Any DNA experts agree w/RDI that transfer is more likely than intruder?

[Ravyn]

The fact Lacy exonerated the R's based on DNA in consultation w/her DNA experts including DNA experts at BODE technology who obviously anticipated, considered, and ruled out such objections.

I asked did you have concrete evidence if they didn't have to amplified the sample I don't care what Lacy did...And Bode technoogy I have never seen their true report have you...

 

[Ravyn]

Also explain this one to me,in December 2003 Lacy sent the sample to the FBI to be tested why with the same sample I assume is sent to Bode...Now have anyone here ever seen the chain of evidence cause it has to been sign off to one to another...

 

[voynich]

I asked did you have concrete evidence if they didn't have to amplified the sample I don't care what Lacy did...And Bode technoogy I have never seen their true report have you...

http://www.bodetech.com/documents/Press_Release_070908.pdf


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XheR6IOg8VU"]YouTube - Q-and-A: Jon Benet Ramsey DNA Test[/ame]


Would Lacy be allowed to clear the R's if the DA's office felt she was wrong?

have you tried a FOIA request?

 

[Ravyn]

I thought she was the main one the DA so she was not....Then who was in charge of the office....And tell me how many people handle this foreign DNA 1996-2008...Have anyone ever seen the sign off sheets on this....This also goes for the longjohns and we already said how the LE messed up from the beginning so 1996 2008 how many handle the lohnjohns and so might not worn gloves....

 

[voynich]

I thought she was the main one the DA so she was not....Then who was in charge of the office....And tell me how many people handle this foreign DNA 1996-2008...Have anyone ever seen the sign of sheets on this....

have you tried a FOIA request?

 

[voynich]

I thought she was the main one the DA so she was not....Then who was in charge of the office....And tell me how many people handle this foreign DNA 1996-2008...Have anyone ever seen the sign of sheets on this....

CONTACT: CAROLYN FRENCH, AT 303-441-4869.



Boulder District Attorney Mary T. Lacy issues the following announcement with regard to the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.



On December 25-26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in the home where she lived with her mother, father and brother. Despite a long and intensive investigation, the death of JonBenet remains unsolved.



The murder has received unprecedented publicity and has been shrouded in controversy. That publicity has led to many theories over the years in which suspicion has focused on one family member or another. However, there has been at least one persistent stumbling block to the possibility of prosecuting any Ramsey family members for the death of JonBenet – DNA.



As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder Police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenet’s blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.



The police department diligently compared that profile to a very large number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the investigation, and has not identified the source, innocent or otherwise, of this DNA. The Boulder Police and prosecutors assigned to this investigation in the past also worked conscientiously with laboratory analysts to obtain better results through new approaches and additional tests as they became available. Those efforts ultimately led to the discovery of sufficient genetic markers from this male profile to enter it into the national DNA data bank.



In December of 2002, the Boulder District Attorney’s Office, under Mary T. Lacy, assumed responsibility for the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide. Since then, this office has worked with the Boulder Police Department to continue the investigation of this crime.



In early August of 2007, District Attorney Lacy attended a Continuing Education Program in West Virginia sponsored by the National Institute of Justice on Forensic Biology and DNA. The presenters discussed successful outcomes from a new methodology described as “touch DNA.” One method for sampling for touch DNA is the “scraping method.” In this process, forensic scientists scrape a surface where there is no observable stain or other indication of possible DNA in an effort to recover for analysis any genetic material that might nonetheless be present. This methodology was not well known in this country until recently and is still used infrequently.



In October of 2007, we decided to pursue the possibility of submitting additional items from the JonBenet Ramsey homicide to be examined using this methodology. We checked with a number of Colorado sources regarding which private laboratory to use for this work. Based upon multiple recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory. First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of 2007.



The Bode Technology laboratory applied the “touch DNA” scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.



On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.



We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.



I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and assistance they have contributed to this investigation.



The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.



It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.



DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find during a criminal investigation. We rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. It can likewise be reliable evidence upon which to remove people from suspicion in appropriate cases.



The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.



Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media.



It is the responsibility of every prosecutor to seek justice. That responsibility includes seeking justice for people whose reputations and lives can be damaged irreparably by the lingering specter of suspicion. In a highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and suspicion on people’s lives can be extreme. The suspicions about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet.



For reasons including those discussed above, we believe that justice dictates that the Ramseys be treated only as victims of this very serious crime. We will accord them all the rights guaranteed to the victims of violent crimes under the law in Colorado and all the respect and sympathy due from one human being to another. To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology.



We prefer that any tips related to this ongoing investigation be submitted in writing or via electronic mail to BoulderDA.org, but they can also be submitted to our tip line at

(303) 441-1636.



This office will make no further statements. To read the text of the letter to John Ramsey

 

[Ravyn]

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.


Does this mean the whole investigation from 1996 or her investigation team from 2003 to 2008....This would make a difference...Cause it don't say I'm sure we would heard Beckner or someone agree with this....Now only the autopsy was mention but not my other question.....

 

[Ravyn]

I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and assistance they have contributed to this investigation.

Ok maybe all these was tested I don't know but she thanked everyone except the FBI and it's funny that she didn't cause Lacy herself sent the DNA and the longjohn's, I assume to be tested in 2003....

 

[madeleine]

You can use this spin to explain away any RDI evidence like fiber or handwriting. "fibers is a very quirky thing. voynich It's a much bigger mystery than we sometimes think."
"staging is a very quirky thing, voynich. It's a much bigger mystery than we sometimes think. " "hymens is a very quirky thing, voynich. It's a much bigger mystery than we sometimes think. "

Your razor please. I don't want to make a mess of things in front of the jury.

According to Occam's razor, what would be the simplest explanation for the positive presence of unknown male DNA mixed in blood w/JB's vagina, also found on 2 locations in a separate article of clothing, and the absence of PR, JR, BR, or White DNA? You won't get away this time, Super!

@bold
What are you talking about?
We don't know that but if that would be true,the absence of PR's touch dna on the longjohns would prove that she lied.

 

[Roy23]

CONTACT: CAROLYN FRENCH, AT 303-441-4869.



Boulder District Attorney Mary T. Lacy issues the following announcement with regard to the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.



On December 25-26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in the home where she lived with her mother, father and brother. Despite a long and intensive investigation, the death of JonBenet remains unsolved.



The murder has received unprecedented publicity and has been shrouded in controversy. That publicity has led to many theories over the years in which suspicion has focused on one family member or another. However, there has been at least one persistent stumbling block to the possibility of prosecuting any Ramsey family members for the death of JonBenet – DNA.



As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder Police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenet’s blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.



The police department diligently compared that profile to a very large number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the investigation, and has not identified the source, innocent or otherwise, of this DNA. The Boulder Police and prosecutors assigned to this investigation in the past also worked conscientiously with laboratory analysts to obtain better results through new approaches and additional tests as they became available. Those efforts ultimately led to the discovery of sufficient genetic markers from this male profile to enter it into the national DNA data bank.



In December of 2002, the Boulder District Attorney’s Office, under Mary T. Lacy, assumed responsibility for the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide. Since then, this office has worked with the Boulder Police Department to continue the investigation of this crime.



In early August of 2007, District Attorney Lacy attended a Continuing Education Program in West Virginia sponsored by the National Institute of Justice on Forensic Biology and DNA. The presenters discussed successful outcomes from a new methodology described as “touch DNA.” One method for sampling for touch DNA is the “scraping method.” In this process, forensic scientists scrape a surface where there is no observable stain or other indication of possible DNA in an effort to recover for analysis any genetic material that might nonetheless be present. This methodology was not well known in this country until recently and is still used infrequently.



In October of 2007, we decided to pursue the possibility of submitting additional items from the JonBenet Ramsey homicide to be examined using this methodology. We checked with a number of Colorado sources regarding which private laboratory to use for this work. Based upon multiple recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory. First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of 2007.



The Bode Technology laboratory applied the “touch DNA” scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.



On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.



We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.



I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and assistance they have contributed to this investigation.



The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.



It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.



DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find during a criminal investigation. We rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. It can likewise be reliable evidence upon which to remove people from suspicion in appropriate cases.



The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.



Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media.



It is the responsibility of every prosecutor to seek justice. That responsibility includes seeking justice for people whose reputations and lives can be damaged irreparably by the lingering specter of suspicion. In a highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and suspicion on people’s lives can be extreme. The suspicions about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet.



For reasons including those discussed above, we believe that justice dictates that the Ramseys be treated only as victims of this very serious crime. We will accord them all the rights guaranteed to the victims of violent crimes under the law in Colorado and all the respect and sympathy due from one human being to another. To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology.



We prefer that any tips related to this ongoing investigation be submitted in writing or via electronic mail to BoulderDA.org, but they can also be submitted to our tip line at

(303) 441-1636.



This office will make no further statements. To read the text of the letter to John Ramsey

It amazes me that in the face of all these facts, the number of RDI's have not done an about face. You really have to have a big issue with DNA to not finally let this go. And they only released enough just to finally end speculation of the Ramsey's. It would be irresponsible to do anything more than that but you guys are not listening.

 

[voynich]

It amazes me that in the face of all these facts, the number of RDI's have not done an about face. You really have to have a big issue with DNA to not finally let this go. And they only released enough just to finally end speculation of the Ramsey's. It would be irresponsible to do anything more than that but you guys are not listening.

RDI spin team has a powerful spin

 

[Ravyn]

IDI says RDI don't listen why don't IDI answers the questions now why didn't Lacy thank the FBI for their work in 2003 and was they tested like she said her investigation team was to be ruled out...

 

[Roy23]

IDI says RDI don't listen why don't IDI answers the questions now why didn't Lacy thank the FBI for their work in 2003 and was they tested like she said her investigation team was to be ruled out...

Because it doesn't matter.

 

[BBB167893]

While I am a fan of Star Wars EU I know of Dark Seid and Superman. It sounds like Apocalpyse in Marvel comics. So what was your intention for linking that particular clip

My intention was to remind you not to think you've acheived victory prematurely.

You can use this spin to explain away any RDI evidence like fiber or handwriting. "fibers is a very quirky thing. voynich It's a much bigger mystery than we sometimes think."

Yeah, I figured that was how you'd take it. I simply meant that it's not as simple as it's sometimes made out. As one of my favorite lawyers/pundits wrote, "DNA can only exclude suspects in cases of rape, and even then when the victim is not sexually active or when there's a single assailant. In virtually all other cases, DNA can only include suspects." To illustrate the point, she mentions a man named Dennis Dechaine. In 1988, he murdered a young girl. The evidence was damning, including his own confession. But there are people trying to get him released based on the fact that the victim had DNA under her nails that has never been matched to anyone. The world is bristling with human DNA. That's the point the criminologist O'Reilly interviewed was making.

"staging is a very quirky thing, voynich. It's a much bigger mystery than we sometimes think. " "hymens is a very quirky thing, voynich. It's a much bigger mystery than we sometimes think. "

Your razor please. I don't want to make a mess of things in front of the jury.

I reserve comment.

According to Occam's razor, what would be the simplest explanation for the positive presence of unknown male DNA mixed in blood w/JB's vagina, also found on 2 locations in a separate article of clothing, and the absence of PR, JR, BR, or White DNA?

On its own, or holistically? Because that's the real issue, in my view.

You won't get away this time, Super!

Do you REALLY think I intend to escape?

 

[voynich]

On its own, or holistically? Because that's the real issue, in my view.



Do you REALLY think I intend to escape?

I've been looking forwards to this.

On its own. I don't want to make a mess of things in front of the jury.

 

[BBB167893]

Would Lacy be allowed to clear the R's if the DA's office felt she was wrong?

Prosecutorial discretion is nearly absolute. So yes. And make no mistake: she'd have cleared them before her term was up anyway.

have you tried a FOIA request?

THERE's an idea!

 

[voynich]

Prosecutorial discretion is nearly absolute. So yes. And make no mistake: she'd have cleared them before her term was up anyway.



THERE's an idea!

Do you have any evidence she has made any false statements in that letter, including cooperating with the CBI, independent DNA experts, BP, Bode Technology Group, Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory?

 

[BBB167893]

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy.

"Confident." As in not 100%. Even Bill Wise said he didn't think it was possible that they checked everyone who handled it.

The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder.

In the opinions of pro-Ramsey partisans. I've said that before MANY TIMES. Fat lot of good it does me.

The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.

Reading that, one might think that they HAD considered it until they did this. My upcoming book contains testimony from several people as to how the previous DA was in their corner from Day One. Shouldn't be too long now...

 

[BBB167893]

It amazes me that in the face of all these facts, the number of RDI's have not done an about face.

There are a LOT of things about this case that amaze me. Hopefully, you'll be able to see why we haven't fairly soon.

You really have to have a big issue with DNA to not finally let this go.

Several, if you must know.

And they only released enough just to finally end speculation of the Ramsey's. It would be irresponsible to do anything more than that but you guys are not listening.

That's not how Kane saw it.

 

[BBB167893]

IDI says RDI don't listen

Yeah, that's rich, in my opinion.