1154 users online (281 members and 873 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40
  1. #1

    Who ultimately committed this

    This is one case that I have involved myself in, getting to know the principals involved. To me this is an open and shut case. With respect to Keenan/Lacy and the DNA and the exoneration of the Ramsey's go, we have all seen Mary Lacy at work. Mary Lacy is a total joke and has made a total fool of herself. The DNA that supposely exonerated the Ramsey's was probably left by the dozen's of people who were in and out of that house that day-contaminating the crime scene-who walked anywhere they pleased.

    The ranson note looked like it was written by someone whose only exposure to crime was what they saw in Dirty Harry, Speed and a host of other cop movies. Jeff Shapiro and Steve Thomas have made it publically known that they are confident that Patsy Ramsey lost it and then attempted to cover it up. I have studied this case for 10 years now, speaking to some involved and the only logical conclusion is that John Ramsey is a liar and knows what his wife did and Patsy Ramsey took this lie to the grave, namely, that she lost it and killed her own daughter.

    Mr. Ramsey if you read this, remember, "there can be no FORGIVENESS without confession."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    400
    [QUOTE=Kelly_Robinson;5844724]This is one case that I have involved myself in, getting to know the principals involved. To me this is an open and shut case. With respect to Keenan/Lacy and the DNA and the exoneration of the Ramsey's go, we have all seen Mary Lacy at work. Mary Lacy is a total joke and has made a total fool of herself. The DNA that supposely exonerated the Ramsey's was probably left by the dozen's of people who were in and out of that house that day-contaminating the crime scene-who walked anywhere they pleased.
    My Bold
    I think it would be easy to trace that DNA back to the people in the house that day. They are known. Records of who(police, ambulance, etc.) responded to the calls are also on file and getting samples and testing them should have already been done.

    If it hasn't already been done then blame the LE and DA.
    Last edited by CathyR; 11-26-2010 at 10:05 AM. Reason: Quote isn't in blue I'll add my Bold

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelly_Robinson View Post
    This is one case that I have involved myself in, getting to know the principals involved. To me this is an open and shut case. With respect to Keenan/Lacy and the DNA and the exoneration of the Ramsey's go, we have all seen Mary Lacy at work. Mary Lacy is a total joke and has made a total fool of herself. The DNA that supposely exonerated the Ramsey's was probably left by the dozen's of people who were in and out of that house that day-contaminating the crime scene-who walked anywhere they pleased.

    The ranson note looked like it was written by someone whose only exposure to crime was what they saw in Dirty Harry, Speed and a host of other cop movies. Jeff Shapiro and Steve Thomas have made it publically known that they are confident that Patsy Ramsey lost it and then attempted to cover it up. I have studied this case for 10 years now, speaking to some involved and the only logical conclusion is that John Ramsey is a liar and knows what his wife did and Patsy Ramsey took this lie to the grave, namely, that she lost it and killed her own daughter.

    Mr. Ramsey if you read this, remember, "there can be no FORGIVENESS without confession."
    This waters down the DNA evidence and ignores the circumstances completely. The fact is that while JBR was still in that house, not even the coroner handled JBR's underwear on the inside crotch area. Did you know that is where some of the DNA was discovered? Thats the CODIS DNA and your claim it was 'innocently deposited' requires that the innocent deposit land on the inside crotch area of her underwear exactly upon a spot of JBR's blood.

    I mean, do you really think somebody had JBR's underpants off inside the house that day and wasn't noticed? I'm sorry but thats just absurd. There's lots of news reports that explain these were the circumstances. Did you miss all those reports?

    Please feel free to modify your claim to suit another scenario, becase the one you described doesn't work.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 11-26-2010 at 11:43 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    This waters down the DNA evidence and ignores the circumstances completely. The fact is that while JBR was still in that house, not even the coroner handled JBR's underwear on the inside crotch area. Did you know that is where some of the DNA was discovered? Thats the CODIS DNA and your claim it was 'innocently deposited' requires that the innocent deposit land on the inside crotch area of her underwear exactly upon a spot of JBR's blood.

    I mean, do you really think somebody had JBR's underpants off inside the house that day and wasn't noticed? I'm sorry but thats just absurd. There's lots of news reports that explain these were the circumstances. Did you miss all those reports?

    Please feel free to modify your claim to suit another scenario, becase the one you described doesn't work.
    Hey Kelly, it works just fine for me!
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,897
    Fine for me too, Kelly. BTW, who said the dna in her panties had to happen in the house that day? Someone had to touch them at the coroner's office the next day. Are you saying that you are certain that dna samples were taken before the body was removed from the home? Maybe the outside clothes were tested, but no way they took her clothes off in the home for dna testing. Try again.
    "This Time We Get it Right!"

