about them

I still dont know yet. How strong is this DNA in the grand scheme of things if it was on her clothes before she even wore them? If it was semen then that would be everything.....
I still just dont know

In reality, this was never a DNA case in my opinion.

 

[philamena]

Medea,
Please, when you have a chance, go to Tricia's other forum, Forums for Justice. Every thing you need to know about the Ramseys is there. Here's the link.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/index.php?

 

[evelyn24]

I can't help but agree. It's probably one of the top three pieces of evidence for me.

I wish I knew more about DNA than I do. I'm not comfortable trying to debunk the "new" DNA when I don't fully understand the implications and the possibility for transfer.

This case will never be solved.

Yea, the "ransom note" is the thing for me too.
I mean..come the hell on, people.
lol

 

[T-Rex]

From a quick Google search on DNA markers:

"It is important to keep in mind that one marker is not considered enough to match up evidence. Of the thirteen regions that differ within humans, one or two markers matching is not considered a strong match but five would be considered reasonably strong and more likely to indicate that the DNA typing is indicative of the same person."
http://www.exploredna.co.uk/performing-dna-typing.html

So how many are we talking here? Five? Four? Two? I'm not getting too worked up until we find out.