Why GJ Likely Solved Case In 1999

[redheadedgal]

I just wonder since a subsequent DA cleared the Ramseys...

We must, nonetheless, recall that this is the woman who two years ago conceded she had not a shred of credible evidence tying John Mark Karr to the death of JonBenét Ramsey. Yet, she still hauled this creepy child-sex fetishist back to United States from Thailand (a crime in itself, if you ask me) and let citizens foot the bill.

Read more: There's only one victim in the Ramsey case - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_9839651#ixzz2aTLtPGYi


also,

The focus here is Mary Lacy’s irresponsible, unprofessional and hypocritical behavior. For anyone who still doubts Lacy’s breathtaking incompetence, peruse these quotes from a piece by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, who was an investigative reporter on the case. (Yes, I realize Shapiro has his own bias, but the Lacy quotes speak for themselves.)

In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: “The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s. But it could be something else.
​

And …

In fact, during the Karr debacle, Lacy also said that “no one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction in court, beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor, unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime, to clear someone.
​

What has changed for Lacy? If she didn’t know then that the DNA was the killer’s, how does she know it now? If DNA was there, finding a trace amount in another spot doesn’t change any facts. Nor does it “clear” the Ramseys.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2008/07/11/anger-wont-clear-ramseys/498/

shapiro article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/07/11/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-da-wrong-to-clear-ramseys/

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Didn't you originally state that there was no indictment therefore the Ramseys were not likely guilty (or words to that effect)?

Somewhere in this topic I posted a link to a statement made by a Federal judge in a case where I live. The gist of what he said was that Grand Jurys usually got it right (meaning a true bill usually indicated guilt when the case went to trial).

Touch DNA means little in proving an intruder was the killer (if that is what you base your IDI theory on).

I was in error and posted that. I still don't think that indictment means they are guilty. That does not seal the deal for me. I also posted an article about how grand juries get it wrong. I will see if I can find it again.
I'm basing my opinion on the fact that I have not seen anything yet that points me to the Ramseys.

We must, nonetheless, recall that this is the woman who two years ago conceded she had not a shred of credible evidence tying John Mark Karr to the death of JonBenét Ramsey. Yet, she still hauled this creepy child-sex fetishist back to United States from Thailand (a crime in itself, if you ask me) and let citizens foot the bill.

Read more: There's only one victim in the Ramsey case - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_9839651#ixzz2aTLtPGYi


also,

The focus here is Mary Lacy’s irresponsible, unprofessional and hypocritical behavior. For anyone who still doubts Lacy’s breathtaking incompetence, peruse these quotes from a piece by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, who was an investigative reporter on the case. (Yes, I realize Shapiro has his own bias, but the Lacy quotes speak for themselves.)

In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: “The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s. But it could be something else.
​

And …

In fact, during the Karr debacle, Lacy also said that “no one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction in court, beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor, unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime, to clear someone.
​

What has changed for Lacy? If she didn’t know then that the DNA was the killer’s, how does she know it now? If DNA was there, finding a trace amount in another spot doesn’t change any facts. Nor does it “clear” the Ramseys.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2008/07/11/anger-wont-clear-ramseys/498/

shapiro article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/07/11/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-da-wrong-to-clear-ramseys/

That bothers me. People seem to want DNA to convict or clear people except in this case. It almost seems that people don't care about DNA that it means nothing.
I also wonder if JMK was cleared because of the DNA, Does it really mean he is innocent? I have to say I do not understand everything about him and his part in this, But I remember the arrest and subsequent circus.

 

[CanManEh]

You hear all the time about kids that grew up in a bad home or abused and it allways or most of the time it causes the kids to act out to get in to all kinds of trouble so im just thinking why if burke did this i mean this is considered to be in like what the top ten of most famous crimes and this kid has growen up knowing he did well what alot of people think he did and he is finishing college getting a carrer not out drinking stealing doing drugs spending half his life in jail like most kids would if they grew up in a home where something like this happend let alone him being the actuall killer . So if he did it how has he stayed so well normal if he has been keeping in this big secret wouldn't he be depressed turn to drugs i don't i just don't see how he could go all these years without having some kinda problems ..

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You hear all the time about kids that grew up in a bad home or abused and it allways or most of the time it causes the kids to act out to get in to all kinds of trouble so im just thinking why if burke did this i mean this is considered to be in like what the top ten of most famous crimes and this kid has growen up knowing he did well what alot of people think he did and he is finishing college getting a carrer not out drinking stealing doing drugs spending half his life in jail like most kids would if they grew up in a home where something like this happend let alone him being the actuall killer . So if he did it how has he stayed so well normal if he has been keeping in this big secret wouldn't he be depressed turn to drugs i don't i just don't see how he could go all these years without having some kinda problems ..

