Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 107

Thread: Why was Karr so important to Lacy??

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    65

    Why was Karr so important to Lacy??

    Ok so we know that JMK was/is the resident nutter on the JBR case, but why was he so important to ML and why did she feel the need to go the lenghts of getting him from Thailand to US? And whay was she so desperate to exhonerate the Ramsey's?

    Right off the bat i would like to say that from all the transcripts and interviews i have seen including the highly publicesed return the the US he NEVER actually admited to murdering JBR; he said he was with her when she died and that her death was an accident. It was one of the Thai officials that said Karr had stated that he had attempted to kidnap her then strangled her when it all went wrong and as far as i am aware there is no official confirmation that Karr said this.


    Mary Lacey's relentless pursuit of Karr was a way to claw back some of the reputation that was so severly damaged by this case through media leaks and other things, that the Boulder DA needed a 'scape goat' to clear the family and put this awful crime to bed once and for all her downfall was none of the evidence matched Karr and his supposed confession that by rights isn't a confession at all. I asked a police friend of my grandmothers if what Karr said was deemed a confession and he told me that it would be classified as a partial disclosure that needed futher investigation.

    I started looking into Karr's background to try and create a better picture of who this man is and why he would try to tie himself to one of the most notorious crimes of our time.

    There was a significantly large age gap between Karr's mother and father and was the same large gap between the father and his second wife both marriges broke down and Karr's early life was somewhat turbulant as his mother believed that Karr was possesed by deamons and tried to burn him alive as an infant she was subesquently sectioned. Karr moved around quite a bit as a child also. Karr was twice married once to a 13 year old girl whom he took out of state to marry her and lied about her age, the girls sister said Karr abused her sister in everyway possible; the girl applied to the courts for an annulmet of said marrige on the grounds she feared for her life at the time of the wedding. Karr's second marrige was to a 16 year old girl whom he had gotten pregnant ( twin girls were born in the september after the marrige but died the same day).

    Karr and his second wife had three boys in quick succession but divorced in 2001 after Karr was arrested for 5 misdemeanour counts of possesing child pornography, for which he recieved probation and the court records were sealed. Karr had a job as a teacher in 14 different schools some of which he was accused of molestation and impropriety with minors. He also had a licence for daycare with up to 6 childre at a time ranging in age from birth to 14, Karr eventually relocated to Thailand where he taught at a school and did daycare for a family and was eventually arrested for child abuse by the Thai authorities it was then he instigated he was linked to the death of Jonbenet and the information filtered back to Lacey who had Karr extradited back to the US, Karr had also been corresponding for 4 years with Michael Tracey the U of C proffessor about his involvement with the emails becoming more and more graphic. Karr is currently living as the trams-gender woman named Alexis.

    Sorry for rehasing most of the stuff we already know but it is nessasary i promise.

    Karr , being raised in a family where the dominat male is undertaking relationships with girls significantly younger thatn him taught Karr that this was acceptable behaviour. He has an extroverted personality so he craves attention and needs to be recognised for anything he does no matter how grotesque the act is and so would not have kept quiet about being involved in JBRs death for so long he wouldn't have been able to keep a lid on it and the more media intrest grew the more difficult he would have found it to contain himself. For someone with his personality type any attention is good attention.

    Karr driven by an all consuming obsession felt the compulsion to be connected with JBR and possibly PR too as in his emails he never wanted to conversate with John just Patsy possibly becsause it would have been easier to taunt the emotional Patsy where as john would have been a tougher nut to crack. Karr's obsession with her ran so deep he fabricated a relationship between him and Jonbenet to the point where he truly believed he was an importand part of her life, Jonbenet consumed Karr to the point where he lived and breathed JBR.

    Even now as people discuss this case over the net or in person Karr's name is mentioned so he forever immoralized as the crackpot wierdo that claimed to kill JBR and has a perchant for little girls.

    If anyone has been able to stomach reading his trash or watching his interviews you will see that he never says "yep i'm your guy i killed her i did this, this and this" him knowing details of the murder are irrelevant as most of us know the same if not more that he does, he skirts invasive questions with "i'm not answering that" or " i can't say" he just repetes that he was with her when she died and thes is the most important line in his whole vile speech because being with some one when they die doesn't make you a killer it means that you were witness to them dying, and when he says it was an accident well that is the general consensus between RDI and even some IDI say gthe same.

