If DNA Evidence Cleared Karr Then Why.... [Archive] - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

View Full Version : If DNA Evidence Cleared Karr Then Why....

leighl

08-28-2006, 07:57 PM

If DNA evidence cleared Karr then why can't the police say matter of factly once and for all whether or not JR, BR, JAR, etc. can be cleared based on DNA?

Also, with all the attention, resources, and blind misses devoted to finding who murdered JonBenet (especially in light of the latest Karr bungle), perhaps investigators would have done better to test the DNA of everyone in the area during the time JonBenet was killed. Yes, I know it sounds a bit far-fetched, but if you think about it... Presumably the DNA found on the body has enough markers to identify it as male or female, from there the population of Boulder is roughly 100,000, half that if you know the sex of the DNA, 50,000, you could even narrow that number down further by age. Again, this is a far-fetched and albeit costly idea, but you can't really put a price on justice.

Omega

08-28-2006, 08:04 PM

leigh, there's no guarantee that the DNA found was actually from the killer. As far as we know, there were minute quantities of DNA found in her underpants which could have been left by the manufacturer, also, the tiny amount of DNA under her fingernails didn't necessarily come from the killer either, she may have just touched something that someone else sneezed on, for example.

It's difficult to rule out DNA from family members being on her body because they live together and it's expected that you'd find your family members' DNA on you.

TexMex

08-28-2006, 08:22 PM

This is another Dr. Henry Lee "bombshell"

LKL Friday 8/25

KING: Dr. Kobilinsky, it's known that Dr. Henry Lee, another frequent guest on this show, found DNA on newly -- the newly purchased girl's underwear, tested right after the packaging. Do you think that fact may leave a misleading impression on the public?

KOBILINSKY: I think so actually, Larry. Let me explain why. When you take a garment, a brand new garment, you un-package it, you open it up, put it down on your laboratory bench and you look for the presence of DNA from its manufacturer.

What you do is you take a scalpel or a razor blade and you scrape the entire garment, the front, the back, the inside, the outside, so you're taking the entire area and then you take all of those scrapings and you isolate DNA. And, apparently Dr. Lee found the presence of some DNA.

That is a very far cry from looking at the panties of JonBenet which had a discreet little droplet of blood and from that droplet they were able to isolate DNA and we now know that it is from a male. It is not related to any member of the Ramsey family and therefore it's likely that it comes from the perpetrator, the intruder.

Tristan

08-28-2006, 08:51 PM

The Ramsey's DNA is all over the house....as it should be, since they live there.

They haven't "officially" cleared the Ramseys, because there are so many
reasons to believe that they could have done this.

JDB

08-28-2006, 08:58 PM

I heard today that the DNA tested was the blood stain on the undies.Now if that is the case let them test the DNA from the Ramsey's an either clear them or bring them in one more time.

kcksum

08-28-2006, 09:04 PM

I heard today that the DNA tested was the blood stain on the undies.Now if that is the case let them test the DNA from the Ramsey's an either clear them or bring them in one more time.
jdb that's been done.it didn't match anyone in the ramsey family

JDB

08-28-2006, 09:18 PM

jdb that's been done.it didn't match anyone in the ramsey family

But how long ago??? If the DNA did not match the Ramesy's they should be cleared right?

RJML

08-28-2006, 09:20 PM

If DNA evidence cleared Karr then why can't the police say matter of factly once and for all whether or not JR, BR, JAR, etc. can be cleared based on DNA?Well, they were "cleared" in that the dna wasnt from them. As for them totally being cleared, I like to think they sort of have since it has been 10 years and bam, none have been charged. Not saying they are 100% innocent but it boggles my mind why if some here are soooooo certain it was them why they havent they ever been charged. Obviously the evidence isnt as cut & dry pointing to Ramsey family guilt as some here try and pretend it is. If the DA was willing to bring a guy from Thailand based on some emails then I would like to think that if any of the Ramseys were easily guilty based on evidence they would have arrested them by now. The longer this case goes on the worse it makes them look.