To me if a 9 yr old would have done this, it would have been huge.. a major defect in a child not just a fun experiment. There is no way a 9 yr old does this and grows up completely normal. It is just not possible, OMO.

 

[questfortrue]

You hear all the time about kids that grew up in a bad home or abused and it allways or most of the time it causes the kids to act out to get in to all kinds of trouble so im just thinking why if burke did this i mean this is considered to be in like what the top ten of most famous crimes and this kid has growen up knowing he did well what alot of people think he did and he is finishing college getting a carrer not out drinking stealing doing drugs spending half his life in jail like most kids would if they grew up in a home where something like this happend let alone him being the actuall killer . So if he did it how has he stayed so well normal if he has been keeping in this big secret wouldn't he be depressed turn to drugs i don't i just don't see how he could go all these years without having some kinda problems ..

Interesting that LE wanted to question him in 2010 and he declined. Since this was time-wise more than 10 years after his Grand Jury testimony of 1999.

Short answers:
1) 18 months of psychiatric therapy (not just a psychologist or counselor).
2) Jury still out.

 

[BOESP]

I was in error and posted that. I still don't think that indictment means they are guilty. That does not seal the deal for me. I also posted an article about how grand juries get it wrong. I will see if I can find it again.
I'm basing my opinion on the fact that I have not seen anything yet that points me to the Ramseys.

That bothers me. People seem to want DNA to convict or clear people except in this case. It almost seems that people don't care about DNA that it means nothing.
I also wonder if JMK was cleared because of the DNA, Does it really mean he is innocent? I have to say I do not understand everything about him and his part in this, But I remember the arrest and subsequent circus.

BBM. That's how I feel about people who refuse to believe a Grand Jury true bill means anything. It is not proof of guilt but it means that 12 peers believed there was sufficient incriminating evidence to bring the case to a jury trial against the people named in the true bill. Since DA Hunter did not sign off on that true bill which, to my understanding, is a requirement in Colorado, well, why would a competent DA let something like that happen?

Unidentified touch DNA means somebody touched something and transferred DNA to some object at sometime. It doesn't mean it happened the night of JonBenet's death and it doesn't mean it was the killer's DNA. Heck, it doesn't even mean the individual who transferred it was the DNA donor. There has to be more than just unidentified touch DNA.

If the DNA came from a semen stain, mucous or blood I might be more amendable to believing it was important rather than just more smoke and mirrors to cover up what actually happened.

The evidence that led to the true bill had to have pointed to the Ramseys involvement else it would have been a "no true bill found."

Regardless, coming to a conclusion based only on one piece of evidence (whether Grand Jury true bill or touch DNA) is, well, incompetent reasoning.

 

[madeleine]

To me if a 9 yr old would have done this, it would have been huge.. a major defect in a child not just a fun experiment. There is no way a 9 yr old does this and grows up completely normal. It is just not possible, OMO.

@bold
do you know him in person?
and even so...serial killers look normal too....molesters look/act normal too...how do you know what really goes on inside of him

 

[FrayedKnot]

touch DNA can be left by the garment worker who pieced the panties together in China.

 

[Nom de plume]

You hear all the time about kids that grew up in a bad home or abused and it allways or most of the time it causes the kids to act out to get in to all kinds of trouble so im just thinking why if burke did this i mean this is considered to be in like what the top ten of most famous crimes and this kid has growen up knowing he did well what alot of people think he did and he is finishing college getting a carrer not out drinking stealing doing drugs spending half his life in jail like most kids would if they grew up in a home where something like this happend let alone him being the actuall killer . So if he did it how has he stayed so well normal if he has been keeping in this big secret wouldn't he be depressed turn to drugs i don't i just don't see how he could go all these years without having some kinda problems ..

I know what you're trying to say, and to a certain extent I agree. You'd think if BR did this he'd have shown signs of being disturbed since then. Maybe he has and we just don't know about it. Although I'm not BDI, I do think he is atypical. After what he's been through in life, which I think includes abuse, you'd almost expect him to be a messed up adult. IMO, no amount of psychiatric help is ever going to "fix" him if he truly is a cold blooded murderer. If he did this, he's seriously disturbed, and still a danger to those he comes in contact with. If he didn't, I'm still surprised that he's functioning as well as he is.

