Official press release asks the tough questions of mary lacy

[Tricia]

For Immediate Release, July 9, 2008
Contact: Tricia Griffith tgrif@xmission.com

THOUSANDS OF MEMBERS OF FORUMS FOR JUSTICE.ORG SPEAK OUT ON THE RAMSEY CASE. www.forumsforjustice.org/forums

HERE WE GO AGAIN. BOULDER D.A. MARY LACY MAKES A FOOL OF HERSELF IN THE RAMSEY CASE.

You would think Mary Lacy would have learned something from her John Mark Karr fiasco.

Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy has given the Ramseys a parting gift as she leaves office; she has cleared them of having any connection to the murder of JonBenet, yet she stated on August 28, 2006, “You know, 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."

Mary Lacy just did what she said neither she, nor anyone else, could do ... clear someone in the Ramseys case without a conviction at trial.

Lacy supposedly "cleared" the Ramseys based on new DNA evidence called “Touch DNA.” This process is relatively new and is known by scientists to still have reliability issues.

Lacy claims because partial, unidentified DNA contamination was found on the long-johns which was pulled over underwear JonBenet was wearing when she died that (and only Mary Lacy could make this leap) the Ramseys are innocent.

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

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

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

The question Mary Lacy has not answered is this:

DID THE "REAL KILLER" TAKE OFF HER GLOVES WHEN SHE LEFT A COUPLE OF SKIN CELLS ON THE PANTS, THEN PUT THEM BACK SO AS NOT TO LEAVE ANY MORE DNA? If the “real killer” used gloves on everything else in the house, why would they take them off to touch the long-johns?

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

Lacy claims the DNA on the long-johns matches partial DNA on the underwear. The logical conclusion is that there was transference of a few skin cells since the long-johns WERE PULLED OVER THE UNDERWEAR.

It has been reported the DNA is not even a full complete sample. Has that changed?

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

Remember Mary Lacy was sure she had the killer in 2006. John Mark Karr was another red herring offered by Mary Lacy. As citizens interested in justice we must question everything Mary Lacy tells us. She can't be trusted as she has proven time and time again.


Tricia Griffith
www.forumsforjustice.org/forums
tgrif@xmission.com

[hipmamajen]

DID THE "REAL KILLER" TAKE OF HER GLOVES WHEN SHE LEFT A COUPLE OF SKIN CELLS ON THE PANTS, THEN PUT THEM BACK SO AS NOT TO LEAVE ANY MORE DNA?

There's a typo in this part, I think you meant to say "take off her gloves."

That's a great letter. There are many questions there that I would like to see answered. I will be watching to see what the responses are.

Thank you!

[Tricia]

There's a typo in this part, I think you meant to say "take off her gloves."

That's a great letter. There are many questions there that I would like to see answered. I will be watching to see what the responses are.

Thank you!

No, Thank You. I was just getting ready to send it out and did not catch the typo. Fixed now and all is good.

[tezi]

Thank you Tricia.

I just heard on the radio that Michael Baden disagreed with her! He said with additional DNA, you include more people, not exclude them!!!!!!

Apparently, Lacy didn't learn anything from her fiasco with Karr. But then again, should WE be surprised?????? :mad:

[Lacy Wood]

I haven't posted here in a while, but have to say that Mary Lacy may have just fulfilled the bias she was known to harbor when she took over the job....anything to exonerate the Ramseys.

And that is because, even if there's actual DNA of an unknown participant, that fact fully comports with my expressed theory of a ransom note written by Patsy as part of a scheme to either explain away known sexual abuse by a family member before being discovered by her MD, or something else, like creating a dramatic history for a future Miss America contestant (you can't win now without triumphing over some adversity, a tough problem for a rich and privledged white gal), or even just a scheme to create an excuse to go back to Georgia.

Having an accomplice to take JonBenet to a location where she could be "rescued" by her Dad would have been a reasonable and likely element of what they perceived as a harmless scheme, so it remains as likely as ever there was a scheme put into play.

BUT, the presence of multiple, consistent, male DNA would actually only serve to clarify one other element of my theory: That such a scheme existed, was implemented, but it was an unreliable "helper" who brought about the death of JonBenet by either accident or intent. And while the Ramseys could still be innocent, theories are only theories, Mary Lacy has failed recognize the existence of that type conspiracy, which the ransom note makes very likely. And she knows of that possibility because I personally communicated it to her just after she took office.

[Rino]

Great letter Tricia

[Tricia]

Big shout out to the wonderful Cherokee who did the hard work on the press release. She provided me with Lacy's quotes among other things.

Thank you so much Cherokee. You are a true friend.

I fully expect to be ignored with this press release. But don't worry. Remember it took over 2 years to get the world to see what we knew all along about Michael Tracey.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=249

Lacy will be exposed, AGAIN.

Remember, there are people out there who know the truth. Someday, I know in my heart, one person will step forward and spill the beans.

[hipmamajen]

No, Thank You. I was just getting ready to send it out and did not catch the typo. Fixed now and all is good.

Glad to be able to help :)

[jubie]

If I could have just one person start talking it would be Fleet White!

[arielilane]

If I could have just one person start talking it would be Fleet White!
Amen to that!

[trixie]

If I could have just one person start talking it would be Fleet White!

No....John Ramsey.

[LinasK]

No....John Ramsey.

Yeah, but he'll never tell the truth if he talks, he'll take his lies to the grave to protect the Ramsey reputation, just like Patsy did.

[trixie]

But I mean if he told the truth like Fleet would. I'd like to hear John Ramsey start talking and telling the truth. Jeez, can you just imagine????

[Darlene733510]

Great letter Tricia. I would like someone to ask Mary L.
why all the evidence stored in the warehouse has never been tested.

Her letter and apologies to the Ramsey's is as disgusting as the John Karr fiasco.

[Squishified]

Thank you for writing that letter, Tricia!

[liljim]

The question Mary Lacy has not answered is this:

1 - DID THE "REAL KILLER" TAKE OFF HER GLOVES WHEN SHE LEFT A COUPLE OF SKIN CELLS ON THE PANTS, THEN PUT THEM BACK SO AS NOT TO LEAVE ANY MORE DNA? If the “real killer” used gloves on everything else in the house, why would they take them off to touch the long-johns?

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

3 - Lacy claims the DNA on the long-johns matches partial DNA on the underwear. The logical conclusion is that there was transference of a few skin cells since the long-johns WERE PULLED OVER THE UNDERWEAR.

(my numbers added above to identify points)

some good points in this letter, i dont have a solid opinion on this case, but would raise some common sense arguments for debate against the above points.

1 - is it unreasonable to think that if the motive was sexual assault (quite likely if in fact it was an intruder) that the killer might only remove the gloves to actually touch the body during the assault? and then put them back on?

2 - finding patsy's DNA on her daughters underwear/leggings wouldnt really be news and would in fact be expected. have they claimed that they DID NOT find any of patsy's DNA on the leggings?

3 - the DNA recovered from the underwear has been specifically said to have only been on the inside of the crotch. whether the two items of clothing were removed and replaced together or seperate transference seems unlikely from the sides at the waistband of one item to the inside crotch area of the other.

hasnt the DNA from the crotch area been called a "stain" and implied to have been a bodily fluid but not necessarily semen?

while i am fairly well read on this case it has been some time since i reviewed the information, please feel free to let me know where any of my information is incorrect.

[LI_Mom]

I don't think there was ANY semen found at the scene.

(Except for a stain on a blanket that was matched to John's eldest son but was NOT related to the case in any way)

[Tricia]

Good News (for some of us anyway) The Globe is going to print the entire press release in their next issue.

I'd like to thank The Globe have the kahuna's to print the press release.

Also, I forgot to mention that I stole one full paragraph from one of the wonderful Why_Nut's posts and put it in the release.

Why_Nut, my hats off to you for all the hard work you continue to put in this case every day.

Tricia

[SuperDave]

Terrific!

[Ames]

Good News (for some of us anyway) The Globe is going to print the entire press release in their next issue.

I'd like to thank The Globe have the kahuna's to print the press release.

Also, I forgot to mention that I stole one full paragraph from one of the wonderful Why_Nut's posts and put it in the release.

Why_Nut, my hats off to you for all the hard work you continue to put in this case every day.

Tricia

AWESOME! I wonder how much it would cost to get a newspaper...such as USA TODAY to print it too??

[Tricia]

AWESOME! I wonder how much it would cost to get a newspaper...such as USA TODAY to print it too??


The good news is the Globe is printing the release as part of their Ramsey story. Therefore it is news and no one pays anything to get it printed.

If I had USA Today print this it would be under the guise of an "advertisement" and would cost well over 25 thousand dollars.

Since it is a news press release and is based on an organization that works hard to get the facts for zero compensation ( this would be FFJ) my hope is other news organizations would print it as well.

[angelwngs]

Good News (for some of us anyway) The Globe is going to print the entire press release in their next issue.

I'd like to thank The Globe have the kahuna's to print the press release.

Also, I forgot to mention that I stole one full paragraph from one of the wonderful Why_Nut's posts and put it in the release.

Why_Nut, my hats off to you for all the hard work you continue to put in this case every day.

Tricia

Unleash the Whoo Hoo's!

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

[hipmamajen]

Yay, I'm curious to see if there will be any answers from this. Thanks for putting it out there!

[Ames]

The good news is the Globe is printing the release as part of their Ramsey story. Therefore it is news and no one pays anything to get it printed.

If I had USA Today print this it would be under the guise of an "advertisement" and would cost well over 25 thousand dollars.

Since it is a news press release and is based on an organization that works hard to get the facts for zero compensation ( this would be FFJ) my hope is other news organizations would print it as well.

25 thousand dollars? YOWZA? That is great that the Globe is using it as part of their Ramsey story, and you don't have to pay anything to have it printed. That's the way to go! I wonder, what if someone e-mailed it to say for example...."48 Hours", "Nancy Grace"...or some other news organization? Do you think that they would show it, or talk about it on air...or maybe invite you on the show to talk about it? That is wonderful that you have the Globe to print it, I am just trying to think of some other ways to make sure it gets into other organizations for even more people to see. It needs to be read by everybody! Did you have to sign a release or anything with the Globe? Can it be sent to other magazines...."Enquirer" for example? Forgive my many questions, please. I certainly hope that other organizations see it...and print it as well. Maybe that would start the ball rolling for Mary Lacy to have to start answering some tough questions....and to be held accountable for her stupid actions.

[Tricia]

25 thousand dollars? YOWZA? That is great that the Globe is using it as part of their Ramsey story, and you don't have to pay anything to have it printed. That's the way to go! I wonder, what if someone e-mailed it to say for example...."48 Hours", "Nancy Grace"...or some other news organization? Do you think that they would show it, or talk about it on air...or maybe invite you on the show to talk about it? That is wonderful that you have the Globe to print it, I am just trying to think of some other ways to make sure it gets into other organizations for even more people to see. It needs to be read by everybody! Did you have to sign a release or anything with the Globe? Can it be sent to other magazines...."Enquirer" for example? Forgive my many questions, please. I certainly hope that other organizations see it...and print it as well. Maybe that would start the ball rolling for Mary Lacy to have to start answering some tough questions....and to be held accountable for her stupid actions.

Dear Ames,
Feel free to email to any media outlets. I did but it wouldn't hurt for them to see it in their mailbox again.

Remember, in 2004 we sent out an email exposing Michael Tracey as a liar and someone who made up a suspect from an innocent man. It was a very compelling press release loaded with with explosive information about Tracey and Lacy. Yet, it was totally ignored until the John Mark Karr fiasco.

Tony Ortega with a Florida newspaper googled the "michael Tracey" + Documentary and our forum about Tracey popped up.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=249

He broke the story about Michael Tracey naming false suspects in the past and blew the whole John Mark Karr story out of the water.

Mr. Ortega is now the editor of the Village Voice.

My point is, it took over two years before the Michael Tracey press release was noticed. I can wait as long as it takes to get the truth out about Mary Lacy and her latest crap.

[DeeDee249]

I don't think there was ANY semen found at the scene.

(Except for a stain on a blanket that was matched to John's eldest son but was NOT related to the case in any way)

Not so sure it isn't related. The blanket was said to be a comforter belonging to JAR that he used in his college dorm room (he was home on break) and along with the semen stains there was a Dr.Seuss Children's book and (I believe I read this) hair from JBR.
Until we know what really happened we don't know who was actually involved. Remember- IF the parents are innocent of the crime but guilty of the coverup they have to be covering for family. Not a even a friend, let alone an acquaintance or even less so an intruder would warrant that.

[LI_Mom]

Not so sure it isn't related. The blanket was said to be a comforter belonging to JAR that he used in his college dorm room (he was home on break) and along with the semen stains there was a Dr.Seuss Children's book and (I believe I read this) hair from JBR.
Until we know what really happened we don't know who was actually involved. Remember- IF the parents are innocent of the crime but guilty of the coverup they have to be covering for family. Not a even a friend, let alone an acquaintance or even less so an intruder would warrant that.

John Andrew AND Melinda were both excluded very early on.

LE determined that it was IMPOSSIBLE for either to have been involved in any way.

[Ames]

Dear Ames,
Feel free to email to any media outlets. I did but it wouldn't hurt for them to see it in their mailbox again.

Remember, in 2004 we sent out an email exposing Michael Tracey as a liar and someone who made up a suspect from an innocent man. It was a very compelling press release loaded with with explosive information about Tracey and Lacy. Yet, it was totally ignored until the John Mark Karr fiasco.

Tony Ortega with a Florida newspaper googled the "michael Tracey" + Documentary and our forum about Tracey popped up.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=249

He broke the story about Michael Tracey naming false suspects in the past and blew the whole John Mark Karr story out of the water.

Mr. Ortega is now the editor of the Village Voice.

My point is, it took over two years before the Michael Tracey press release was noticed. I can wait as long as it takes to get the truth out about Mary Lacy and her latest crap.

Since you have given me permission to email any media outlet...you bet your sweet patootie that I will get right on it. I am sure that you will get a response back quicker than me, but I will let you know if and when I hear anything back from any of them. Thanks for giving me the OK to do that!

[Anniegirl]

Way to go Tricia...:blowkiss:

Between River and Super Dave im now off the fence for once and all-----







For Immediate Release, July 9, 2008
Contact: Tricia Griffith tgrif@xmission.com

THOUSANDS OF MEMBERS OF FORUMS FOR JUSTICE.ORG SPEAK OUT ON THE RAMSEY CASE. www.forumsforjustice.org/forums (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums)

HERE WE GO AGAIN. BOULDER D.A. MARY LACY MAKES A FOOL OF HERSELF IN THE RAMSEY CASE.

You would think Mary Lacy would have learned something from her John Mark Karr fiasco.

Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy has given the Ramseys a parting gift as she leaves office; she has cleared them of having any connection to the murder of JonBenet, yet she stated on August 28, 2006, “You know, 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."

Mary Lacy just did what she said neither she, nor anyone else, could do ... clear someone in the Ramseys case without a conviction at trial.

Lacy supposedly "cleared" the Ramseys based on new DNA evidence called “Touch DNA.” This process is relatively new and is known by scientists to still have reliability issues.

Lacy claims because partial, unidentified DNA contamination was found on the long-johns which was pulled over underwear JonBenet was wearing when she died that (and only Mary Lacy could make this leap) the Ramseys are innocent.

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

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

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

The question Mary Lacy has not answered is this:

DID THE "REAL KILLER" TAKE OFF HER GLOVES WHEN SHE LEFT A COUPLE OF SKIN CELLS ON THE PANTS, THEN PUT THEM BACK SO AS NOT TO LEAVE ANY MORE DNA? If the “real killer” used gloves on everything else in the house, why would they take them off to touch the long-johns?

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

Lacy claims the DNA on the long-johns matches partial DNA on the underwear. The logical conclusion is that there was transference of a few skin cells since the long-johns WERE PULLED OVER THE UNDERWEAR.

It has been reported the DNA is not even a full complete sample. Has that changed?

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

Remember Mary Lacy was sure she had the killer in 2006. John Mark Karr was another red herring offered by Mary Lacy. As citizens interested in justice we must question everything Mary Lacy tells us. She can't be trusted as she has proven time and time again.


Tricia Griffith
www.forumsforjustice.org/forums (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums)
tgrif@xmission.com

[RiverRat]

Welcome Aboard, Love! :blowkiss:

[SeekingJana]

If I could have just one person start talking it would be Fleet White!

Totally agree!
Maria

[SuperDave]

Anniegirl has chosen well. The power of the dark side!

[Tricia]

Way to go Tricia...:blowkiss:

Between River and Super Dave im now off the fence for once and all-----

Ohhh ANNIEGIRL. You make MY DAY WOMAN.

Nothing makes me happier than seeing someone who finally sees what this whole mess is about or isn't about I should say.

It is not about an INTRUDER.

I don't know what happened that night, I have my opinion, but I know it was not an intruder.


AnnieGirl, Welcome to the right side.

[Anniegirl]

Thanks ,friends----:blowkiss:

if you REALLY pay attention to all the fine people who point out the evidence in this case and lack of evidence for the intruder theory its very simple to see Ramsey guilt quite clearly.

I like what Nancy Grace said the first night of press release 'clearing Ramsey's"pertaining to "Ramsey's being cleared by the touch evidence" it wasn't so much what she said but how she said it ----




Ohhh ANNIEGIRL. You make MY DAY WOMAN.

Nothing makes me happier than seeing someone who finally sees what this whole mess is about or isn't about I should say.

It is not about an INTRUDER.

I don't know what happened that night, I have my opinion, but I know it was not an intruder.


AnnieGirl, Welcome to the right side.

[Solace]

The good news is the Globe is printing the release as part of their Ramsey story. Therefore it is news and no one pays anything to get it printed.

If I had USA Today print this it would be under the guise of an "advertisement" and would cost well over 25 thousand dollars.

Since it is a news press release and is based on an organization that works hard to get the facts for zero compensation ( this would be FFJ) my hope is other news organizations would print it as well.

That is just great Tricia. It is an awesome press release too.

[Solace]

Way to go Tricia...:blowkiss:

Between River and Super Dave im now off the fence for once and all-----

Wow, Anniegirl,

Is there anything specific that changed your mind. Very interested.