SuperDave

08-28-2006, 09:40 PM

"If DNA evidence cleared Karr then why can't the police say matter of factly once and for all whether or not JR, BR, JAR, etc. can be cleared based on DNA?"

Answer:

"They haven't "officially" cleared the Ramseys, because there are so many
reasons to believe that they could have done this."

Thank you! Without the DNA, there was nothing on Karr.

"Obviously the evidence isnt as cut & dry pointing to Ramsey family guilt as some here try and pretend it is."

When you add it all up, it really is.

"I would like to think that if any of the Ramseys were easily guilty based on evidence they would have arrested them by now."

Excpet that we KNOW the DA (at least the current one) is extremely biased. Let's bring in a special prosecutor. Then we'll see what happens.

"it boggles my mind why if some here are soooooo certain it was them why they havent they ever been charged."

RJML, I could answer that, but it would take a while...

Henry Lee and Barry Scheck told the police that the DNA had nothing to do with this case.

julianne

08-28-2006, 10:20 PM

"

"it boggles my mind why if some here are soooooo certain it was them why they havent they ever been charged."

RJML, I could answer that, but it would take a while...

Oh, come SuperDave....don't be so cryptic!

We'll be patient...

SuperDave

08-28-2006, 11:01 PM

Cryptic, nothing! I was giving a fair warning.

Okay, here goes.

There are several parts to this.

1) The DA's office. When this one got dropped on Hunter, he had things pretty good. Status quo for almost thirty years. No one rocks the boat. He spent his time plea-bargaining minor cases. He didn't want this. He was cruising toward an easy retirement. He set up a definition of beyond a reasonable doubt that NO ONE could meet! He gave the Ramseys SO MUCh evidence that the FBI was aghast and said he was a fool. He was BUSINESS partners with them! And he was weak. The police wanted to arrest the Ramseys, let them stew in jail for a while, and see which one cracked first. That is a STANDARD ploy in cases like this. He wouldn't do it. Too bad.
He surrounded himself with people who were more like defense attorneys than prosecutors. Trip DeMuth, before ANY evidence was in, decided that the Ramseys couldn't do it. Why? Because he couldn't do it. That kind of thinking has NO PLACE in LE offices. I can forgive the average person for that kind of naivete, but he should KNOW better! One week before Karr's arrest, he said that just because a ten-month-old was dead with 28 fractures, it doesn't mean murder. I KID YOU NOT! This man openly mocked the police presentation of evidence at the FBI meeting. Trip has a thing about "witch hunts." He said the cops were on a witch hunt agianst the Ramseys, a witch hunt against the mother who beat that 10-month-old to death, and now he's afraid of a witch hunt against the DA. That sounds like a DEFENSE attorney talking, like he just stepped out of a Perry Mason episode.

None of them had any real expertise with Grand Juries.

Have you read this, julianne:

http://www.acandyrose.com/03232001fosterama1.htm

It shows that Hunter was undercutting his own WITNESSES! How much worse can you get?

When Keenan (now Lacy took over), it was worse. She had wanted to go after Santa Bill McReynolds from day one. She was biased in the favor of the Ramseys because of their status. She has so much as said so. Lacy is known as a radical feminist who lets her belief in women's innocence cloud her reason. She demonstrated that in the U of CO case. Duke before Duke! She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Number one, Haney was using standard techniques. Two, if you look at the tape, he's being perfectly calm! No threats, no intimidation. He's very calmly giving her a chance to explain the evidence. SHE'S the one cursing and jumping around and acting like she's got a scorpion in her panties! What was LACY watching?!

2) Money. Yeah, I know, "Oh, Dave, that's so cheap," but it's true. if this were a regular, blue-collar family like mine, they would be in prison this very day, right or wrong. This was a weak Da's office. No one really disputes that. They were used to handling indigent non-whites with public defenders, not a former Miss West Virginia whose husband is loaded and whose lawyer owns half the state! Who can hire their own experts! How many of us could do that?

