1281 users online (258 members and 1023 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599

    Tom Bennett's Response to 48 Hours

    It may seem like the JonBenet Ramsey case is close to being solved because of a weekend media blitz on the subject, but the man handling the investigation said there's been no breakthrough in the 8-year-old case.

    Contrary to what was reported on a "48 Hours" special that aired Saturday night on CBS, DNA evidence found in JonBenet's underwear doesn't necessarily belong to the killer, Boulder County District Attorney's Office investigator Tom Bennett said Monday. The office took over the Ramsey case two years ago and entered the DNA evidence into a national database for the first time earlier this year.

    http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/city_...414578,00.html

    "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It's minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can't just jump to conclusion it's positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

    Bennett a retired police detective with more than 30 years on the job said nobody from CBS or "48 Hours" contacted him about the special. Instead, private investigators once hired by the girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, offered their theories on the DNA and possible suspects.

    "I would simply say this is dated news," Bennett said. "It is not indicative of any breakthrough because it's not a breakthrough."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Nehemiah
    It may seem like the JonBenet Ramsey case is close to being solved because of a weekend media blitz on the subject, but the man handling the investigation said there's been no breakthrough in the 8-year-old case.

    Contrary to what was reported on a "48 Hours" special that aired Saturday night on CBS, DNA evidence found in JonBenet's underwear doesn't necessarily belong to the killer, Boulder County District Attorney's Office investigator Tom Bennett said Monday. The office took over the Ramsey case two years ago and entered the DNA evidence into a national database for the first time earlier this year.

    http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/city_...414578,00.html

    "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It's minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can't just jump to conclusion it's positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

    Bennett a retired police detective with more than 30 years on the job said nobody from CBS or "48 Hours" contacted him about the special. Instead, private investigators once hired by the girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, offered their theories on the DNA and possible suspects.

    "I would simply say this is dated news," Bennett said. "It is not indicative of any breakthrough because it's not a breakthrough."
    Ha! I knew it. I watched the special, and it was all old/recycled information. Interesting how the DNA is such a small amount, and obviously not semen or blood. That 48 hours episode was really a waste of time.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    6,932
    Quote Originally Posted by kathrynr448
    Ha! I knew it. I watched the special, and it was all old/recycled information. Interesting how the DNA is such a small amount, and obviously not semen or blood. That 48 hours episode was really a waste of time.
    It certainly was. Jonbenet's death stunned all of America, and these people know this. I think it was nothing more than an attempt to grab the ratings by the antler. Or so they thought...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    272
    More from the article:

    "Bennett was hired in June 2003 solely to head the Ramsey investigation, but he was promoted to the office's lead investigator in January and now manages three other investigators and two volunteers working on other cases. The Ramsey case still occupies about a third of his work time, he said, but he guesses the next two weeks of his job will be nothing but Ramsey because of the rekindled interest."


    Sounds like Bennett has figured out this case will never be solved and is not putting much of an effort into it...Hehe, maybe he had lunch with Steve Thomas!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Hey guys, he was hired out of retirement in the way of Lou Smit, why aren't ya' saying he's a delusional old man?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    Hey guys, he was hired out of retirement in the way of Lou Smit, why aren't ya' saying he's a delusional old man?
    Smit's age and employment status have nothing to do with his "delusional" atribute. It was his delusional behavour during the investigation, which actually started 72 hours after he was hired when he proclaimed the Ramseys "innocent". In 72 hours he wouldn't even have had time to scratch the surface of a 20,000 page case file.

    Smit was a loose canon on deck who was out to get his name in the limelight at the cost of the investigation. He proved that when he resigned and stole case evidence like a petty thief.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
    Posts
    19,485
    Here is an update on Michael Tracey and his "Crock."

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=5729
    Help our Administrator Bessie
    Check out our Facebook page
    Follow me on Twitter

    Tricia Griffith
    triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com
    6300 N. Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H # 214
    Park City UT
    84098






  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    Hey guys, he was hired out of retirement in the way of Lou Smit, why aren't ya' saying he's a delusional old man?
    I'll say they are both pawns.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by BrotherMoon
    I'll say they are both pawns.
    From the D.A.'s side of the chess board.

  10. #10

    More Infor On Old Evidence

    this case has turned into an emotional food fight for each side. one side is convinced a ramsey did it and another is convinced they are all innocent.

    the side is taken and everything that comes to light is filteres from that pov.

    that's why the bpd instigated a campaign of misinformation at the behest of the fbi. they wanted to pressure a ramsey confession and, if that didn't work, prejudice people against the ramseys in case their case went to trial.

    well, don't let bpd's lies and misinformation guide your thoughts (the notable lies spread by bpd were that snow surrounded the house and the totally bogus burke tape). don't let the ramsey or 48 hour spin guide your thoughts.

    assuming the information reported was accurate, i learned some new information that i don't believe was previously released.

    let's focus on the dna.

    two points were alledged:

    1. the foreign dna was only found mixed with jbr's two blood drops. it was found nowhere else in the panties. the dna was found in both blood drops.

    2. it was asserted in terms of "it is my understanding" that all the dna in this case matched. if true, that means that means that the dna in jbr's blood (and nowhere else in the panties), the dna under her nails and dnax (which i understand was found a few feet from the body) all match.

