If you ask me, it's precisely that opinion that's put the case in the lousy shape it's in.
Any DNA experts agree w/RDI that transfer is more likely than intruder?
- Thread starter voynich
- Start date
If you ask me, it's precisely that opinion that's put the case in the lousy shape it's in.
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
I didn't vote since I'm neutral on the DNA: until it is proven to belong to the murderer, it's just another aspect of the case and it should be afforded the same importance: no more, no less.
What I have to say, though, is that given the catalogue of c***-ups in this case, I don't know how anyone can exclude the possibility that this DNA evidence is the result of a forensic error, let alone the possibility of innocent transfer....
What I have to say, though, is that given the catalogue of c***-ups in this case, I don't know how anyone can exclude the possibility that this DNA evidence is the result of a forensic error, let alone the possibility of innocent transfer....
Ravyn
New Member
But what Lacy and all that agree with IDI does...Or IDI can't answer the questions now through this case I have found where this DNA could be great then also found out where it couldn't...Then some goes by Judge Carnes and she didn't have enough to make a ruling did she have all the evidence...Again I search and found out she didn't...
But matter it does cause above all JonBenet should matter not her parents but what happen to her....
I doubt it.
Well, my approach WOULD make an awful mess. Okay, on its own. I guess you'd have to be able to say for sure what KIND it was first. Leaving that aside for a moment, if that was all there was, I suppose I would have to lean your way. (And let's not forget that I DID for quite a while.)
Didn't say she did.
It's only natural.
It's not the JIDI way.
You did well Dave. This awful mess was too dangerous to be kept alive.
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.
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.
Lacy claims THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE to consult DNA experts both Bode and outside DNA experts, and in junction with the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory, concluded DNA came from the homicide. This created a media storm, with reporters, and I am not aware of any reporter discovering anything contrary. It certainly is within the scope of judicial review and FOIA. It is certainly within the province of the governor to overrule her or setup an independent probe.
You said it.
I know...
It's a mess all right.
I'm not really sure, but I think she mentioned at least some of those institutions in a more general sense. (With a strong hint of "thanks for comin'" thrown in there.)
The media in this country is so sloppy now, voynich, I don't think they've bothered to look. (That's not to mention the concerted efforts by LW to bring the media to heel. And don't think I'm done THERE!)
I'm glad you brought that up. I'm DEEPLY surprised that the governor HASN'T done exactly that by now. Especially when you consider that the governor, Bill Ritter, was a member of the investigation! He certainly SHOULD appoint an independent investigator, in my opinion.
Kinda hard to believe that media reporters didn't find any dissent w/Lacy's conclusions or that any investigators close to the investigators from CBI, independent DNA experts, BP, Bode Technology Group, Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory didn't cite a dissenting opinion.
If there was a dissenting opinion wouldn't we have heard from now and it could be as simple as an employee blog, email, phone call, or inquiry.
Not so surprising really. Maybe Bill Ritter is satisfied with the work that Lacy's team of DNA experts and investigators did.
Ravyn
New Member
White said he asked Lacy in late 2006 for a public statement. He asked again in a "very demanding" letter in late August, Lacy said.
"We've never thought of them as suspects, and we never said or inferred they were suspects," Lacy said.
The only reason the Ramsey letter from Lacy was made public was because John Ramsey chose to tell the media, she said.
This from the Denver post....So if John Ramsey didn't threaten going to the media this wouldn't have that much effect on the case....
"We've never thought of them as suspects, and we never said or inferred they were suspects," Lacy said.
The only reason the Ramsey letter from Lacy was made public was because John Ramsey chose to tell the media, she said.
This from the Denver post....So if John Ramsey didn't threaten going to the media this wouldn't have that much effect on the case....
Ravyn
New Member
And in my above post please don't say because how the R's was done by the media cause the R's was the first to throw the White's name as suspects cause why the White's became suspicious of the R's actions...
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
I'm not sure the likes of the CBI could comment on the DNA, even if they had reservations. Frankly, it would be improper of them to compound Lacy's error by adding their own layer of commentary.