COME ON, HOW MANY!?

That was a big part of it: John was able to hire an army of lawyers and PR people and PIs to keep him out of prison. You don't have to take my word for it. Robert Ressler, profiler extraordinaire, said the same. Heck, John Ramsey admitted that he hired them to keep him out of jail!

When I was a kid, I was taught the Pledge of Allegiance. That part about justice for all should MEAN something. But there's one set of rules for the rich, one for the rest of us.

3) Specifics. When you have a case where there is evidence that points to both people, you as a prosecutor have to decide who did what. You HAVE to. You can't say "one did it, the other helped, you decide." Can't do that. They never could. One of them (Hofstrom I think) said "So what if she wrote the note? Doesn't mean she killed her daughter." Sad as it is to admit, he's RIGHT! It only proves she wrote the note.

4) The idea that a parent could do this rocks the comfort zone for too many people. Who wants to think that the Girl Scout Den Mother is a murderer? That's what did in the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury looked at the autopsy photos, and despite everything we know about murdering parents and despite all the evidence, they decided, based on NOTHING but emotion and naivete, that no parent could do this. You don't have to take my word for that. I can prove they did that.

The pictures were so horrible that the jurors felt it was absolutely inconceivable that any mother on Earth could have been capable of doing such a thing to their own child.

But wait! Here is FBI agent Ron Walker, who was there that morning:

Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children.

Is that good enough for anyone?

An arrest was never a question in this case.

Chief Beckner: "Arrest them."

FBI: "Arrest them."

Dream Team Lawyers: "Arrest them."

And on and on. But the DA wouldn't go for it. Do you like the show "Law & Order?" It my favorite. Those DAs work WITH the cops. "Find out this," or "find out that," or "bring me some evidence of this." None of that here.

Whew!

I said it was long!

sandraladeda

08-28-2006, 11:26 PM

:clap: :clap: :clap: They don't call him "SuperDave" for nothing!

SuperDave

08-28-2006, 11:30 PM

Thanks.

close_enough

08-28-2006, 11:34 PM

:clap: :clap: :clap: They don't call him "SuperDave" for nothing!

hahah!!!...i must agree... :clap:

Cypros

08-28-2006, 11:44 PM

This is NOT a DNA case. While a match with Karr would have shown him to have been there and thus the killer, the lack of a DNA match does not in and of itself clear anybody (Karr, Ramseys, etc.) since the DNA found on JBR isn't necessarily that of the killer. Karr was released because they have NOTHING on him. He was not in Colordo on Christmas night 1996. He never knew JBR, and was never in her home. Everything he knows about the case he learned from reading websites and books just like the rest of us. The DNA was the only possible chance to charge this guy and it was not a match so they had to let him go.

ChilliPepper

08-28-2006, 11:52 PM

Thanks.Strong post, SD.

The point that many cannot conceive of a parent doing such a thing to their own children is very important. These very unfortunate things do happen and when trying to solve a case these kind of acts cannot be set aside because some find them uncomfortable or inconceivable.

Does that make John or Patsy guilty? No. But they (and *all* other family members) should not be considered innocent based on family relationships.

Sadly, this latest episode was a farce from the beginning and this should have been obvious to the DA from the start. Even a lowly person such as myself can google things like the JB autospy photos. The idea that there is much in the way of "secret" evidence in this case is as much fantasy as anything else.

From the very beginning I've found the whole intruder theory to be weak. That many were willing to believe that someone from Alabama would drive (fly) to Colorado, murder a child, then drive (fly) back and not have anyone remember that kind of absence boggles my mind.

Fascinating case, though. I have my own ideas but they are just ideas...

Cypros

08-29-2006, 12:00 AM

The point that many cannot conceive of a parent doing such a thing to their own children is very important. These very unfortunate things do happen and when trying to solve a case these kind of acts cannot be set aside because some find them uncomfortable or inconceivable.

