Ramsey's cleared..????Yeah OK

[AndyLL]

So science is wrong because you think they did it. Okay.

All the science says is that an unknown person touched 2 items of clothes. There was no DNA on or in the body.

Mary Lacy (the DA) must have a need to be in the news. The DNA result is neither new ( 2006 ) nor clear the Ramsey family from being involved.

The ransom note still makes no sense. It was written in the house (multiple drafts) on a pad off paper from a second story office and mentioned the specific sum of a bonus John Ramsey had just received.

If the Ramsey's themselves did not kill her it was likely someone very close to the family.

If they did not kill her then I still do not feel sorry for them. They brought most of the suspicions upon themselves. They refused to talk to the police until about a year after the murder and even then only answered a supplied list of written questions. If someone that knew them killed her then the Ramsey’s refusal to cooperate contributed in the killer not being found.

One of the 1st things they did after the murder was hire a PR firm which obviously worked. Their priority was to protect themselves instead of finding the killer. As a parent that astounds me and leads me to believe that they knew who the killer was (IMO)

Andy

BTW... for those that just refuse to believe that the mother killed her and can't understand why the 1st place the police looked to was the family... I believe that over 90% of childeren killed in the US is by the family.

 

[Piecey]

if you don't believe they are guilty ....what are you basing it on?

I was very young when all of this happened, so the snippets of conversations I picked up from my parents have obviously influenced the way that I look at things now involving the case.

That being said, my dad went to high school with Patsy (PSA: NO she is not who I was named after, I was named after my mother's mom) and she grew up and went to high school in the town I currently live in... and graduated with my father.

I realize people change with age and things always change after high school but I will always remember my dad talking about being in theatre with her and how she wasn't that great of an actress, so he didn't think if she had murdered JonBenet she would come across as natural as she did after the murder.

So with my opinion being clearly influenced.. thats my reasoning.

 

[SueM in MN]

So science is wrong because you think they did it. Okay.
All the science says is that an unknown person touched 2 items of clothes. There was no DNA on or in the body.

Mary Lacy (the DA) must have a need to be in the news. The DNA result is neither new ( 2006 ) nor clear the Ramsey family from being involved.

The ransom note still makes no sense. It was written in the house (multiple drafts) on a pad off paper from a second story office and mentioned the specific sum of a bonus John Ramsey had just received.

Mary Lacey is not exactly an unbiased source. She attended Patsy Ramsey's funeral as a guest. She has been in the news as a Ramsey backer since she came into the case. She is leaving office in the fall, so does have some incentive to get into the news and clear the family.

The DNA was 'touch' DNA and could have been left when the underwear that had it on from some innocent way touched the long johns that it was also found on. Touch DNA doesn't have to be spread by a person touching it - it can also be spread by an item that has it on being touched by another item.

For a really simple example, imagine a cat sat on your bed. Later in the day, you have a party and guests put their coats on your bed. Some of them are likely to pick up some cat hair just by being on the bed. That doesn't mean any of the people had any direct contact with the cat - but they now have touch cat DNA on their clothing.

DNA evidence can rule people in, it can't rule anyone out if someone's DNA is someplace it should not have been expected to be, there is a greater chance that person was there. It can't say someone wasn't involved.
For another simple example, if I have a party and take pictures at the party, the pictures can provide proof that someone was there (if they were on the pictures, they were there), but the pictures can't provide proof someone wasn't there (if they were not on the pictures, it may be they were not there or just that they were not in the pictures.
The news media is doing the equivilent of saying someone was not in the pictures means they were not there, which is clearly ridiculous.

The pocket knife found near the body belonged to the either the brother or 1/2 brother. According to a house keeper, it was kept in an upstairs bathroom medicine cabinet.

the paper the note was written on came from Patsy's desk and the amount of ransom was John's bonus

The rope, paintbrush etc all came from the Ramsey home.

JB had pineapple in her stomach. Pineapple was not served at the party, but a bowl of it, and a cup/tea bag was on their kitchen counter. That contradicts the Ramsey's story that JB fell asleep in the car and was carried to bed and did not wake during the night.

according to the house keeper, the bed sheets on JBs bed were not the ones the house keeper put on the bed the morning before. Again, that contradicts their testimony that JB didn't wake during the night.

Besides those thing..............

The underwear was new unwashed, underwear from a package of new underwear that had been bought by the mom and JB's underwear was kept in a drawer in the bathroom. This particular package of underwear (according to interviews with the mom) was too big for JB and had been bought for a cousin. The mom stated in interviews that she did not know how the underwear got on JB because it was not the underwear she had on when she went to bed.
So, not only did an intruder have to find underwear in the house, he would have to

• find bedsheets in the house (and change the bed, too) Question: Did they check those for touch DNA?
• find a rope, a paintbrush that were in the house. Question: Did they check those for touch DNA?
• find a pad of paper that was in the house. Question: Did they check those for touch DNA?
• find a pen that was already in the house. Question: Did they check those for touch DNA?
• use those to compose several drafts and a ransom note that was pages long. Question: Did they check those for touch DNA?
• find the pocket knife (which belonged to the younger brother Burke and had been put away by the housekeeper because he was whittling with it and leaving wood shavings all over the house. The houesekeeper said in a police interview that she had hidden it from Burke, but told Patsy where it was). Question: Did they check those for touch DNA?
• make tea. Question: Did they check the tea bag, glass or spoon for touch DNA?
• find a bowl and pineapple (which were in the house) Question: Did they check those for touch DNA?
• convince JB to come downstairs from her bedroom
• and convince JB to sit with him and eat pineapple
• find his way to a basement room in a maze of a house.
• do all those things without lights
• leave a flashlight that was wiped clean of any fingerprints, including the inside and the batteries) why would he go to all that trouble - why not just take it with him???) Question: Did they check those for touch DNA?
• all without making enough noise to wake the parents directly upstairs or the younger brother sleeping down the hall.

All those things point away from an intruder. DNA is just one piece that even Mary Lacey said in interviews in 2006 could be an artifact and the case would not be solved by DNA. So, now, one piece of DNA 'evidence' overweighs all the other evidence?

If you have a small child, ask yourself, if someone (even someone you knew) came in to your house in the middle of the night and asked the child to come downstairs and eat a snack, would they do it?
If you think they would do it, would they do it without making any noise?
Even without looking at all the other things, that is the biggest question that points me away from an intruder.

 

[TomLovesBecky]

For the love of God, I will never understand how someone on a message board can claim to know more about the evidence in this case than the professionals! I mean, what are your sources? Most likely the exact same stuff the rest of us have been seeing, only maybe you are a little more obsessed!! Seriously, I haven't been a member of this board long but I've seen it time and again, people ignoring the evidence because "they know better". And what is their occupation? Nothing to do with the subject at hand. Sheesh! I think all professionals in the world should just quit their jobs and let people on the Disboards make all the decisions about how to run the world, since you know everything!!!!

 

[Stella3]

The heck with what all the investigators and detectives know, the DISers know it all and know exactly what happened! Let's get some torches and lynches and get those murderers!

 

[Jenvenza]

I have never thought the family did this. And I dont really see why some people PRESUME they did, when there has never been any evidence and now it shows from DNA that they didnt. Give these poor people a break. They have suffered enough.

 

[luvmy3]

For the love of God, I will never understand how someone on a message board can claim to know more about the evidence in this case than the professionals! I mean, what are your sources? Most likely the exact same stuff the rest of us have been seeing, only maybe you are a little more obsessed!! Seriously, I haven't been a member of this board long but I've seen it time and again, people ignoring the evidence because "they know better". And what is their occupation? Nothing to do with the subject at hand. Sheesh! I think all professionals in the world should just quit their jobs and let people on the Disboards make all the decisions about how to run the world, since you know everything!!!!

ITA!!

To the poster who had that very nice list of did they test for touch DNA are you a crime scene investigator? Do you really believe that none of those things you mentioned were never investigated?

Also you mentioned things that maybe could point the finger to the housekeeper. She knew where the knife was, she would know where all the bedding and clothes in the house were. She would know where the pad of paper was. She could wake JonBenet and make her a snack and convince her to be quiet.
Do you think in she could have done it? Or maybe one of her family members that she gave all the info to? Even when you look at the circumstantial evidence, there is the possibility that someone else other than the parents had something to do with it.

 

[komondorok]

The heck with what all the investigators and detectives know, the DISers know it all and know exactly what happened! Let's get some torches and lynches and get those murderers!

If it ever came down to jury selection, the DA should be informed that one of the jury selection questions should be "Do you read the DIS Community Board."

As for the long laundry list of "evidence" that somebody posted, many of the items listed have been proven to be false, sensationalized by the media.

For instance, the Ramseys did not hire criminal lawyers. They were cooperating with the police. One of their friends, Mike Bynum a lawyer, recognized that they were becoming the prime suspects and HE hired the criminal lawyers for John and Patsy. But that little tidbit was never disclosed. The media loved to say that the Ramseys were guilty because they immediately ran out and hired criminal attornies. That is not true and the DA did nothing to dispel the facts. In fact, there is some evidence that somebody in the DA's office leaked false accusations to cover up their complete screw up of the investigation.

According to the ex Boulder cop who lives down the street from us, the cops know who did it. But the evidence is so tainted, there will never be a conviction.

 

[Deb in IA]

Wow, we sure have a lot of people who must be Ramsey investigators, to know that much first-hand "evidence"!!!

OP, so, you are saying that just because the Ramseys are rich, they must be paying off people to stay quiet??

 

[barkley]

All the science says is that an unknown person touched 2 items of clothes. There was no DNA on or in the body.

Mary Lacy (the DA) must have a need to be in the news. The DNA result is neither new ( 2006 ) nor clear the Ramsey family from being involved.

The ransom note still makes no sense. It was written in the house (multiple drafts) on a pad off paper from a second story office and mentioned the specific sum of a bonus John Ramsey had just received.

If the Ramsey's themselves did not kill her it was likely someone very close to the family.

If they did not kill her then I still do not feel sorry for them. They brought most of the suspicions upon themselves. They refused to talk to the police until about a year after the murder and even then only answered a supplied list of written questions. If someone that knew them killed her then the Ramsey’s refusal to cooperate contributed in the killer not being found.

One of the 1st things they did after the murder was hire a PR firm which obviously worked. Their priority was to protect themselves instead of finding the killer. As a parent that astounds me and leads me to believe that they knew who the killer was (IMO)

Andy

BTW... for those that just refuse to believe that the mother killed her and can't understand why the 1st place the police looked to was the family... I believe that over 90% of childeren killed in the US is by the family.

is'nt lacey the same person who spent a fortune in tax payer dollars when she was adamant that karr was the killer? she was highly criticised when it was found that she did'nt even direct her staff to check out the situation before she handed down that arrest warrant (and it was verified within days of the arrest that he could'nt have done it by virtue of being out of the state at the time of the murder).

for me she does'nt present a great track record in the arena of investigation, it would have been appropriate to announce that the dna excluded the ramsey's but she chose instead to make a comment that has no concrete basis until or unless this case is fully resolved.

btw-i think that many people who harbour concerns about potential involvement in the murder (or potential cover-up) by her parents have some basis by virtue of the autopsy reporting that the child had internal scarring indicative of previous instances of sexual abuse.

 

[sha_lyn]

Wow, we sure have a lot of people who must be Ramsey investigators, to know that much first-hand "evidence"!!!

OP, so, you are saying that just because the Ramseys are rich, they must be paying off people to stay quiet??

Huh? We know about the evidence because we have read beyond the shiny headlines. We don't know about it first hand. The media has reported on the autopsy...so are you saying the autopsy was wrong about the pineapple?
The police report was wrong about the bowl of pineapple on the counter.





I have always had a feeling it was the 1/2 brother and Jon and/or Patsy staged the scene to protect him.

I have no doubt it was an "inside job" of some sort. someone that had to be very familiar with the layout of the house. Someone JB would have been comfortable enough with to sit in the kitchen and eat a snack. Sure a lot of the points to the housekeeper. Never said it didn't.

 

[komondorok]

is'nt lacey the same person who spent a fortune in tax payer dollars when she was adamant that karr was the killer? she was highly criticised when it was found that she did'nt even direct her staff to check out the situation before she handed down that arrest warrant (and it was verified within days of the arrest that he could'nt have done it by virtue of being out of the state at the time of the murder).

for me she does'nt present a great track record in the arena of investigation, it would have been appropriate to announce that the dna excluded the ramsey's but she chose instead to make a comment that has no concrete basis until or unless this case is fully resolved.

btw-i think that many people who harbour concerns about potential involvement in the murder (or potential cover-up) by her parents have some basis by virtue of the autopsy reporting that the child had internal scarring indicative of previous instances of sexual abuse.

