Why the DNA may NOT be important

[SunnieRN]

Wow cynic, HOME RUN!!!! You covered ALL the bases!

 

[CathyR]

CathyR,

There no evidence to support, never mind, substantiate an intruder theory.

Just because the Ramsey's say crime scene evidence is not theirs, does not make it so. Their one and only defense is that it was an intruder, so they will deny what they can deny.

Wherever the missing piece of paintbrush is located, its absence is not proof that an intruder removed it.

e.g. there is no evidence, just your supposition, which is fine, but it does not back up your IDI.

All the obsfucation and talk of unowned items pointing at unknown persons will never make the fact that there is no forensic evidence matching an intruder to the crime-scene go away.

.

If you are correct then why haven't the local police, the state police or even the federal government moved on it and made an arrest. You ignore the evidence they don't.

 

[joeskidbeck]

If you are correct then why haven't the local police, the state police or even the federal government moved on it and made an arrest. You ignore the evidence they don't.

Cathy, SuperDave has made a valid point many times about this very thing. Which one of the Ramseys should they arrest? They can't arrest them all and present it to a jury that way. It's called "cross finger pointing". For an explanation, see post # 41 here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...4&highlight=cross+finger+pointing#post5080824

 

[SunnieRN]

Cathy, SuperDave has made a valid point many times about this very thing. Which one of the Ramseys should they arrest? They can't arrest them all and present it to a jury that way. It's called "cross finger pointing". For an explanation, see post # 41 here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...4&highlight=cross+finger+pointing#post5080824

Thank you for this post. I've always felt this, but it's great to see it written down!

 

[Agatha_C]

You taught me something new Beck, thank you!

 

[joeskidbeck]

You taught me something new Beck, thank you!

Thank you, but the credit is all SuperDave's. He is absolutely JonBenet's biggest defender and I truly love him for it! Never met the guy, but his character shines in his devotion to this little girl.

 

[Agatha_C]

I agree whole heartedly!!!!!!!! But you still had to remember it, search for the post and pass it on, you were the teacher in this case.....

 

[joeskidbeck]

Thank you, Agatha. I really appreciate your kind words, Becky

 

[CathyR]

This is completely false.
(BTW, the one with the overblown ego is Douglas. His sell-out is of epic proportions, and he should be ashamed with every breath he takes.)

Regarding the blanket:

JOHN RAMSEY: Well I see a white blanket that's folded across her body neatly.
LOU SMIT: It was neatly folded across the body?
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.
LOU SMIT: Now describe that just a little bit? Was it --
JOHN RAMSEY: She was laying on the blanket.
LOU SMIT: Was it laying on the back?
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. On the back. The blanket was caught up around and crossed in front of her as if somebody was tucking her in.
…
MIKE KANE: All right. Okay. Now, when you went inside to that room, you described the blanket. And you said it was folded like -- I'm just trying to get a mental picture of it. Was it like --
JOHN RAMSEY: It was like an Indian papoose.
MIKE KANE: Okay.
(1998 interview)

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

Here is what FBI profilers who were not paid by the Ramseys for their opinion said:

Q. " What is the significance of the blanket covering JonBenét body that was found in the basement? What does this mean in terms of profiling--what does it tell you about the needs of the perpetrator?"
"Ressler: Well often times the covering of a body, and in particular the covering of the facial features, from a profiling standpoint indicates a personal knowledge of that individual and it's an act of retribution of sort and an act of undoing. In other words, it becomes a matter of guilt on the part of the individual. It does not indicate some psychopathic personality like the individual that killed Polly Klaas. That's not what you'd see in that type of case. It's more or less a person that's known the child, and feels remorse for the crime."
Q. Is that a staged aspect of the crime, or is that...
"Ressler: No, I don't think that's necessarily a staged aspect as much as it is a reflection of the the guilt and the remorse on the part of the killer. Either intentional or accidental."