 

[redheadedgal]

Scarlett: People seem to want DNA to convict or clear people except in this case. It almost seems that people don't care about DNA that it means nothing.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682483/Is%20This%20a%20DNA%20Case

particularily:

Similarly, in a book about a completely different case, it was stated: "Mandros said renowned forensics expert Dr. Henry Lee told him that he once conducted a test to see how easy it is for DNA to be transferred to an object. Doctor Lee said he bought a package of men's underwear from a department store, opened it in his laboratory, and tested for DNA evidence immediately - and he found some."


Scarlett: I also wonder if JMK was cleared because of the DNA, Does it really mean he is innocent? I have to say I do not understand everything about him and his part in this, But I remember the arrest and subsequent circus.

iirc, he was cleared b/c his dna did not match and b/c it could not be determined he was in boulder that day.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I so want to talk about this but I'm being attacked by a stomach flu. I will be back soon

 

[redheadedgal]

I so want to talk about this but I'm being attacked by a stomach flu. I will be back soon

stomach flu? yuck. hope you feel better soon !!

 

[BBB167893]

Grand juries are notorious for indictments. We all know the ham sandwich line. I am just not sure why it makes it more relevant that grand jury had any decision.
I wonder what the ratio is on cases brought vs indictments.

Scarlett, I don't know what the exact ratio is on brought vs indictments, but my understanding is that something like 98% of the suspects who get as far as the indictment stage are guilty.

 

[chissus]

You hear all the time about kids that grew up in a bad home or abused and it allways or most of the time it causes the kids to act out to get in to all kinds of trouble so im just thinking why if burke did this i mean this is considered to be in like what the top ten of most famous crimes and this kid has growen up knowing he did well what alot of people think he did and he is finishing college getting a carrer not out drinking stealing doing drugs spending half his life in jail like most kids would if they grew up in a home where something like this happend let alone him being the actuall killer . So if he did it how has he stayed so well normal if he has been keeping in this big secret wouldn't he be depressed turn to drugs i don't i just don't see how he could go all these years without having some kinda problems ..

Sociopaths have no conscious and do what they think is best for themselves. I would think a child sociopath would conclude staying out of trouble is best for them in the long run.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sociopaths have no conscious and do what they think is best for themselves. I would think a child sociopath would conclude staying out of trouble is best for them in the long run.

I don't think he is a sociopath at all. There is no evidence of such a thing and even if he was, That does not mean he could control the kind of rage and deviant behavior this act would take from a 9 yr old.

To me the best evidence that he had nothing to do with this crime is that he has lead a perfectly quiet seemingly normal life even with the spot light upon him. OMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett: People seem to want DNA to convict or clear people except in this case. It almost seems that people don't care about DNA that it means nothing.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682483/Is%20This%20a%20DNA%20Case

particularily:

Similarly, in a book about a completely different case, it was stated: "Mandros said renowned forensics expert Dr. Henry Lee told him that he once conducted a test to see how easy it is for DNA to be transferred to an object. Doctor Lee said he bought a package of men's underwear from a department store, opened it in his laboratory, and tested for DNA evidence immediately - and he found some."


Scarlett: I also wonder if JMK was cleared because of the DNA, Does it really mean he is innocent? I have to say I do not understand everything about him and his part in this, But I remember the arrest and subsequent circus.

iirc, he was cleared b/c his dna did not match and b/c it could not be determined he was in boulder that day.

Leaves questions doesn't it? I mean really. every other case DNA seems to be king, but now because we have so much DNA, now it means nothing.. I don't know. Still studying the DNA off other sites..
To me it means one of two things, The killer wore gloves and all the DNA was irrelevant, and 6 people that have no relationship to the Ramseys and were tested do not match, Which is crazy to me, OMO, Or that one of them could be the killer maybe 2 and the rest could be irrelevant. But how did it get there, On her underwear. HOW? I would assume that touch DNA would not withstand laundering?? I don't know.. Just asking.. I know that when I wash the kids underwear I always include a little bleach in the water, so what about that?

As for the Grand juries, I am not sure I put that much stock in their indictments. I think that more likely than not, They are willing to give the DA what they want.
I still have to think about that.

Finally over this bug. Went through the whole house which has been lysoled and cleaned. Just weak now.. But it was a brutal 4 days in this house.