Remember how so many people at first couldn't believe that Scott Peterson was guilty because they couldn't imagine a man killing such a lovely wife AND their unborn baby???

julianne

08-29-2006, 02:34 AM

OK, SuperDave. Thanks. That was a great post. I have read your link from the candyrose site, and I have actually read it before, but it was good to read again.

OK, obviously Hunter (and LE) bungled this big time, and if Hunter truly went about this like he was in business with the Ramseys, why then when a fresh, new DA came aboard, were charges not filed then?

Jolynna

08-29-2006, 02:42 AM

OK, obviously Hunter (and LE) bungled this big time, and if Hunter truly went about this like he was in business with the Ramseys, why then when a fresh, new DA came aboard, were charges not filed then?

Because the fresh, new DA was not fresh and new. She spent a lot of her career as a part of the old bungling DA's team and mindset.

kazzbar

08-29-2006, 04:39 AM

richandfamous

08-29-2006, 09:04 AM

SuperDave, what do you think of John Ramsey's actions and attitude when they arrested MJK?

LovelyPigeon

08-29-2006, 09:56 AM

The male DNA found in bloodspots in JonBenét's panties that she was wearing when found murdered, and the male DNA found under her fingernails do not match anyone in the Ramsey family. In addition, that DNA has not matched anyone whose DNA has been collected and compared, including other potential suspects like Wolf, McReynolds, etc, or family friends and acquaintances like the Whites.

As evidenced by Karr's DNA comparison and his release based on a non-match, the DNA is believed by the Boulder DA's office to belong to the male who sexually assaulted and murdered JonBenét on the night of December 25, 1996.

The Ramseys are innocent of any involvement in JonBenét's death. They loved and cherished JonBenét and did not harm her in any way.

The case is still open and I have both hope and confidence that the DNA will be matched to JonBenét's killer in my lifetime. The intruder will be indentified, sooner, I hope, than later.

Nuisanceposter

08-29-2006, 10:18 AM

I think if the DNA in JonBenet's underwear had been left there by the killer on the night JonBenet was killed, then that sample of DNA would be as fresh and as complete as the sample of JonBenet's DNA.

It isn't, though - it's fragmented and degraded. Dr Henry Lee tested other packages of underwear the same as JonBenet's, and discovered DNA on those underwear as well - brand new and unworn before, the same as the underwear found on JB.

That indicates to me that there is a very good likelihood that the DNA on JonBenet's underwear was not deposited by the killer and was already there when the undies were put on her.

As for the Boulder DA's office - they don't exactly have the best reputation for being impartial and unbiased in this case. I wouldn't put too much stock into anything they do.

TexMex

08-29-2006, 10:36 AM

That's a red herring by Dr. Lee:

LKL Fri 8/25

I mean what are the odds that a factory worker sneezed on the exact spot where blood is found on a little girls underwear the night she is killed? The affidavit said the

KING: Dr. Kobilinsky, it's known that Dr. Henry Lee, another frequent guest on this show, found DNA on newly -- the newly purchased girl's underwear, tested right after the packaging. Do you think that fact may leave a misleading impression on the public?

KOBILINSKY: I think so actually, Larry. Let me explain why. When you take a garment, a brand new garment, you un-package it, you open it up, put it down on your laboratory bench and you look for the presence of DNA from its manufacturer.

What you do is you take a scalpel or a razor blade and you scrape the entire garment, the front, the back, the inside, the outside, so you're taking the entire area and then you take all of those scrapings and you isolate DNA. And, apparently Dr. Lee found the presence of some DNA.

That is a very far cry from looking at the panties of JonBenet which had a discreet little droplet of blood and from that droplet they were able to isolate DNA and we now know that it is from a male. It is not related to any member of the Ramsey family and therefore it's likely that it comes from the perpetrator, the intruder.

Love_Mama

08-29-2006, 10:43 AM

Oceanbreeze

08-29-2006, 11:43 AM

I have a question, which the answer may be somewhere that I've missed and I apologize if I did but.....
The DNA in the panties and the DNA under the nails, are they a match to each other?

Linda7NJ

08-29-2006, 11:45 AM

I have a question, which the answer may be somewhere that I've missed and I apologize if I did but.....
The DNA in the panties and the DNA under the nails, are they a match to each other?
nope..

s_finch

08-29-2006, 11:48 AM

Oceanbreeze

08-29-2006, 11:48 AM

nope..

Thank you, Linda!!

SuperDave

08-29-2006, 01:32 PM

"OK, obviously Hunter (and LE) bungled this big time, and if Hunter truly went about this like he was in business with the Ramseys, why then when a fresh, new DA came aboard, were charges not filed then?"

Answerr:

"Because the fresh, new DA was not fresh and new. She spent a lot of her career as a part of the old bungling DA's team and mindset."

That's a short version of my answer! But julianne, if you reread what I had to say:

When Keenan (now Lacy took over), it was worse. She had wanted to go after Santa Bill McReynolds from day one. She was biased in the favor of the Ramseys because of their status. She has so much as said so. Lacy is known as a radical feminist who lets her belief in women's innocence cloud her reason. She demonstrated that in the U of CO case. Duke before Duke! She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Number one, Haney was using standard techniques. Two, if you look at the tape, he's being perfectly calm! No threats, no intimidation. He's very calmly giving her a chance to explain the evidence. SHE'S the one cursing and jumping around and acting like she's got a scorpion in her panties! What was LACY watching?!

You can see clearly that I already answered that one. I put a lot of time and effort into that post! I'd hate to think it was wasted!

"SuperDave, what do you think of John Ramsey's actions and attitude when they arrested MJK?"

Boy, isn't that a loaded question! But to be honest, I thought it was extremely odd. If it were ME, I'd have been doing handsprings in the aisles!

"I think if the DNA in JonBenet's underwear had been left there by the killer on the night JonBenet was killed, then that sample of DNA would be as fresh and as complete as the sample of JonBenet's DNA."

Right.

"It isn't, though - it's fragmented and degraded. Dr Henry Lee tested other packages of underwear the same as JonBenet's, and discovered DNA on those underwear as well - brand new and unworn before, the same as the underwear found on JB.That indicates to me that there is a very good likelihood that the DNA on JonBenet's underwear was not deposited by the killer and was already there when the undies were put on her."

Likely. What you have to remember is that Kobalinsky is regurgitating the fiction of Lin Wood. He's the one making this claim about this "new, good DNA," and I have had dealings with him that show he is not to be trusted.

"As for the Boulder DA's office - they don't exactly have the best reputation for being impartial and unbiased in this case. I wouldn't put too much stock into anything they do."

They're a joke. And it's not funny.

SuperDave

08-29-2006, 03:15 PM

Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention it.

5) OJ Simpson. I think Bill Maher said it best last night on LKL: even when you have a solid case, you have Dream Team attorneys against a crappy, civilly-paid team.

Which is what happened here.

No one has answered me: How many of us could afford big-time expert witnesses?

SuperDave

08-31-2006, 12:06 PM

Julianne?

No one has anything to say about this? After all the time and effort I put into it?

Julianne (and I'm asking these questions completely without malice or sarcasm), you seemed so sure that they didn't go to trial because there was no evidence. Are you now questioning that?

Did I cause you a moment's doubt?

Are you now asking the unspeakable: that the LE in Boulder were more interested in saving their careers than in finding justice for JonBenet? Could it be possible that money bought justice?

It's not a nice thought, is it? I know it isn't. But it has to be asked.

I have presented my proof. And I happen to think I did a good job.

PaperDoll

08-31-2006, 12:41 PM

[QUOTE=ChilliPepper]
From the very beginning I've found the whole intruder theory to be weak. That many were willing to believe that someone from Alabama would drive (fly) to Colorado, murder a child, then drive (fly) back and not have anyone remember that kind of absence boggles my mind.QUOTE]

I agree... Too much in such a short time frame... I never bought into Karr being the "one"...