Greg McCrary, a former FBI psychological profiler trained in criminal behavior, thinks that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, were likely involved in the crime. "Parents are involved quite often in homicides," says McCrary. "The probability of an outsider doing this is extremely remote. I think someone in the family or very, very close to the family committed this crime."
"Whoever took this child covered the child, apparently spent time wrapping the child, apparently spent time wiping down the body in the house, took time to get a pad and pen from the house to write a note," McCrary says. "Stranger intruders, when they come in to abduct a child, they're in, they're out."
McCrary, though, feels that the Ramseys themselves have acted suspiciously. "I think John and Patsy Ramsey have created a lot of speculation about their involvement through their own behavior," says McCrary.
For example, police thought they were unhelpful, even evasive. "The common behavior of victim parents is that not only will they talk to police, you can't get them out of your hair," says McCrary.
"Separate attorneys to me almost speaks of a conflict of interest," McCrary continues. "In other words, why couldn't one attorney represent both of them if their interests were the same?"
And then there was the ransom note. "This is staging. The offender wants us to believthat some stranger came in here and tried to abduct the child for ransom," says McCrary. "An offender stages a crime scene for only one reason--without the staging, they're going to be the immediate logical suspect."
Who Killed JonBenet, 48 Hours Mystery

Also…

A criminal profiler who turned down an invitation to work for JonBenet Ramsey's family dismissed a portrait of the killer they released Wednesday as ``silly.''
``It's really fairly juvenile,'' said former FBI criminal profiler Gregg McCrary.
John and Patsy Ramsey's legal team asked McCrary in January to develop a profile of JonBenet's killer. McCrary, believing the killer would prove to be someone close to the family, declined.
Rocky Mountain News, July 24, 1997

John Douglas would have agreed if he wasn’t paid by the Ramseys to give an opinion contrary to everything he knew about murder within a family and staging:
"The child was found buried in the woods in his snowsuit, wrapped in a blanket, then completely covered with a thick plastic bag. A kidnapper or child molester would not have taken this much care to make him warm and "comfortable," or to try to shelter the body from the elements. While many murder scenes show obvious and prolonged rage, and dump sites often show contempt and hostility, the hallmarks of this burial were love and guilt."
Mindhunter p287 (John Douglas)

STEVE THOMAS: Well, that's certainly -- the colleagues, John Douglas' former colleagues in the FBI are not of that opinion. It's interesting that the defense-paid experts and investigators and so forth that are working on the case have one opinion whereas law enforcement and those in Colorado working this case have another.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html

I concede but ask you to go back and read what Douglas says about the blanket. I already turned my copy back in to library. It is obvious he was not informed correctly about it's position on the body. He discusses in length why he came to the conclusions he did. It makes me ask who gave him that info-if it came from the R's then they lied to him. If it came from the PD well they had no reason to make their case public and give the R's any additional information.
Douglas describes the blanket as being haphazardly thrown over the body but your official tape shows John telling investigator Smit that she was wrapped.

BTW my ego isn't close to Douglas or Thomas and I have nothing to lose like a reputation or job if I'm wrong. Telling me I'm wrong doesn't hurt my feelings. Heck I'm wrong about a lot of things in life and have a habit of either shooting myself in the foot or sticking that same foot in my mouth.

I wonder if we will ever know the truth.

 

[SunnieRN]

I concede but ask you to go back and read what Douglas says about the blanket. I already turned my copy back in to library. It is obvious he was not informed correctly about it's position on the body. He discusses in length why he came to the conclusions he did. It makes me ask who gave him that info-if it came from the R's then they lied to him. If it came from the PD well they had no reason to make their case public and give the R's any additional information.
Douglas describes the blanket as being haphazardly thrown over the body but your official tape shows John telling investigator Smit that she was wrapped.

BTW my ego isn't close to Douglas or Thomas and I have nothing to lose like a reputation or job if I'm wrong. Telling me I'm wrong doesn't hurt my feelings. Heck I'm wrong about a lot of things in life and have a habit of either shooting myself in the foot or sticking that same foot in my mouth.

I wonder if we will ever know the truth.

You know Cathy, the main problem with Douglas and his involvement with this case, was that he didn't spend the time needed to investigate the case. His peers criticized him for not looking at and reviewing the facts and coming up with conclusions that clearly went against profiling advice and actions he had followed throughout his career.

Very sad. He seemed much different after Waco.