 

[BOESP]

Leaves questions doesn't it? I mean really. every other case DNA seems to be king, but now because we have so much DNA, now it means nothing.. I don't know. Still studying the DNA off other sites..
To me it means one of two things, The killer wore gloves and all the DNA was irrelevant, and 6 people that have no relationship to the Ramseys and were tested do not match, Which is crazy to me, OMO, Or that one of them could be the killer maybe 2 and the rest could be irrelevant. But how did it get there, On her underwear. HOW? I would assume that touch DNA would not withstand laundering?? I don't know.. Just asking.. I know that when I wash the kids underwear I always include a little bleach in the water, so what about that?

As for the Grand juries, I am not sure I put that much stock in their indictments. I think that more likely than not, They are willing to give the DA what they want.
I still have to think about that.

Finally over this bug. Went through the whole house which has been lysoled and cleaned. Just weak now.. But it was a brutal 4 days in this house.

Touch DNA can be transferred via secondary transfer. JonBenet, Patsy, John, Burke, anybody, could have picked up the DNA anywhere then transferred it to JonBenet's clothing. The housekeeper could have had it on her hands and in the act of folding and placing JonBenet's clothing then transferred the touch DNA. The long johns could have been picked up by someone at the Ramseys for the Christmas events prior to the 25th and flung them across the bed. There just is no way to connect that touch DNA with JonBenet's killer unless the donor can be identified and then shown to have been in the Ramsey home on the night JonBenet was killed.

I seriously doubt the DA in this case wanted the Grand Jury to hand over a true bill so I don't understand what you mean about "They are willing to give the DA what they want." Regardless, your negative opinion of Grand Jurys conflicts with what is known about the accuracy of Grand Jury true bills that are taken to trial.

 

[DeeDee249]

We don't have "so much" DNA. There were a few skin cells. Surely it is not hard to understand that DNA from a PRIMARY donor, like semen, blood, or other body fluids, are much more important to a criminal investigation than DNA that may be from a secondary (or even tertiary) donor. Skin cells mean nothing to a crime scene for the simple reason that they may not have anything to do with the crime- they could have come from a source that had nothing to do with the crime.
However, the body fluids l mentioned have almost no chance of getting there innocently, making their donor very likely part of the crime. In either case, the presence of DNA from ANYONE does not rule out the presence of others at the crime scene whose DNA has not been identified .
To put it simply- identifying the donor of that DNA does not prove the innocence of anyone who was present in the house regardless of whether their DNA appears or not. It only proves the involvement of the donor. In an UNSOLVED murder, all persons present in the house at the time of the murder are suspects in that crime until and unless the killer is identified BY NAME.
Until you know who it IS, you cannot say who it is NOT.

 

[madeleine]

BDI would explain FW's behavior...he has always been very vocal but never pointed the finger directly at one particular family member...it's obvious he knows something but has a reason to keep quiet...if BDI and he knows it (he's one of the key witnesses in this case) he can't name BR because of his age.MAYBE the reason he was so angry with the Ramseys was that he didn't agree with the cover-up and the lies and what they did AFTER the murder.BDI would also explain AH's and ML's soft approach (if I can call it this way LOL)?maybe some (including LS) felt even sorry for them ,if BDI and they did it all to cover it up it definitely wasn't something easy to go through...I guess...I can understand why a parent would do such things in order to protect a child but I don't agree with throwing other people under bus...it wasn't really necessary...

 

[madeleine]

Leaves questions doesn't it? I mean really. every other case DNA seems to be king, but now because we have so much DNA, now it means nothing.. I don't know. Still studying the DNA off other sites..
To me it means one of two things, The killer wore gloves and all the DNA was irrelevant, and 6 people that have no relationship to the Ramseys and were tested do not match, Which is crazy to me, OMO, Or that one of them could be the killer maybe 2 and the rest could be irrelevant. But how did it get there, On her underwear. HOW? I would assume that touch DNA would not withstand laundering?? I don't know.. Just asking.. I know that when I wash the kids underwear I always include a little bleach in the water, so what about that?

As for the Grand juries, I am not sure I put that much stock in their indictments. I think that more likely than not, They are willing to give the DA what they want.
I still have to think about that.

Finally over this bug. Went through the whole house which has been lysoled and cleaned. Just weak now.. But it was a brutal 4 days in this house.

how do you know the unknown DNA didn't get in her pants AFTER the crime (not during)
the phone records are missing.we don't know whether the Ramseys called someone over that night or not.
IF the DNA in her pants was deposited there that night it still doesn't prove that the owner killed her,period.
did they collect DNA from all the doctors the Ramseys knew?from all JR's friends who work in security?I DOUBT IT.
that DNA doesn't prove anything nor does it clear people,not until you know who it belongs to.