Presumably, though, the fact that the DA and Police Chief didn't refer to the DNA as conclusive when they restarted the investigation is indicative of some official cynicism about the whole issue. Similarly, the fact that Beckner referred to things like developments in linguistics is some demonstration that he was remembering the other evidence in the case and not just sitting around waiting for CODIS to show up a match...
This is obviously just anecdotal evidence but a couple of people on the forums who are connected with principals in the case were adamant that Lacy had annoyed some important people in government and one person in fact predicted that the case would be noisily re-opened in retaliation.
Presumably, though, the fact that the DA and Police Chief didn't refer to the DNA as conclusive when they restarted the investigation is indicative of some official cynicism about the whole issue. Similarly, the fact that Beckner referred to things like developments in linguistics is some demonstration that he was remembering the other evidence in the case and not just sitting around waiting for CODIS to show up a match...
This is obviously just anecdotal evidence but a couple of people on the forums who are connected with principals in the case were adamant that Lacy had annoyed some important people in government and one person in fact predicted that the case would be noisily re-opened in retaliation.
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
Blimey, Ravyn: you are becoming one of the real gnus (I like gnus better than gurus) on this case! XX
What you're forgetting, HOTYH, is a lot of times, where there's an on-going investigation (even if it is in name only), there are such things as gag-orders. They can be formal or informal, but they lead to the same thing.
That, and after 12+ years, maybe the media just didn't bother to look.
I doubt it, considering he knew her and what she was like back in the day. But even so, there are other reasons. No doubt his poisition gives him a lot more on his plate than some old case. That, and on the whole, governors don't like to intervene in ongoing investigations. Sometimes they have to be pushed, and that's exactly what I urge people to do: start pushing.
cami
Keep your fork......
Who`s official explanation is thisÉ There is no evidence whatsoever that oral sex was performed on JB. The dna is unsourced, it`s not blood, saliva, semen or sperm. The dna in JB`s panties is degraded and miniscule yet her dna is fresh. How did that happenÉ And it is only a partial sample...never, ever could it be used to accuse someone of this crime.
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 victims 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 Attorneys Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.
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 victims 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 Attorneys Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.
In light of this statement I see a good-faith basis to investigate an intruder
The onus is on the RDI to show that Lacy had acted in bad faith, or that there are credible DNA experts (why didn't reporters interview dissenting DNA experts???!!!) who dissent.
Ravyn
New Member
Ravyn
New Member
The onus is on the RDI to show that Lacy had acted in bad faith, or that there are credible DNA experts (why didn't reporters interview dissenting DNA experts???!!!) who dissent.
DA Stan Garrett talks to People about former DA Lacy mistakes does that mean anything..
Past Mistakes
In December 2002, newly elected Boulder DA Mary Keenan Lacy took over the investigation from police. Lacy, who believed the evidence was "more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenét," went on to arrest John Mark Karr in August 2006. The case against Karr was dropped 12 days later.
Then, six months before leaving office, Lacy sent a letter of apology to John Ramsey (Patsy had died in 2006 after a long battle with ovarian cancer), saying that said she no longer considered any Ramsey family members to be suspects.
DA Stan Garrett talks to People about former DA Lacy mistakes does that mean anything..
Past Mistakes
In December 2002, newly elected Boulder DA Mary Keenan Lacy took over the investigation from police. Lacy, who believed the evidence was "more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenét," went on to arrest John Mark Karr in August 2006. The case against Karr was dropped 12 days later.
Then, six months before leaving office, Lacy sent a letter of apology to John Ramsey (Patsy had died in 2006 after a long battle with ovarian cancer), saying that said she no longer considered any Ramsey family members to be suspects.
cami wasn't asking whether or not to investigate an intruder.
On this, or in general?
I wouldn't mind getting a few book quotes.
Because LW's got 'em too damn scared!
would you believe if outside DNA experts in the technology had reviewed these results and concluded that indeed, it pointed away from the R's?
Ravyn
New Member
at this time lacy, but i expect the new one to draw same conclusions on DNA, so both