 

[joeskidbeck]

You know Cathy, the main problem with Douglas and his involvement with this case, was that he didn't spend the time needed to investigate the case. His peers criticized him for not looking at and reviewing the facts and coming up with conclusions that clearly went against profiling advice and actions he had followed throughout his career.

Very sad. He seemed much different after Waco.

Right, Sunnie. I honestly believe that after Waco, Douglas needed all the good press he could get and he really thought that the majority opinion was that the Ramsey's could not have done this. He made a very bad decision and he will pay for this one for a long time. I really hated this when it happened because of the respect I had always had for him.

 

[BBB167893]

1.The writing in the note is not a match to Patsy or the State DA would have taken over already.

I'm not sure what you mean, Cathy. "State DA?"

Her matches were minimal,

Where did you hear that?

not enough for any expert to testify, then be crossed examined

The two are not synonymous, Cathy. Some states won't allow it regardless.

Foster isn't considered valid 'cause he wrote that note to Patsy and shot himself in the foot when he did it.

It's funny you say that, because the DA didn't think he'd shot himself in the foot until AFTER he'd id'd Patsy as the writer. If you read PMPT and ST's book, it's clear that the DA believed in him BECAUSE he didn't think PR wrote it.

The State did examine the case and refuse because there was not enough to prosecute.

First I've heard of it.

 

[BBB167893]

Could not agree with you more. The DNA in this case means zip and Keenan/Lacy knew it. I have spoken to Jeff Shapiro and he told me that it was pretty well accepted that Patsy Ramsey did this. Even her own Pastor at the time knew she committed this. I think that she may have even confessed t this.

Jeff Shapiro did tell me though, that Patsy did live in her own private hell, and did pay for it. She knew she got away with nothing.

Wow, Kelly. Tell us more, please!

When Patsy died after carrying that around she had hell to look forward to.

I don't know. I've always believed that she escaped the fires of hell.

 

[BBB167893]

If the RDI is true and they disposed of items then the R's missed a lot of evidence that points to them and would be more pressing to get rid of like the note pad and pen the killer and RN author used, and the clothes they wore to commit crime.

Precisely the kinds of mistakes I'd expect an amateur to make.

If it is a result of contamination don't you find it queer that the same DNA is found years apart on different pieces of evidence. The only way I can surmise that happening is if someone from the time the crime scene evidence was collected and the samples collected from them someone deposited DNA on the panties on the blood spots and then handled the longjohns barehanded. That person would be either from the DA's office, the coroners office, or the rescue personnel, FBI, BPD offices. Those people have their DNA on file so if it matched one of them I doubt we would ever know about it ( no press releases or even acknowledgment that the tests were done) as it would make that office look bad and call into question all cases that this individual was involved in. The results not matching the R's would not have been announced even by Lacy. Before a match can be made those people are compared FIRST to avoid embarrassment and public reprisals not to mention defense lawyer heaven. The DA can't say we have no match when it is known that the DNA is from some coroners assistant or police officer. The DNA does not match anyone it has been compared to- you can count all investigating branches as having been eliminated too, not just the R's.

Even Bill Wise doubted that it was possible to have tested all of the people who could have handled those items.

John Douglas states that too much evidence exists of an outsider being the culprit.

I'd trust him about as far as I can throw an aircraft carrier with my bare hands.

 

[BBB167893]

CathyR, are you saying that you don't believe fibers from John's Israeli made shirt were located in JonBenet's underwear?

Sure sounds like it, Beck.

They were and it is possible that since he had already gone to bed and was supposedly asleep, Patsy could have used his shirt in the staging so that he would look as guilty as she does. Everyone wonders why John covered for Patsy. It could have been because she saw to it that there was enough evidence against him that he had to help her. Patsy was a devious woman, she just about had to be in order to put JonBenet through those pageants. Yes, I have watched those tv shows about the pageat mothers, and honestly, they would do anything short of murder if it would help their daughters win. Patsy was no different. I think calling her devious is putting it nicely.

Harsh, Beck. But I can't help but wonder if you're right. I've seen those mothers too.

 

[BBB167893]

I agree that the pageants were serious business considering that JonBenet traveled to Michigan, Georgia, Texas, and was even going to Hawaii in January 1997 to compete in them. However, how does that tie into her murder if Patsy was the one who killed her? JonBenet can't compete in pageants if she's dead.