    "For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." Stuart Chase

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Hey Kelly, it works just fine for me!
    I dont doubt that in the least.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    This waters down the DNA evidence and ignores the circumstances completely. The fact is that while JBR was still in that house, not even the coroner handled JBR's underwear on the inside crotch area. Did you know that is where some of the DNA was discovered? Thats the CODIS DNA and your claim it was 'innocently deposited' requires that the innocent deposit land on the inside crotch area of her underwear exactly upon a spot of JBR's blood.

    I mean, do you really think somebody had JBR's underpants off inside the house that day and wasn't noticed? I'm sorry but thats just absurd. There's lots of news reports that explain these were the circumstances. Did you miss all those reports?

    Please feel free to modify your claim to suit another scenario, becase the one you described doesn't work.
    You mean it waters down the touch DNA that didn't even supply all 13 markers prior to being submitted to CODIS?? Hmmm lets see, will I believe a theory that can be proven by the presence of the 4 individuals that are KNOWN to have been in the house, or touch DNA that is incomplete and has NEVER been linked to anyone? Wow, hard choice, not!!!!!!

    As for JBR's underpants being taken off that day, there was dirty underwear found in her bathroom and she often took it off and dropped soiled underwear.

    Bye the way, JR's sweater fibers were also found inside JB's underwear. And as another matter of fact he was wearing that same sweater at the party, but not the next morning. What a bizarre twist of fate.

    As for changing scenarios and reading reports, maybe you would benefit yourself to re-read actual reports vs media hype. Or maybe this is another 'theory'? Hmmm now that is an interesting idea!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by SunnieRN View Post
    You mean it waters down the touch DNA that didn't even supply all 13 markers prior to being submitted to CODIS?? Hmmm lets see, will I believe a theory that can be proven by the presence of the 4 individuals that are KNOWN to have been in the house, or touch DNA that is incomplete and has NEVER been linked to anyone? Wow, hard choice, not!!!!!!
    This is false. The touch DNA is complete profile, and was processed the same as blood or semen. It does seem you're confused on the DNA evidence.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 11-27-2010 at 12:54 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelly_Robinson View Post
    This is one case that I have involved myself in, getting to know the principals involved. To me this is an open and shut case. With respect to Keenan/Lacy and the DNA and the exoneration of the Ramsey's go, we have all seen Mary Lacy at work. Mary Lacy is a total joke and has made a total fool of herself. The DNA that supposely exonerated the Ramsey's was probably left by the dozen's of people who were in and out of that house that day-contaminating the crime scene-who walked anywhere they pleased.

    The ranson note looked like it was written by someone whose only exposure to crime was what they saw in Dirty Harry, Speed and a host of other cop movies. Jeff Shapiro and Steve Thomas have made it publically known that they are confident that Patsy Ramsey lost it and then attempted to cover it up. I have studied this case for 10 years now, speaking to some involved and the only logical conclusion is that John Ramsey is a liar and knows what his wife did and Patsy Ramsey took this lie to the grave, namely, that she lost it and killed her own daughter.

    Mr. Ramsey if you read this, remember, "there can be no FORGIVENESS without confession."
    This deserves a standing ovation. Welcome aboard, Kelly!

    Incidentally, you mentioned that you've talked to some of the people involved. Are you at liberty to say who?
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by SunnieRN View Post
    You mean it waters down the touch DNA that didn't even supply all 13 markers prior to being submitted to CODIS??


    Hmmm lets see, will I believe a theory that can be proven by the presence of the 4 individuals that are KNOWN to have been in the house, or touch DNA that is incomplete and has NEVER been linked to anyone? Wow, hard choice, not!!!!!!
    LOL!! No kidding! Those would be the choices! That seems to be the part our friend HOTYH doesn't understand.

    Bye the way, JR's sweater fibers were also found inside JB's underwear. And as another matter of fact he was wearing that same sweater at the party, but not the next morning. What a bizarre twist of fate.
    Twist of fate, my Irish fanny.

    As for changing scenarios and reading reports, maybe you would benefit yourself to re-read actual reports vs media hype.
    Damn good advice. HOTYH would be wise to heed it. And in that same spirit, let me offer our friend some friendly advice:

    HOTYH, if I were in your position--and it helps to remember I used to be--I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith into anyone who thought John Mark Karr was a solid lead. Ever heard the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? Mary Lacy was the Girl Who Cried Intruder. And it's going to come back to haunt you, brother.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    400
    Correct me if I'm wrong here.

    2 or more blood spots were found on JB's underwear?

    Coroner may have contaminated fingernail DNA while clipping. But it is tested anyway.

    It yields a mixture and then only a couple of markers-not enough to identify anyone.

    The 1st or 2 blood spots is tested and what ????? It yields no results it is contaminated? What I'm lost here?


    I have read the 2nd blood spot was tested and it yielded enough markers to be submitted to CODIS, not all 13 but 10 I think. It was tested years later than the first spot. Am I correct in this fact? Has testing been done on the 2nd spot?