    3. a full male dna profile has been derived from the second blood drop.

    what can be drawn from this "newly released" information about old evidence - again, assuming it is true?

    well, the implications are very clear. the foreign dna was mixed with jbr's blood before, or essentially at the same time it came into contact with the panties.

    the idea that some male guy in asia coughed or sneezed all over these panties has now been 100% debunked. the odds of a cough yielding two specs of dna on a par of panties that, many days into the future, would have be the exact same spots where jbr's two drops of blood would make contact pushes well beyond the limits of *unreasonable*.

    folks, this *IS* evidence of an intruder *IF* true.

    the dna under the nails supports thois idea 100%. it has been asserted that the dna under the nails was contamination. well, that's been 100% debunked if the dna under the nails matches the dna in her blood stains.

    the idea that some guy in asia who made this pair of underwear and left his dna on it flew over to boulder and was killed and processed just prior to jbr being processed... well... i hope nobody alledges such foolishness.

    through in matching dnax and it makes the impossible even more so.

    another argument i've heard design to presume guilt and "explain away" this difficult evidence is that the foreign dna was in jbr's panties and she dug into her crotch with both hands, thereby transfering the dna to her nails.

    this is show to be false given this new information. first off, that scenario is extremely unlikely anyway. second, that underwear was put on jbr during the commission of the crime. the folks who believe the ramseys did this believe jbr was knocked out when the panties were put on. knocked out folks don't scratch.

    second, even if this was plausible, it is shown impossible by the fact that the dna was linited to the location of the blood drops only. in order for the scratch to occur, jbr would've spread the dna to a larger area than the size of two drops.

    the conclusion, if true, this evidence basically excuplates the ramseys. i know some won't likewhat the EVIDENCE SAYS, but that's it.

    the only other alternative is that a ramsey walks around with foreign male dna in a syringe just in case an accident offed their daughter and they needed to deflect attention away from finishing her off.

    while possible (what isn't?), that isn't reasonable.

    again, this presumes the accuracy of what was reported. to my knowledge, it hasn't been disputed, which leads on to add weight to its credibility. the lack of dispute isn't proof positive, though.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    I agree MY TAKE!
    However if you want to see it disputed, click around a few threads.
    You suggest the truth, we all come from a pov and nothing can change that.
    My take is this, either 48 hours considers the entire US stupid and easily snowed, or they presented a side of the investigation that was hidden and needed to be exposed. It was nothing new for us, but for a nation of the media informed it was a huge 180 from what they have been fed over the years.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by My Take
    1. the foreign dna was only found mixed with jbr's two blood drops. it was found nowhere else in the panties. the dna was found in both blood drops.

    2. it was asserted in terms of "it is my understanding" that all the dna in this case matched. if true, that means that means that the dna in jbr's blood (and nowhere else in the panties), the dna under her nails and dnax (which i understand was found a few feet from the body) all match.

    3. a full male dna profile has been derived from the second blood drop.
    Sorry, but you've been misinformed on all three points.

    1) The DNA was not "mixed" with the blood, and nobody knows what other areas of the panties were (or were not) tested. They did test new panties right out of the package and found them to contain male DNA from the point of manufacturer or point of sale.

    2) Nobody knows if the DNA found in different places matches itself. If it does, that points to "sample contamination" since it's doubtful there would be multiple-source contamination in the same group of samples.

    3)None of the DNA samples has yielded a complete male DNA profile. They were lucky to get 10 markers out of the 13 normally used for indentification.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by aRnd2it
    They were lucky to get 10 markers out of the 13 normally used for indentification.
    9 + 1 to be precise - it wasn't even 10 good markers.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by aRnd2it
    Sorry, but you've been misinformed on all three points.

    1) The DNA was not "mixed" with the blood, and nobody knows what other areas of the panties were (or were not) tested. They did test new panties right out of the package and found them to contain male DNA from the point of manufacturer or point of sale.

    2) Nobody knows if the DNA found in different places matches itself. If it does, that points to "sample contamination" since it's doubtful there would be multiple-source contamination in the same group of samples.

    3)None of the DNA samples has yielded a complete male DNA profile. They were lucky to get 10 markers out of the 13 normally used for indentification.
    my understanding is that the foreign dna was found in jbr's blood drops. that is "mixed." otherwise, it would be completely seperate.

    if you people don't even know if any dna resides outside of jbr's blood then any argument of pre or post contamination is exactly worthless. until ble *proves* the existence of such foreign dna outside the blood then *there is no evidence outside of the blood drops" and any belief there is is 100% misplaced.

    i find it hard to believe preliminary tests for dna were not conducted all over the underwear - the test isn't complicated. then again...

    ***we are talking bould pd here*** -lol-

    sample contamination is excluded. you didn't pay attention. IF what was said in the 48 hours show is accurate THEN this foreign dna was found in both blood drops, under more than one fingernail (i think under the nails of two hands, not just one) and several feet of the body.

    this is consistent with 1. the assilant leaving dna during the sexual assault, 2. jbr fighting her attacker at some point and 3. her attacker leaving another source of dna at the scene for some reason.

    this kind of dna evidence is yielded at crime scenes all the time.

    it is NEVER reasonably assumed it is contamination WITH NO EVIDENCE to support contamination. in this case, contamination is all but impossible given the wide variety of samples in multiple locations.

    you, my friend, are doing nothing more than PROOF TEXTING YOUR PRIOR ASSUMPTION OF GUILT, and nothing more.

    lastly, you don't pay attention. they now have a FULL DNA PROFILE taken from the SECOND BLOOD DROP that was not tested by boulder pd.

    that was part of the "new evidence" mantra 48 hours chanted ahead of the show.

    a lack of attention to details will yield faulty conclusions

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    9 + 1 to be precise - it wasn't even 10 good markers.
    they now have a full dna profile taken from the second blood drop that the boulder pd didn't even bother to send for testing.

    you guys need to keep up to date instead of repeating the same old mantras...

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast