What exactly were Dr. Lee's findings?

ellen13

New Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
749
Reaction score
3
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.
 
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.
 
#4
post_old.gif
12-23-2004, 10:55 AM
aRnd2it
user_offline.gif
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?
 
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.
 
ellen13 said:
#4
post_old.gif
12-23-2004, 10:55 AM
aRnd2it
user_offline.gif
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.
 
sissi said:
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.
 
sissi said:
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...
 
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?
 
ellen13 said:
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.
 
Eller clearly had some sort of grudge against the FBI and I'm sure that also played into their not sticking around.
 
Seeker said:
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
 
BlueCrab said:
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!


.
 
UKGuy said:
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
 
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?
 
BlueCrab said:
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.
 
>>Were there any other family members' fingerprints found on the bowl too?<<

I'm pretty sure Patsy's were on it as well.


>>Is there any evidence to back this up? For if not, this is a mere assumption stated as fact.<<

It is an assumption, noone knows who was up that night and where they were.
We only know where JonBenet ended up.
However, it would seem at some stage Burke and JonBenet sat at the table and Jonbenet had pineapple and Burke had tea. There was a glass with a tea bag in it, in Burke's spot at the table.
 
BlueCrab said:
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

BlueCrab,

You may be correct but there is not enough evidence to be conclusive on this one. e.g. Was the tea-sipping and pineapple eating co-terminous events, they may be exclusive. Burke or Patsy may have laid out the bowl, assuming it came from the fridge, possibly they have to wait a little for it to warm up.

Maybe JonBenet took some in a bowl upstairs to snack on, maybe the tea was sipped at a different point in time, children are not reknowned for their tidying up activities.

How did JonBenet eat this pineapple, from memory, there was just a large serving spoon in the bowl, if she used her hands, maybe she made a mess of her top. I've seen kids do this.


The pineapple and JonBenet is great because we have a timeline, to insert Burke and another party seems a bit tenuous, but it does'nt cost to speculate, and you could be onto something. Personally I think you are but dont find the invited guest scenario helps explain things.

Only thing is, is this invited intruder, and Burke and the Colorado Childrens Code, he/she will also have to be under the age of ten, else why was he/she given a Get-Out-Jail-Card?

.
 
narlacat said:
>>Were there any other family members' fingerprints found on the bowl too?<<

I'm pretty sure Patsy's were on it as well.


>>Is there any evidence to back this up? For if not, this is a mere assumption stated as fact.<<

Hi Narla,
Yes, I'm almost certain that Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl as
well, unless that fact was manufactured by LE. I don't know the source, but the little that I do know about the case, I do believe that was a fact, because they thought for sure that Patsy fed it to her, having her fingerprints on the bowl.
 
(Quote)[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.(End quote)

*******************************************************
Burke was also a known bedwetter. Seeing as tea is a known diuretic and also a caffinated beverage I highly doubt Patsy and/or John would have allowed Burke to sit up late at night and sip on tea while Jonbenet ate some pineapple. Are you saying Burke and Jonbenet were up at night without J and P's knowlege? If that's the case, I have to wonder with all the Christmas goodies around why Burke would choose to sit and drink tea. Even Patsy said Burke would always go for the chocolate. Maybe this doesn't make sense to me because I have not really followed your theory Bluecrab, but I do have to ask: Do you have children?
 
Re: the pineapple - this may sound like a dumb question, but were JBR's fingerprints on the pineapple bowl? It would seem odd to me that she would not have touched the bowl herself, in the course of eating from it (try this yourself. Eat a bowl of fruit or cereal or something, do you ever do it without actually touching the bowl?)

The teabag thing is not a very useful clue, imo. Can Patsy or John actually say that they never drank tea? Ever? Perhaps in general, Burke was a tea drinker. A spent teabag is not enough to make me think hmmm, conclusive it was Burke who drank the tea....same with the glass being at his spot at the table. Sure, my "spot" at the table is mine if the whole family dines together. But when 1 or 2 of our family members eat at the table, we sit wherever we like, not in our "spot".
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
206
Guests online
2,089
Total visitors
2,295

Forum statistics

Threads
589,956
Messages
17,928,305
Members
228,017
Latest member
SashaRhea82
Back
Top