    I can see why the R's felt the need to try and preserve as much evidence as possible. So little biological evidence existed. They did fight the DNA testing in an effort not to prevent it but to preserve as much as possible. Their lawyers took it to the extreme and wanted representatives at the lab to guarantee the tests were done correctly.

    A lot of what people assume is the Ramsey's being "guilty acting" is actually proof of good lawyers and clients who followed their advice.

    Lawyers are paid to "get people out" of a legal mess, innocent or guilty. They use the system to their clients advantage and they don't have to be the ones who live with public opinion their clients are.

    Even in a trial a defense lawyer wants to be able to defend his client WITHOUT calling him to the stand. A judge would instruct a juror that they cannot hold the defendant guilty because he did not testify. Old as Perry Mason known trial tactics, there are even more than one or two available to those who are experiences professionals.The earlier they get in on the action the quicker they can do what they are supposed to do-use the system.


    I find it interesting that Bynum took it upon himself and even volunteered that information later than when he answered the phone he told the cops he was representing the R's.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    .....
    Posts
    4,626
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyR View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong here.

    2 or more blood spots were found on JB's underwear?

    Coroner may have contaminated fingernail DNA while clipping. But it is tested anyway.

    It yields a mixture and then only a couple of markers-not enough to identify anyone.

    The 1st or 2 blood spots is tested and what ????? It yields no results it is contaminated? What I'm lost here?


    I have read the 2nd blood spot was tested and it yielded enough markers to be submitted to CODIS, not all 13 but 10 I think. It was tested years later than the first spot. Am I correct in this fact? Has testing been done on the 2nd spot?


    I can see why the R's felt the need to try and preserve as much evidence as possible. So little biological evidence existed. They did fight the DNA testing in an effort not to prevent it but to preserve as much as possible. Their lawyers took it to the extreme and wanted representatives at the lab to guarantee the tests were done correctly.

    A lot of what people assume is the Ramsey's being "guilty acting" is actually proof of good lawyers and clients who followed their advice.

    Lawyers are paid to "get people out" of a legal mess, innocent or guilty. They use the system to their clients advantage and they don't have to be the ones who live with public opinion their clients are.

    Even in a trial a defense lawyer wants to be able to defend his client WITHOUT calling him to the stand. A judge would instruct a juror that they cannot hold the defendant guilty because he did not testify. Old as Perry Mason known trial tactics, there are even more than one or two available to those who are experiences professionals.The earlier they get in on the action the quicker they can do what they are supposed to do-use the system.


    I find it interesting that Bynum took it upon himself and even volunteered that information later than when he answered the phone he told the cops he was representing the R's.
    A lot of what people assume is the Ramsey's being "guilty acting" is actually proof of good lawyers and clients who followed their advice. - CR



    Hiya CR.

    Yes, but that's the difficulty.

    The Ramsey's had legal directions on how to approach and respond to each question or possible direction of the inquiry. How far could they veer off point, with fuzzy memories and coaching on their responses.


    How to distinguish what is a lie?, hidden in dialogue; they can be easily surmised.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Tadpole12 View Post
    A lot of what people assume is the Ramsey's being "guilty acting" is actually proof of good lawyers and clients who followed their advice. - CR



    Hiya CR.

    Yes, but that's the difficulty.

    The Ramsey's had legal directions on how to approach and respond to each question or possible direction of the inquiry. How far could they veer off point, with fuzzy memories and coaching on their responses.


    How to distinguish what is a lie?, hidden in dialogue; they can be easily surmised.


    This hidden in dialogue isn't a science like playing KISS, Led Zepplin, Lynard Skynard, Etc. backwards and hearing the devil speak?

    Is it able to be admissible evidence used against someone in court?

    If it is then post some links.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,897
    Out of all honesty here, if one of my children were found dead in my home and I knew without one doubt that I had NOTHING to do with it. The first thing I am going to do is talk to the police and tell them everything I know. I'm innocent, right? Why would I not talk to them. I know IDIs say it's because LE will turn it around on me and try to make me look guilty. No, they will say and do anything they can to get me to confess, that's the only reason I would have a lawyer present, to stop that kind of thing. Other than that, I would answer every question immediately so that I could be cleared. Honestly, the Ramseys really acted like they did not want to be cleared. Ask yourself why. Why would anyone not want to be cleared? Only because they didn't want LE looking at the right person. What other reason could there be if they are innocent?
    "This Time We Get it Right!"

    "For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." Stuart Chase

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    17
    What I don't understand is how somone elses blood got into JBR's underwear. That does not make sense to me. There was no other blood found in the house, no blood on the ground. If the "intruder" was wearing gloves, how would they bleed? You could not say they cut a finger or anything like that. The blood in the panties just does not make sense to me.


    Can anyone help me understand this?
    “When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.”

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. AZ - Man sex. abuses 3 girls has one committed
    By peeples in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-18-2013, 02:05 PM
  2. I committed a third degree felony!
    By GlitchWizard in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-15-2008, 07:59 AM