    Karr was asked if he was innocent and he said no, but as he said he was only with her when she died the only thing he is guilty of is failing to report an accident.

    Getting back to ML she was one contradiction after another riding the coat tails of AH. Hunters preformance on this case is laughable his unethical and unprofessionl demeanour futher damaged a botched case and Lacy just picked up where he left off, Karr was a damage limitation excersise at the expence of the tax payer to put this case to bed and forget about it. She took a gamble on Karr and it was an epic backfire and was on show for the whole world to see because by then the whole world wanted answers.

    Undoubtely Karr is an active predatiry pedophile regsrdless of his/her sex and should never be let within spitting distance of a child of any age but the point id that a district attorneys office were praying that DNA was a match or his writing matched the ransome note so that they could scapegoat an innocent man ( I know he didd't do much to discoursge them); But the sheer eagerness of a DA to extradite someone who gave no confession or DNA, handwrting to make her self look good and clear a family of suspicion was stupidity at it greatest; she went on to say that unless you were there at the time no one can be cleared beyond reasonable doubt forgive me if the quote isn't 100% accurate.

    There seemed to be an element of point scoring because the BPD had no suspects except the Ramsey's and the DAs office had seemingly caught the perfect perp. Bottom line, Lacy needed Karr to be the perp for a bucket load of reasons such as; the image of the big bad bogey man was real and he killed JBR, to put the case to bed once and for all and to possibly futher Lacy's political career. Karr was too good to be true, since when does the culprit of the most publicized murder fall into the lap of the authorities? THEY DON'T!! Lacy tried to pull the wool over the worlds eyes and failed.
    I say what i mean please or offend

  2. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to smurf86 For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    686
    Lacy was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Karr claimed he was involved in the death of JBR. Had she done nothing, she would have been criticized for that. I believe she was working with California authorities, who wanted him back in the US to prosecute him on pornography charges but they lost the files.

    Lacy did the right thing when the touch DNA revealed it was not the Ramseys. They were persecuted by the Boulder Police--especially Steve Thomas. Why he wasn't brought up on civil rights violations is a mystery to me.

    The police did not have evidence to prosecute the Ramseys---easy for them to come up with their circumstantial case, but the DA's office were the ones that had to convict them. Even the Grand Jury was bogus...it was only done because the Governor requested it when Steve Thomas quit. It was a waste of money. The Grand Jury sometimes is used to try the case to see how it would play out in court. The DNA was a huge issue for them. Double jeopardy would have applied. There is plenty of expultory evidence when it comes to the Ramseys.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Maikai For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    Lacy was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Karr claimed he was involved in the death of JBR. Had she done nothing, she would have been criticized for that. I believe she was working with California authorities, who wanted him back in the US to prosecute him on pornography charges but they lost the files.

    Lacy did the right thing when the touch DNA revealed it was not the Ramseys. They were persecuted by the Boulder Police--especially Steve Thomas. Why he wasn't brought up on civil rights violations is a mystery to me.

    The police did not have evidence to prosecute the Ramseys---easy for them to come up with their circumstantial case, but the DA's office were the ones that had to convict them. Even the Grand Jury was bogus...it was only done because the Governor requested it when Steve Thomas quit. It was a waste of money. The Grand Jury sometimes is used to try the case to see how it would play out in court. The DNA was a huge issue for them. Double jeopardy would have applied. There is plenty of expultory evidence when it comes to the Ramseys.
    The DNA was a huge issue for them.
    For who? Are you speaking of the "touch dna" ?
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrishope View Post
    For who? Are you speaking of the "touch dna" ?
    No...they didn't have the touch DNA then.....it was the other DNA mixed with blood and under her nails. Several on the Grand Jury had scientific backgrounds.

  8. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    No...they didn't have the touch DNA then.....it was the other DNA mixed with blood and under her nails. Several on the Grand Jury had scientific backgrounds.
    Maikai,
    Nice try, but does not work on this board, members are far too savvy.

    Whats wrong: Its both an argument from authority which is a fallacy, masking the argument from ignorance, another fallacy. The latter because if the person who has a scientific background, has no knowlege of dna technicalities, then they are operating blind, just like everyone else.

    The presence of touch-dna on JonBenet's person is not sufficient to demonstrate that there was ever an intruder in the Ramsey household.

    That touch-dna may have been transferred by another Ramsey at any point prior to her death.

    Any IDI has to rule this option out by providing the necessary forensic evidence.

    the other DNA mixed with blood and under her nails.
    What are you talking about here. The other dna mixed with blood was not typed, it was determined to be biological material. That is it is not DNA, but is likely to be touch dna.

    Your posts seem quite confused evidentially, are you certain you are pursuing the corect theory?


    .

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  10. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    Maikai,
    Nice try, but does not work on this board, members are far too savvy.

    Whats wrong: Its both an argument from authority which is a fallacy, masking the argument from ignorance, another fallacy. The latter because if the person who has a scientific background, has no knowlege of dna technicalities, then they are operating blind, just like everyone else.

    The presence of touch-dna on JonBenet's person is not sufficient to demonstrate that there was ever an intruder in the Ramsey household.

    That touch-dna may have been transferred by another Ramsey at any point prior to her death.

    Any IDI has to rule this option out by providing the necessary forensic evidence.


    What are you talking about here. The other dna mixed with blood was not typed, it was determined to be biological material. That is it is not DNA, but is likely to be touch dna.

    Your posts seem quite confused evidentially, are you certain you are pursuing the corect theory?


    .
    No Sir or Maam,

    You have the burden of proof, not IDI. We have a sample in CODIS that meets the strict guidelines. Whatever the source of the DNA, it was found to be pertinent by The DA and Boulder LE. I know you guys don't want to believe it.
    The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet

  11. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    Maikai,
    Nice try, but does not work on this board, members are far too savvy.

    Whats wrong: Its both an argument from authority which is a fallacy, masking the argument from ignorance, another fallacy. The latter because if the person who has a scientific background, has no knowlege of dna technicalities, then they are operating blind, just like everyone else.

    The presence of touch-dna on JonBenet's person is not sufficient to demonstrate that there was ever an intruder in the Ramsey household.

    That touch-dna may have been transferred by another Ramsey at any point prior to her death.

    Any IDI has to rule this option out by providing the necessary forensic evidence.


    What are you talking about here. The other dna mixed with blood was not typed, it was determined to be biological material. That is it is not DNA, but is likely to be touch dna.

    Your posts seem quite confused evidentially, are you certain you are pursuing the corect theory?


    .
    <modsnip> There was dna mixed in blood found on JBR's panties. The same DNA was found under her fingernails, although I believe it was degraded.

    You can't explain away the touch DNA. It was found in pertinent locations on her underwear---areas where the perp would have used pressure. The DNA was a problem with the Grand Jury and I think it was an issue with Scheck---he was totally silent about his opinion, but it stands to reason that his whole innocence project is based on DNA, so I doubt he would have been a good witness. Besides which, both him and Lee were primarily hired so the Ramseys couldn't hire them. Neither one did that much in the case. After the Grand Jury raised the issue, the police were running around collecting DNA--trying to explain it away---they were not successful.

    The Grand Jury did not have expertise in DNA....but several were educated and were in fields where analytical research was required. This wasn't a dum dum redneck jury that would convict a ham sandwich. I would expect that in Boulder---they have a higher education rate than many cities.
    Last edited by Kimster; 04-25-2012 at 12:47 AM. Reason: don't get personal

  12. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    No...they didn't have the touch DNA then.....it was the other DNA mixed with blood and under her nails. Several on the Grand Jury had scientific backgrounds.
    There was NO blood under her nails- NO skin- NO evidence she had scratched anyone, including herself.
    You should know this by now.
    The DNA in a blood spot was in the panties. It was HER blood ONLY- there was no blood from an intruder. Only the DNA, which was skin cells.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  13. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  14. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    There was NO blood under her nails- NO skin- NO evidence she had scratched anyone, including herself.
    You should know this by now.
    The DNA in a blood spot was in the panties. It was HER blood ONLY- there was no blood from an intruder. Only the DNA, which was skin cells.
    Lou Smit said there was DNA under her nails, and on her panties, mixed with her blood. I believe him---I don't know where the DNA came from....but I doubt Lou Smit would make a statement like that if it wasn't true.

  15. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    188

    spot on ligature

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    There was NO blood under her nails- NO skin- NO evidence she had scratched anyone, including herself.
    You should know this by now.
    The DNA in a blood spot was in the panties. It was HER blood ONLY- there was no blood from an intruder. Only the DNA, which was skin cells.
    DeeDee,
    Did you find anything more about the spot of possible blood you noticed on the ligature? You did an awesome job there by the way! I thought more about it and the location of that spot which looks like blood couldn't have been fluid from her mouth as it was on the left side of her neck.

    The neg. shows that the ligature was cut close to the knot in the back. Great work.

  16. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    Several on the Grand Jury had scientific backgrounds.
    Too bad they didn't have common sense backgrounds!
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  18. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post

    [snip]

    The police did not have evidence to prosecute the Ramseys---easy for them to come up with their circumstantial case, but the DA's office were the ones that had to convict them. Even the Grand Jury was bogus...it was only done because the Governor requested it when Steve Thomas quit. It was a waste of money. The Grand Jury sometimes is used to try the case to see how it would play out in court. The DNA was a huge issue for them. Double jeopardy would have applied. There is plenty of expultory evidence when it comes to the Ramseys.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    No...they didn't have the touch DNA then.....it was the other DNA mixed with blood and under her nails. Several on the Grand Jury had scientific backgrounds.
    I'm breathless wondering just how you have knowledge of what the grand jurors struggled with, thought, or "was a huge issue for them."

    In fact, I've only ever seen one grand juror speak on camera or anywhere else about what happened during the grand jury hearing. Admittedly it has been a long time since I saw that program, so is that where you're drawing your conclusion? A source would be much appreciated.

    I agree the grand jury was bogus, but for an entirely different reason, which also leaves me wondering why you'd think so: clearly Hunter never meant to call a grand jury and never would have except for the governor, as you pointed out. Since it was Hunter's decision alone whether to indict anyone, which he could have done without a grand jury hearing, it's obvious to me it was a waste of time and money because Hunter obstructed LE's investigation from early on, IMO, by refusing subpoenas for the Ramsey phone records, refusing to arrest the Ramseys when they wouldn't come in for formal interviews with LE for months, and by sharing the case evidence reports with the Ramseys' lawyers--absolutely unacceptable and obstruction of justice in a child murder case which any DA would have been investigated for in any other case...but this one.

    As for Thomas, he did NOTHING that Lou Smit didn't do times one hundred, but you never complain about Smit's betrayal of the DA, the case, and the murdered child, all to support the prime suspects and get his own fame and glory, IMO.
    Last edited by KoldKase; 04-18-2012 at 02:50 PM.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  19. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:


  20. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    Lacy was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Karr claimed he was involved in the death of JBR. Had she done nothing, she would have been criticized for that. I believe she was working with California authorities, who wanted him back in the US to prosecute him on pornography charges but they lost the files.

    Lacy did the right thing when the touch DNA revealed it was not the Ramseys. They were persecuted by the Boulder Police--especially Steve Thomas. Why he wasn't brought up on civil rights violations is a mystery to me.

    The police did not have evidence to prosecute the Ramseys---easy for them to come up with their circumstantial case, but the DA's office were the ones that had to convict them. Even the Grand Jury was bogus...it was only done because the Governor requested it when Steve Thomas quit. It was a waste of money. The Grand Jury sometimes is used to try the case to see how it would play out in court. The DNA was a huge issue for them. Double jeopardy would have applied. There is plenty of expultory evidence when it comes to the Ramseys.
    The police did have enough evidence- remember we have seen only about 10% of it. But the police can't issue a warrant for an arrest, the DA has to do that. And the DA here took orders from the defense attorneys.
    Lacy did NOT to the right thing for JB. Even she herself said that NO one is ever excluded as a suspect UNTIL and UNLSS a suspect is named . She also added that the suspect also must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
    So her "exoneration" of the Rs was lip service and done simply to fulfill her promise to Patsy to "find the killer" before she died, Patsy was dying, so she had to "find" someone.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  21. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  22. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    The police did have enough evidence- remember we have seen only about 10% of it. But the police can't issue a warrant for an arrest, the DA has to do that. And the DA here took orders from the defense attorneys.
    Lacy did NOT to the right thing for JB. Even she herself said that NO one is ever excluded as a suspect UNTIL and UNLSS a suspect is named . She also added that the suspect also must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
    So her "exoneration" of the Rs was lip service and done simply to fulfill her promise to Patsy to "find the killer" before she died, Patsy was dying, so she had to "find" someone.
    DeeDee249,
    Such an apt phrase.