I have a rather well-known idea about that, eileen. Question is, are you up for it?

However, didn't LE say that the bathroom smelled like bleach or hair dye? Is it possible that Patsy said to JBR that it was time to touch up your roots for the upcoming Hawaiian Tropic pageant and JBR was like "No, I don't want to go." and Patsy flipped? And JBR hit her head on the bathtub? I have lots of theories.

Maybe, eileen.

 

[BBB167893]

John Douglas made it clear to the R's lawyers before he was hired his findings were not scewed by the fact that he was paid.

No, they were skewed by the fact that he had no access to evidence.

I give him far more credit than he may deserve ( you obviously think him unreliable)

That's putting it mildly.

as I think him one of the best investigators our country has.

Maybe he was once. But from what his fellows have said about him, his true talent is for self-promotion.

I don't give Steve Thomas much credit as a homicide detective. JBR was his first murder investigation case and he worked years on it with no results.

I'm not sure he's to blame for the "no results" part. There's a thread around here about the DA's chronic incompetence. You might find it interesting.

I'm sure he is a wonderful person, I hope he is happy and successful in life. I don't think he was a good homicide detective.

I don't think he ever claimed to be.

One of the main points Steve makes in his book about the red fibers is that Patsy wore the same clothes twice to "explain" why her fibers are found on JBR.

I agree. She pretty much confirmed that with her little performance in 2002.

I would expect all of Patsy's recent clothing fibers to be on JBR she lives in the same home, she handles JBR's clothing as well as her own. JBR still requires help with daily hygiene.

I've heard that one before. Problem was, they weren't on JB, only on the items they claimed weren't theirs. That's a problem.

Transfer transfer transfer. The RDI's love that word when it comes to DNA but hate it when it comes to Fibers.

Two different beasts, Cathy. MUCH different.

If the R's are staging they left a lot of evidence behind. The notepad, the pen, the clothes they wore, the brush end of the paintbrush. Too much IMO for people who are thinking about staging a scene, and making it appear as if a intruder was present.

Sounds like the kind of mistakes an amateur (and highly agitated one at that) would make.

Steve Thomas was so uninformed about certain aspects of crime scene investigation that he called John Douglas on it.

Using Douglas's own words against him. The devil!

The blanket on JBR's body was not wrapped tightly around her cocooning her as a loving gesture something a parent staging a scene might do.

According to JR, it was.

Steve couldn't tell the difference and when John Douglas explained the difference he still refused to change his mind and instead of accepting he could be wrong or mistaken he states in his book that he caught John Douglas in an inconsistancy to previous statements about crime scene investigation.

He did. That's why Douglas has it in for him so bad.

To me his overblown ego is showing and he can't be wrong or even admit it. That is not the kind of personality needed to be a good investigator.

You're describing Douglas, not ST. You should read what I've written about him.

Douglas states that the RN is too long and rambling, it shows the person was at ease when they wrote it. He says that would not be the case if the killer had written it AFTER the crime. ANY killer not just the parents but any perp.

Well that's funny, because his fellows at the FBI (including some of his mentors) said some very different things. Their findings are in both ST's book and Schiller's. I'm more inclined to believe them because they did not take any money from the prime suspects and actually worked with the evidence.

the crime is not that organized, it shows more aspects of being committed by an amateur than a professional.

No argument.

 

[BBB167893]

This is completely false.
(BTW, the one with the overblown ego is Douglas. His sell-out is of epic proportions, and he should be ashamed with every breath he takes.)

Regarding the blanket:

JOHN RAMSEY: Well I see a white blanket that's folded across her body neatly.
LOU SMIT: It was neatly folded across the body?
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.
LOU SMIT: Now describe that just a little bit? Was it --
JOHN RAMSEY: She was laying on the blanket.
LOU SMIT: Was it laying on the back?
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. On the back. The blanket was caught up around and crossed in front of her as if somebody was tucking her in.
…
MIKE KANE: All right. Okay. Now, when you went inside to that room, you described the blanket. And you said it was folded like -- I'm just trying to get a mental picture of it. Was it like --
JOHN RAMSEY: It was like an Indian papoose.
MIKE KANE: Okay.
(1998 interview)

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

Here is what FBI profilers who were not paid by the Ramseys for their opinion said:

Q. " What is the significance of the blanket covering JonBenét body that was found in the basement? What does this mean in terms of profiling--what does it tell you about the needs of the perpetrator?"
"Ressler: Well often times the covering of a body, and in particular the covering of the facial features, from a profiling standpoint indicates a personal knowledge of that individual and it's an act of retribution of sort and an act of undoing. In other words, it becomes a matter of guilt on the part of the individual. It does not indicate some psychopathic personality like the individual that killed Polly Klaas. That's not what you'd see in that type of case. It's more or less a person that's known the child, and feels remorse for the crime."
Q. Is that a staged aspect of the crime, or is that...
"Ressler: No, I don't think that's necessarily a staged aspect as much as it is a reflection of the the guilt and the remorse on the part of the killer. Either intentional or accidental."


Greg McCrary, a former FBI psychological profiler trained in criminal behavior, thinks that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, were likely involved in the crime. "Parents are involved quite often in homicides," says McCrary. "The probability of an outsider doing this is extremely remote. I think someone in the family or very, very close to the family committed this crime."
"Whoever took this child covered the child, apparently spent time wrapping the child, apparently spent time wiping down the body in the house, took time to get a pad and pen from the house to write a note," McCrary says. "Stranger intruders, when they come in to abduct a child, they're in, they're out."
McCrary, though, feels that the Ramseys themselves have acted suspiciously. "I think John and Patsy Ramsey have created a lot of speculation about their involvement through their own behavior," says McCrary.
For example, police thought they were unhelpful, even evasive. "The common behavior of victim parents is that not only will they talk to police, you can't get them out of your hair," says McCrary.
"Separate attorneys to me almost speaks of a conflict of interest," McCrary continues. "In other words, why couldn't one attorney represent both of them if their interests were the same?"
And then there was the ransom note. "This is staging. The offender wants us to believthat some stranger came in here and tried to abduct the child for ransom," says McCrary. "An offender stages a crime scene for only one reason--without the staging, they're going to be the immediate logical suspect."
Who Killed JonBenet, 48 Hours Mystery

Also…

A criminal profiler who turned down an invitation to work for JonBenet Ramsey's family dismissed a portrait of the killer they released Wednesday as ``silly.''
``It's really fairly juvenile,'' said former FBI criminal profiler Gregg McCrary.
John and Patsy Ramsey's legal team asked McCrary in January to develop a profile of JonBenet's killer. McCrary, believing the killer would prove to be someone close to the family, declined.
Rocky Mountain News, July 24, 1997

John Douglas would have agreed if he wasn’t paid by the Ramseys to give an opinion contrary to everything he knew about murder within a family and staging:
"The child was found buried in the woods in his snowsuit, wrapped in a blanket, then completely covered with a thick plastic bag. A kidnapper or child molester would not have taken this much care to make him warm and "comfortable," or to try to shelter the body from the elements. While many murder scenes show obvious and prolonged rage, and dump sites often show contempt and hostility, the hallmarks of this burial were love and guilt."
Mindhunter p287 (John Douglas)

STEVE THOMAS: Well, that's certainly -- the colleagues, John Douglas' former colleagues in the FBI are not of that opinion. It's interesting that the defense-paid experts and investigators and so forth that are working on the case have one opinion whereas law enforcement and those in Colorado working this case have another.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html

You maintain you standard of excellence, cynic. I expected nothing less.

It's interesting that the defense-paid experts and investigators and so forth that are working on the case have one opinion whereas law enforcement and those in Colorado working this case have another.

Ain't it just!

 

[BBB167893]

Cathy, SuperDave has made a valid point many times about this very thing. Which one of the Ramseys should they arrest? They can't arrest them all and present it to a jury that way. It's called "cross finger pointing". For an explanation, see post # 41 here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...4&highlight=cross+finger+pointing#post5080824

You beat me to it, Beck!

 

[BBB167893]

Thank you, but the credit is all SuperDave's. He is absolutely JonBenet's biggest defender and I truly love him for it! Never met the guy, but his character shines in his devotion to this little girl.

Aw, I'm blushing! Thank you so much, Beck.