Again, a misrepresented "fact" by the media.

The autopsy said that JonBenet had "chronic ******l irritation"

This, in some cases can indicate sexual abuse.

But JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr. Francesco Beuf, has stated that there was never any indication of abuse. Additionally, several prominent experts in sexual abuse have reviewed the autopsy and have also concluded that this was probably due to an infection rather than any kind of abuse.

Other stories claimed that the "******l irritation" mentioned in the autopsy report suggested sexual abuse, however this conclusion is not supported by the balance of medical opinion. Dr. Thomas Henry, the Denver medical examiner states:

"From what is noted in the autopsy report, there is no evidence of injury to the anus, there is no evidence of injury to the skin around the ******, the ***** and there is no other indication of any healed scars in any of those areas. There is no other indication from the autopsy report at all that there is any other previous injuries that have healed in that particular area."

 

[wilderness01]

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/dna-cl...09990001?icid=200100397x1205492071x1200255666


honestly, I don't believe this

perhaps the underwear was a new pair (being xmas morning I know my kids had on new stuff--i.e. jammies, unide's etc) from the package, and the fingerprints were those of the seamstress who made them, or someone who folded or handled then during packaging process or they were bought new and loose in a bin and were touched by the checkout person come one investigators can't be that dumb

Maybe they don't let their kids wear new underwear right out of the package. There is no way my kids would EVER been allowed to do that without it being washed first. I don't need them to get body lice. Yuck.

I feel for the family and hope they can get some sort of closure now.

 

[komondorok]

Huh? We know about the evidence because we have read beyond the shiny headlines. We don't know about it first hand. The media has reported on the autopsy...so are you saying the autopsy was wrong about the pineapple?
The police report was wrong about the bowl of pineapple on the counter.





I have always had a feeling it was the 1/2 brother and Jon and/or Patsy staged the scene to protect him.

I have no doubt it was an "inside job" of some sort. someone that had to be very familiar with the layout of the house. Someone JB would have been comfortable enough with to sit in the kitchen and eat a snack. Sure a lot of the points to the housekeeper. Never said it didn't.

You need to do a little more research on your "facts" then. Most of the "facts" you have presented have been proven over the years to either be grossly misrepresented or blatantly false.

 

[pha1226]

Beautiful post. You summarized the key evidence very well. I agree 100% with you.

 

[Deb in IA]

because we have read beyond the shiny headlines.

So, you can read all those hidden messages and secret codes in newspapers, and TV's speak in special ways to you?

 

[sha_lyn]

You need to do a little more research on your "facts" then. Most of the "facts" you have presented have been proven over the years to either be grossly misrepresented or blatantly false.

What have I said that is false? How has anything I said been misrepresented?

 

[pha1226]

Again, a misrepresented "fact" by the media.

The autopsy said that JonBenet had "chronic ******l irritation"

This, in some cases can indicate sexual abuse.

But JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr. Francesco Beuf, has stated that there was never any indication of abuse. Additionally, several prominent experts in sexual abuse have reviewed the autopsy and have also concluded that this was probably due to an infection rather than any kind of abuse.

Other stories claimed that the "******l irritation" mentioned in the autopsy report suggested sexual abuse, however this conclusion is not supported by the balance of medical opinion. Dr. Thomas Henry, the Denver medical examiner states:

"From what is noted in the autopsy report, there is no evidence of injury to the anus, there is no evidence of injury to the skin around the ******, the ***** and there is no other indication of any healed scars in any of those areas. There is no other indication from the autopsy report at all that there is any other previous injuries that have healed in that particular area."

The autopsy report also stated her hymen was almost completely eroded. Although Dr. Beuf sated there was never any indication of abuse, he saw her for 27 visits in 3 years with complaints including chronic ******l infections (from bubblebaths...right).

 

[sha_lyn]

I don't know if I believe there was long term sexual abuse, but wouldn't common sense tell you to stop the bubble baths if your DD kept getting infections from them.

 

[AndyLL]

You need to do a little more research on your "facts" then. Most of the "facts" you have presented have been proven over the years to either be grossly misrepresented or blatantly false.

Which of the listed 'facts' are you contesting?

Andy