    .

  23. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  24. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    The police did have enough evidence- remember we have seen only about 10% of it. But the police can't issue a warrant for an arrest, the DA has to do that. And the DA here took orders from the defense attorneys.
    Lacy did NOT to the right thing for JB. Even she herself said that NO one is ever excluded as a suspect UNTIL and UNLSS a suspect is named . She also added that the suspect also must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
    So her "exoneration" of the Rs was lip service and done simply to fulfill her promise to Patsy to "find the killer" before she died, Patsy was dying, so she had to "find" someone.
    Everything I read was circumstantial. The handwriting experts could be refuted by the defense...then there was "Foster" who would have been torn apart by the defense. Lou Smit came up with several pieces of intruder evidence--and then you have which one do you charge? This was not a winning case.

    I read some cases several years ago, where an arrest warrant was issued based on DNA. They didn't have a name---just the profile. I believe the reason was if there was ever a match, they could arrest the person on the spot. I would have liked to see that happen in the Ramsey case. Lacy was not a Ramsey lover in the beginning.

  25. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    Everything I read was circumstantial.
    Most of the cases tried today are circumstantial. What's your point?

    The handwriting experts could be refuted by the defense...
    The experts, maybe. (And that's being generous, considering that they felt the need to keep at least one expert out through, shall we say, underhanded means). But NOT the comparison charts!

    then there was "Foster" who would have been torn apart by the defense.
    That's not surprising, given how the DA's office did him dirt.

    Lou Smit came up with several pieces of intruder evidence--
    He sure did! Right out of thin air!

    and then you have which one do you charge?
    NOW you've got it!

    I read some cases several years ago, where an arrest warrant was issued based on DNA. They didn't have a name---just the profile. I believe the reason was if there was ever a match, they could arrest the person on the spot.
    I don't doubt that such a proceedure exists. It sounds like a good way to catch SOME crooks.

    I would have liked to see that happen in the Ramsey case.
    I'll bet.

    Lacy was not a Ramsey lover in the beginning.
    According to WHOM?? Because that assertion flies in the face of just about everybody who was actually there.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  27. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    Lacy was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Karr claimed he was involved in the death of JBR. Had she done nothing, she would have been criticized for that. I believe she was working with California authorities, who wanted him back in the US to prosecute him on pornography charges but they lost the files.

    Lacy did the right thing when the touch DNA revealed it was not the Ramseys. They were persecuted by the Boulder Police--especially Steve Thomas. Why he wasn't brought up on civil rights violations is a mystery to me.

    The police did not have evidence to prosecute the Ramseys---easy for them to come up with their circumstantial case, but the DA's office were the ones that had to convict them. Even the Grand Jury was bogus...it was only done because the Governor requested it when Steve Thomas quit. It was a waste of money. The Grand Jury sometimes is used to try the case to see how it would play out in court. The DNA was a huge issue for them. Double jeopardy would have applied. There is plenty of expultory evidence when it comes to the Ramseys.


    BINGO!!!

    And now with more matching DNA to corroborate afterward.
    The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet

  28. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    BINGO!!!

    And now with more matching DNA to corroborate afterward.
    There is actually NO evidence clearing the Rs. As we KNOW (though some here refuse to accept it), DNA clears NO ONE until it is linked to a named source.. Actually, Lacy made that same claim herself. It's been posted here many times and we've all seen it.

    Especially in the case of skin cell transfer (Touch DNA) , there is a much wider possibility of it having nothing to do with the crime.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  29. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  30. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    BINGO!!!

    And now with more matching DNA to corroborate afterward.
    Roy, I'm interested in your thoughts on Tricia's teasing of late where she's saying something is happening this year to counter the stories JR has been saying.

    Any responses or waiting 'til it happens?

  31. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by wonderllama View Post
    Roy, I'm interested in your thoughts on Tricia's teasing of late where she's saying something is happening this year to counter the stories JR has been saying.

    Any responses or waiting 'til it happens?

    I will see it when I believe it. Anything that solves this case, I am for. As far as any stories about what JR says, I am not interested. Stories about police catching a killer I am interested in. Even if it were a Ramsey.
    The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roy23 For This Useful Post:


  33. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    Lacy was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Karr claimed he was involved in the death of JBR. Had she done nothing, she would have been criticized for that. I believe she was working with California authorities, who wanted him back in the US to prosecute him on pornography charges but they lost the files.
    There's no point in trying to defend the indefensible, Maikai. Mary Lacy had several options at her disposal, but like so many of the participants in this case, her EGO was more important that justice.

    Lacy did the right thing when the touch DNA revealed it was not the Ramseys.
    Oh, like hell! On BOTH of those assertions! Mary Lacy never did the right thing in her entire career as DA. I'm quite familiar with her record, from her drunk-driving son, to her insane pursuit of Boulder football players for a rape that never happened to how she mishandled the Midyette case...it goes on and on and on!

    People like Mary Lacy have got no business in the justice system. Lucrezia Borgia could have done a better job! But, that's up to the Boulder voters and, as Alexis de Tocqueville said famously, "in a democracy you get the government you deserve."

    They were persecuted by the Boulder Police--especially Steve Thomas.
    Your idea of what constitutes persecution is not the same as mine! You call THAT persecution?

    Why he wasn't brought up on civil rights violations is a mystery to me.
    No mystery as far as I can see. If he had done like Sheriff Wydell in "the Devil's Rejects" I might agree with you!

    Now that you mention it, a few years ago, a poster very much like yourself suggested something along those lines. Specifically, they suggested that a Grand Jury be convened to look into supposed police misconduct in this case. Do you know what I said in response?

    I said, "capital idea! But let's not stop there. Let's have them investigate the Boulder DA's office, the Haddon Law Firm and Lou Smit while they're at it!"

    The subject was dropped IMMEDIATELY. And it should be pretty obvious as to WHY. But if it isn't, I'll spell it out for you.

    The police did not have evidence to prosecute the Ramseys---easy for them to come up with their circumstantial case, but the DA's office were the ones that had to convict them.
    I bolded that part, because, far as I'm concerned, THAT was the whole problem right there! The Boulder DA's office couldn't convict a bird of s****ing on a statue.

    Even the Grand Jury was bogus...it was only done because the Governor requested it when Steve Thomas quit. It was a waste of money.
    Now THAT is something we can agree on! It's clear that the DA did not want a Grand Jury in this case, likely for the same reason Nixon didn't want an investigation into Watergate.

    There is plenty of expultory evidence when it comes to the Ramseys.
    I don't know about that. But I DO know that there was never enough evidence to tell WHICH one did what.

    As I've often pointed out, cases like this are not solved through forensic evidence. They are solved by arresting both parties, placing them in separate holding cells and seeing which one will sell out the other one. That is an absolutely STANDARD crime-solving technique that the greenest rookie walking a BEAT would know, and it WORKS! The police WANTED to do exactly that in this case, and the DA shot them down because of his twisted 1960's hippie values. Bottom line.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  35. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,309
    It wasnt several it was more like a couple but I wont split hairs. One is a nutritionist that reads scientific journals and mysteries and the other I'll give you is a chemical engineer (pharmaceutics) and reads "obscure chemical engineering journals." Neither was mentioned as a DNA expert unlike the guy in bold blue He has served as an expert witness on firearms in product liability trials.

    I'll give you the one guy JONATHAN N. WEBB but the nutritionist probably didnt know a whole lot more than the rest of us....

    Just dont want folks thinking the jury was stacked with scientists...


    1999-10-14: Grand jury members

    http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ram.../14jurywe.html

    Grand jury members

    JAMES A. PLESE, foreman
    Age: 60
    Residence: Boulder

    About him: During jury questioning in April 1998, Plese said he was not excited about serving on a grand jury, but "it's difficult to complain about the system and not participate in it." The architect of Boulder's annual Fourth of July fireworks display for more than 20 years, Plese is a licensed pyrotechnician and an employee of the Public Service Co. of Colorado. He was born and raised in Pueblo and moved to Boulder in 1969. He's a member of Downtown Boulder Inc. and the Boulder Chamber of Commerce. He has a daughter who is a biophysicist and another who is studying to be an attorney. Plese said he knew both Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter and Chief Trial Deputy Peter Hofstrom from being involved in legal action stemming from a school bus accident in which one of his daughters was injured (he sued after the accident).

