Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 52
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    749

    What exactly were Dr. Lee's findings?

    In regard to Dr. Lee, what exactly did he conclude?
    I'm sure there's a long thread about this somewhere
    and from what I've read, the DNA findings were not
    consistent with anyone in the house because and she
    was wiped down. I thought about someone's question
    saying if we hired top notch people who didn't have
    huge egos, then progress might have been made. It seems
    to me that Dr. Lee was top notch and if he couldn't find
    anything about DNA, then everything would be circumstanstantial
    at this point. I'll say it again, please excuse this rather
    amateur question and my newbie status. Ignore it if
    it's already been discussed at length. I just didn't have
    the patience to try to dig it up.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Lee was briefed by the same people who had already decided the case was an RDI. He had no reason at that time not to trust a police department, that is is "gig". Sadly, he did not have access to the crime scene when time was important. It doesn't seem he was aware of the dna that was finally tested and proven to be "codis" worthy. Lee should have kept his "mouth shut" , clearly he is not a "player" in the eventual solving of this case.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    749

    To Blue Crab and others

    #4
    12-23-2004, 10:55 AM
    aRnd2it vbmenu_register("postmenu_483688", true);
    Registered User
    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Posts: 273


    Early Show recap
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain662681.shtml


    I found this from a 2004 posting. Is this why Blue Crab believes

    there was a 5th person there that night?


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,103

    no straight answers from Dr. Lee

    Questioned repeadedly on talk shows, Dr. Lee said that they had "three legs of the table" but needed the fourth to solve the mystery of JBR's death.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,478
    Quote Originally Posted by ellen13
    #4
    12-23-2004, 10:55 AM
    aRnd2it vbmenu_register("postmenu_483688", true);
    Registered User
    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Posts: 273


    Early Show recap
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain662681.shtml


    I found this from a 2004 posting. Is this why Blue Crab believes

    there was a 5th person there that night?
    If he really believes there was a 5th person that night then why not an intruder as well? He has discounted any notion that John (if up at 3 or 4 am to "cut JonBenet down") would have removed the body due to the light dusting of snow that night...but holds onto his theory that there was at least one other child (male) in the house that was spirited away before the police got there.

    Dr Lee stated that most of the fiber and DNA evidence could have been from secondary transfer and therefor not 100% conclusive of who did it. IOW too much cross contamination as well IMO.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    Lee was briefed by the same people who had already decided the case was an RDI. He had no reason at that time not to trust a police department, that is is "gig". Sadly, he did not have access to the crime scene when time was important. It doesn't seem he was aware of the dna that was finally tested and proven to be "codis" worthy. Lee should have kept his "mouth shut" , clearly he is not a "player" in the eventual solving of this case.
    I agree Dr. Lee may have spoken prematurely and perhaps without the benefit of a FULL examination of the crime scene, but I also think that someone of his stature would not venture an opinion based on other's statements. He is an expert in forensic evidence, and therefore, he was brought on board to view the evidence and give his expert opinion. I can't imagine BPD would expect him to do so without looking at the evidence, and I can't imagine Dr. Lee would give an opinion without doing so.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Don't mess with Texas
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    Lee was briefed by the same people who had already decided the case was an RDI. He had no reason at that time not to trust a police department, that is is "gig". Sadly, he did not have access to the crime scene when time was important. It doesn't seem he was aware of the dna that was finally tested and proven to be "codis" worthy. Lee should have kept his "mouth shut" , clearly he is not a "player" in the eventual solving of this case.
    Rice already cooked...


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    749

    Unhappy More questions for you all

    I appreciate everyone filling me in on Lee in a nutshell.Like I have stated before, if Modesto police were on this, or other police departments, even Wichita (BTK) for that matter,they may have taken their time, but they got it solved.
    I wonder if the Boulder Dept. and DA is still filled with people with huge egos.
    If this exact situation happened again in Boulder, now in 2006,
    would they have learned their lessons and handled it better? Would they
    let the FBI stick around? Speaking of the FBI, to my recollection, they didn't stick around. Shouldn't they have had sole jurisdiction? Tell me I don't know
    what I'm talking about or please correct me where I'm wrong. It's been a while
    since I read PTPM and I still haven't finished Thomas' book. Like I've said, there's so much I don't know and I admit that.
    My next question was this: Is everything in Thomas' book factual?? Was anything disputed?


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,932
    Quote Originally Posted by ellen13
    Would they let the FBI stick around? Speaking of the FBI, to my recollection, they didn't stick around. Shouldn't they have had sole jurisdiction? Tell me I don't know what I'm talking about or please correct me where I'm wrong. It's been a while since I read PTPM and I still haven't finished Thomas' book. Like I've said, there's so much I don't know and I admit that.
    My next question was this: Is everything in Thomas' book factual?? Was anything disputed?
    Kidnapping or terrorist related crimes come under the jurisdiction of the FBI, Field Agents did attend the crime-scene that morning but left quietly after conferring with their Field Office and BPD.

    Make of that whatever you want, some people see a conspiracy, others pragmatism of the part of the FBI, others think the Ramsey influence had its effect, also Lockheed-Martin was a major defense contractor, and some think there was a reporting protocol in the instance of an abduction or terrorist attack.

    I found Steve Thomas' book more readable than PMPT, and I guess both books have some factual errors, the former book seems to be more motivated by personal theory, maybe it was his best shot at the time, IMO reviewing the forensic evidence allows for a more darker interpretation than a bed-wetting/toilet-rage scenario.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,795
    Eller clearly had some sort of grudge against the FBI and I'm sure that also played into their not sticking around.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker
    If he really believes there was a 5th person that night then why not an intruder as well?

    Seeker,

    That's a fair question. My response as to why there was likely a fifth person in the house that night revolves mainly around the missing crimescene evidence, but there were others things too. The reason the fifth person was probably invited into the house and therefore not an intruder is because of the Ramsey coverup. The Ramseys wouldn't lie, refuse to cooperate, obfuscate (confuse) at every chance, and carry out an obvious coverup -- to protect an intruder.

    BlueCrab


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,932
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Seeker,

    That's a fair question. My response as to why there was likely a fifth person in the house that night revolves mainly around the missing crimescene evidence, but there were others things too. The reason the fifth person was probably invited into the house and therefore not an intruder is because of the Ramsey coverup. The Ramseys wouldn't lie, refuse to cooperate, obfuscate (confuse) at every chance, and carry out an obvious coverup -- to protect an intruder.

    BlueCrab
    BlueCrab.

    They might if John & Patsy were indulging in some form of illegal activity, and the invited intruder had left then returned after the Ramsey's had gone to bed.

    And if there was no fifth person the Ramsey's may lie because they were both guilty.

    The securing of separate attorneys, all round, suggests the possibility of potential finger-pointing at some stage?

    JonBenet's homicide is not a case of accidental death that was covered up, the forensic evidence suggests something far darker than that, that forensic evidence was re-located and staged suggests the perpetrator(s) foresaw and planned for the lea and media response.

    Whether you attribute their success in evading justice to their crime-scene staging or the ineptness of the lea, is an open question, but this they have accomplished, and to date no theory satisfactorly explains either the evidence or supplies a motive!


    .


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    BlueCrab.

    They might if John & Patsy were indulging in some form of illegal activity, and the invited intruder had left then returned after the Ramsey's had gone to bed.
    That's true. If the Ramseys were engaged in kiddie sex or some other crime with a fifth person that night, they would likely cover up his having been there. But the pineapple evidence rebuts such a scenario.

    JonBenet ate pineapple about one hour before she died. Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple from which JonBenet ate the pineapple. That and the waterglass with a tea bag in it can place Burke at the breakfast room table with JonBenet about one hour before she died.

    Burke and JonBenet were secretly downstairs in the middle of the night for some reason, and they could have been waiting for someone to show up -- such as Santa Claus or another young person, but they would not likely be waiting up for mom and dad's pedophile friend to show up. The pineapple scenario inserts Burke into the equation.

    BlueCrab


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,971
    I would love to know whose fingerprints they found on the spoon and glass.If it was Burke's,why would they readily divulge his fingerprints were on the bowl,but not on anything else?


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple from which JonBenet ate the pineapple.
    Were there any other family members' fingerprints found on the bowl too?

    Burke and JonBenet were secretly downstairs in the middle of the night for some reason
    Is there any evidence to back this up? For if not, this is a mere assumption stated as fact.


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

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
  •