    LORETTA P. RESNIKOFF, assistant forewoman
    Age: 40
    Residence: Boulder

    About her: Resnikoff is an accountant and has two children. She was a University of Colorado student in 1977 and became a resident of Boulder in 1981. The daughter of a career Navy man, Resnikoff was born in Japan. She is the youngest of eight children and grew up in California. She enjoys reading history books and is a member of a book club.

    ELIZABETH M. ANNECHARICO
    Age: 56
    Residence: Boulder

    About her: Annecharico moved to Boulder two years ago and is retired. She listens to National Public Radio, watches news-magazine shows such as "Dateline" and "60 Minutes" and enjoys fishing.

    BARBARA A. McGRATH-ARNOLD
    Age:57
    Residence: Boulder

    About her:A Coloradan since 1964, McGrath-Arnold moved from Fort Collins to Boulder in 1967. She likes swimming and walking, and she holds a real estate license.

    MICHELLE C. CZOPEK
    Age: 40
    Residence: Superior

    About her: Czopek came to Boulder County in 1985. She is a nutritionist, works part time at a local health science center and has two children. She listens to NPR, reads scientific journals and mysteries, and enjoys tennis and running. Czopek is originally from Evanston, Ill.


    FRANCES E. DIEKMAN
    Age: 60
    Residence: Longmont

    About her: Diekman, a mother of three and grandmother of three, is a Longmont native. Diekman has been a fan of the "Judge Judy" and "People's Court" television programs. She worked in the county's probation office years ago. She likes fishing, camping, sewing, crafts and reading.

    JOSEPHINE M. HAMPTON
    Age: 63
    Residence: Lafayette

    About her: Hampton was born in Burlington, Iowa, and moved here in 1982. She has three children and three grandchildren. She told prosecutor Peter Hofstrom that her career in management had taught her how to keep a secret. She enjoys photography, watching sports, reading fiction and listening to light rock on the radio.

    MARTIN W. KORDAS JR.
    Age: 65
    Residence: Lafayette

    About him: Kordas is a Connecticut native and war veteran who served in the Navy's shore patrol. He has served as an expert witness on firearms in product liability trials. A Boulder County resident since 1990, he enjoys outdoor sports and reading technical books.

    SUSAN F. LeFEVER
    Age: 45
    Residence: Boulder

    About her: LeFever told prosecutor Hofstrom she had prior experience as a juror, several years ago in an assault case. She moved here in 1990 from California and works for a nonprofit organization. She listens to NPR and watches science fiction on television. She is active in the Sierra Club and also has participated in the Coalition for Restraint in Campaign Spending.

    MARTIN K. PIERCE
    Age: 38
    Residence: Longmont

    About him: Pierce is a former utility company service technician and a 30-year resident of Colorado who grew up on a farm in Nebraska. He belongs to a Longmont Harley-Davidson owners group and likes country-western and rock music. He said he worried about putting someone on trial who doesn't deserve to be. "That would stick in my mind."

    TRACEY L. VALLAD
    Age: 39
    Residence: Longmont

    About her: Vallad moved here in 1960, is a single mother of two teenagers and goes to night school. An outdoors enthusiast, she likes biking and reading fiction, magazines and newspapers. She listens to rock and classical music.

    JONATHAN N. WEBB
    Age: 32
    Residence: Louisville

    About him: A University of Colorado graduate student in chemical engineering, Webb moved to Boulder in 1995 after working for Eli Lilly and Co. in Indianapolis. He has a graduate degree from Georgia Tech. He said he reads "obscure chemical engineering journals." He is involved in a civil lawsuit in Indiana with a former tenant.

    October 14, 1999
    There are things that we don't want to happen but have to accept, things we don't want to know but have to learn, and people we can't live without but have to let go.

  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Agatha_C For This Useful Post:


  37. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    686
    From Channel 7 news (in part):

    Lacy explained that last summer, investigators became aware of a new method of DNA evidence collecting called "touch DNA" that would scrape places where there were no stains or other signs of DNA presence to see if genetic material could be collected. The District Attorney's Office contacted the Bode Technology Group near Washington, D.C., to scrape JonBenet's longjohns, which were probably handled by the perpetrator.
    The firm confirmed that the DNA it collected on the waistband of the two sides of the longjohns matched the DNA of a blood drop on the inside crotch of JonBenet's underwear.
    "The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items," Lacy wrote. "That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family."
    The police have 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 of the DNA.
    She explained that this DNA profile is now in the national Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), which is used by federal, state and local crime labs to compare and share forensic evidence. However, there's been no match to anyone in the database.
    "We are comfortable that the profile now in CODIS is the profile of the perpetrator of this murder ... We hope that we will one day obtain a DNA match from the CODIS data bank that will lead to further evidence and to the solution of this crime," Lacy said. "The number of profiles available for comparison in the CODIS data bank is growing steadily. Law enforcement agencies are receiving increasing number of cold hits on DNA profiles that have been in the system for years."

  38. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,309
    Wood also pointed out that unidentified DNA was also recovered from beneath JonBenet's fingernails on both hands. But investigators have long said that contamination problems render those samples of little value. A Rocky Mountain News Exclusive by Charlie Brennan
    http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-DNA.htm
    There are things that we don't want to happen but have to accept, things we don't want to know but have to learn, and people we can't live without but have to let go.

  39. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Agatha_C For This Useful Post:


  40. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,309
    This is like having a battle of the facts with unarmed people (IDI). You should know your facts, have links and be convincing, anything other then that is a waste of time, yours and ours.

    Until very recently touch DNA was not even allowed into court. Many countries still dont allow it. In fact touch dna is used more often in clearing someone of a crime then it is in aiding in a guilty verdict (unless there is enough corroborating evidence to support it). Its not reliable enough, what with the very real possibility of contamination. The possibilities of secondary or even further transfers are to high. This leaves a guilty verdict based on Touch DNA open for appeal (which is what the Rs would have done had this gone the other way). Dont worry, I came armed..

    So lets say the Rs are at the Ws Christmas party, shaking hands, hugging, touching serving spoons and plates, making drinks and taking drinks handed to them, opening gifts (gifts that had been in stores, touched by how many people I cant even guess, wrapped in paper also from a store and you get the idea, its limitless)... There was so much transfer that night you probably could have made a whole human being from it. The point is, it doesnt matter that it was there, its not even a big deal that it was, what does matter however is how it got there, you have to know that before you can say that it belongs to a killer. Until you know that, its just as likely to be innocent transfer. Its a 50/50 shot and with all the other evidence taken into consideration I'd say IDI's shot is about as big as the samples that were tested...

    Touch DNA
    Edited by Dr. Maher Noureddine, forensic DNA expert

    So, when the SBI lab or investigators refer to “touch DNA,” you should think – very small amounts of DNA. With “touch DNA,” physical contact is sometimes assumed or hypothesized. Therefore, you should also think about the physical environment from which this evidence was collected. Always consider alternative explanations for why someone’s DNA would be expected to be found in a given area or on a given surface.

    Because such a small amount of evidence is being analyzed (as few as 5-10 cells) contamination and transfer of DNA are issues that should be considered through each step in the analysis. Evidence collection , extraction of DNA, amplification and interpretation are four areas where attorneys should be aware of possible problems. http://ncforensics.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/touch-dna/


    Touch DNA Resources

    As to how likely it is that an innocent touch of a person or object will result in a DNA transfer, the variables are numerous. In fact, some individuals just tend to ‘shed’ their DNA more than others. This can be a biological variable or behavioral (think more sweating, more face rubbing, etc.). All things being equal….the more time a person is in contact with something, the more DNA they will likely deposit. However, consider an example of two people, each wearing a different ski mask for the same period of time. Will they leave the same amount of DNA? Of course not.

    To demonstrate how easily DNA can transfer via innocent means, one need look no further than the forensic DNA laboratory. Extraordinary measures are used to ensure that among other things, the analyst’s DNA does not contaminate evidence they are working on. I can tell you that it happens, and more often than you might think. It does not mean that the analyst is terrible, it is just a testament to the ubiquitous nature of DNA and how easily it can be transferred. Of course, if this is occurring in laboratories, remedial steps must occur to limit the chances of it happening again.
    http://forensicdnaconsulting.wordpress.com/

    More Follows..............
    Last edited by Agatha_C; 04-04-2012 at 01:24 PM.
    There are things that we don't want to happen but have to accept, things we don't want to know but have to learn, and people we can't live without but have to let go.

  41. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Agatha_C For This Useful Post:


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-02-2006, 03:42 AM
  2. In Defense of Mary Lacy
    By FactorFiction in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 08-30-2006, 11:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •