1276 users online (269 members and 1007 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1

    Transcript of "Crier Live", 1/7/04

    Catherine Crier, "Crier Live", Court TV, January 7, 2004

    Catherine Crier: CC
    Dr. Larry Kobilinsky: LK
    Larry Pozner: LP



    Catherine Crier: Will new evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case close the umbrella of suspicion on her parents for good? Weíll investigate.

    CC: Hello everybody. Catherine Crier here with tonightís first look at todayís hot legal stories. And hereís something fascinating. Big news in the JonBenet Ramsey investigation. Could a long ignored forensic clue finally point the finger at her killer? The seven year old murder mystery recently took on a new life after DNA evidence was turned over to the FBI for investigation. So what took Boulder Police so long? Tonightís thirteenth juror question asks if you think The Boulder Police ignored other leads by just focusing on the Ramseys?

    Now with me, forensic scientist Dr. Larry Kobilinsky, heís an associate provost with the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and in Denver, criminal defense attorney Larry Posner, who has been following the Ramsey investigation closely throughout the years and by phone for People Magazine, correspondent Gail Westcott, who wrote about the new evidence in this weekís issue. So Gail, let me start with you, itís not brand new in terms of the cops knowing about it, but itís certainly new in term of the public.

    Gail Westcott, People Magazine: Well, it turns out that there were two spots of blood found in JonBenetís underwear. And the first was much publicized and tested in 1997. And it did contain male DNA, not related to the Ramseys, but evidently, it was of such poor quality that it would not meet the standards. The big news is a second spot was tested in 1999, this only came out last year in a deposition to a civil case. This was of high quality, but the Boulder Police, for whatever reason, did not pursue it. So it was only when the new District Attorney took over the case, that she decided it was a number one priority and the Ramseys and their attorney really believe that if and when thereís a match, they will have found the murderer of JonBenet.

    CC: Itís pretty fascinating stuff. Can we get explanations from the Boulder Police as toÖ

    GW: Well, they wonít give us an explanation (laughing)

    CC: Shock surprise.

    GW: They declined to comment. Um, certainly, the Ramseys and their attorney believe itís because they were so focused on the family that they couldnít see any other outcome, but we donít know that for sure, they will not tell us.

    CC: Well, we did get a comment from Lin Wood, the attorney of course, for the Ramseys and uh, this is what he had to say:

    ďThis is not new evidence. This is old evidence that was never pursued by the Boulder Police Department. And it was notÖ because it clears the Ramseys. When you find the match to this DNA profile, you will have identified the killer of this child.Ē

    Larry, what do you think about this.

    (Both Larrys talk at once)

    CC: Iím sorry, hold on, hold on Larry Posner let me turn to the doctor for just a minute.

    LK: Itís fascinating and itís important because it clears the male members of the household, the family members of JonBenet . Um, so it kind of redirects attention. I too am very surprised that they didnít reveal this sooner, and I think it is perfectly correct that if they donít have a match, a database match at this point, um, certainly if this person were to commit another crime that would result in his DNA being put in a database, uh, then they will get a hit, and they will have their person. But thereís no good explanation for the time lag.

    CC: Beyond the time lag, you and I have had this conversation over the years, because some people came up with the notion well, maybe it was Asian, male DNA when the underwear was made overseas, or some sort of bizarreÖ

    LK: Thatís right, because you could just handle a garment and transfer your DNA, and one of the problems is you do not know when the DNA was deposited. I think whatís interesting here is that this was not just DNA from oneís fingers, but it was actually a blood stain, and that is significant, uh, and my understanding is, the blood originated from JonBenet, so I think it is correct that if male DNA is mixed with that blood, we have a genetic profile of the killer.

    CC: And Larry Posner, thereís several aspects that a Defense attorney might look at this, obviously in clearing their clients the Ramseys, number one and expanding the investigation, number two, and taking another hard look at, civil suit?

    Larry Pozner: Oh, I think so. This is beyond anything one can imagine. If there is a hall of shame for police departments, Boulder makes it on the first ballot. To have this evidence and not pursue it, is, is vicious. It leaves the Ramseys dangling out there. Why, how could you not turn this over to the FBI years ago? You go where the evidence takes you. What the Ramseys have said all along, find who left the DNA I in our daughterís underwear, and youíll have the murderer. And now to find out that the police ignored that, this is inexcusable.

    CC: Apparently, itís not just the Boulder Police, butÖnews organizations that might also be looking at lawsuits about various reports, people have talked about the Ramseys being fur, upset with Fox News.

    LP: Well, I think the Ramseys have been viciously treated in many homes, in many news media. Whether they are public figures, I donít know, I leave that to the other lawyers that do that kind of work, but one thing we can say, looking back over years, from the beginning, the Ramseys have said publicly, ďThe Boulder Police are trying to smear us and they are not telling America the truth about the facts in this case,Ē and every year thatís gone by weíve seen more and more evidence that thatís exactly true, that the Boulder Police lied to all of us about this case.

    CC: Well Gail, tell us about the cooperation, if not from the Boulder Police, then the new DA, who really seems to be trying to rework this case.

    GW: Well, she certainly, certainly has. She really has come out and said, she issued a public statement last year when she took over the case from the police department saying that the weight of the evidence indicated that an intruder killed JonBenet, which, as Larry points out, is what the family has been saying all along. Um, there was also a ruling here in Atlanta, with Federal Judge Carnes, in another suit, saying that nearly ALL the evidence pointed towards little family involvement, the only involvement was that they were in the house that night. So I think theyíre finally getting some support, they havenít had a whole lot of good news over the past seven years.

    CC: Iíve also read and confirm for me that this is what you understand, that there may have been additional DNA, outside the fam, another male, inside JonBenetís fingernails?

    GW: Yes, in the first go round, that in 1997 right after the murder, again that was similar to the DNA in the blood spot but it was also considered that it didnít have enough genetic markers to make it possible to submit it to the FBI.

    CC: So now what do you do Larry Kobilinsky, can you do anything with it when you have this second spot?

    LK: Well, first of all, let me just comment upon the fingernails. Generally speaking, fingernails scrapings are not very useful in terms of DNA, when you generally do DNA testing, you find the genetic profile of the victim. So itís not very helpfulÖ

    CC: (interrupting) Now, how would that be, because you would think, nail fight, wait a minute, somebody elseís skin under my nailsÖ

    LK: I guess itís , itís a matter of, if there is a scraping of tissue, how much gets under the nails? Uh, you do need a sufficient amount to get a result. And when you donít have enough, sometimes you get, some of the genetic markers revealing information while others do not. I think thatís the case there.

    CC: Could you get now looking at these two, now, Iím making all this up, ten genetic markers from the material under the fingernails matched the ten in the underwear, so we cannot say they are from different people?

    LK: Thatís correct. Absolutely. That is absolutely correct.

    CC: We canít necessarily say they are from the same person, but we canít say itís two different people.

    LK: That is correct. And like I said, apparently thereís nobody that matches the profile on the database, so weíll have to wait. Now, whatís interesting is that pedophiles tend to repeat their crimes with other children and so perhaps this person will strike again.

    CC: And we know how hard they are at trying to expand the database, that is a great argument for it. Finally Gail, what about the family, obviously, they have to be, the word elated is maybe inappropriate, but how do they feel about all of this.

  2. #2
    GW: Well, according to their attorney I think, he used the word elated. They have moved to Charlevoix, Michigan from Atlanta, they moved last summer, I think, looking for some lower profile, sort of a quieter lifestyle for a while, but they were here at Christmas because Patsyís sisters live here and Johnís brother lives here, so they still consider it home. I think they feel that something is happening. Patsy is also in remission now from cancer after a rather rigorous bout of chemo, and I think things are looking up finally for them.

    CC: All right, this has been a Christmas loss seven years ago. Weíre still talking about Scott Peterson, weíll be talking about that later, another Christmas loss. My thanks very much to People magazineís Gail Westcott, fascinating report and of course Dr. Larry Kobilinsky. Larry Posner will be back on the other side, with the Kobe Bryant case.

    END OF SEGMENT

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    What kinda Woodsy bullspin is this?

    From the interview: Gail Westcott, People Magazine: Well, it turns out that there were two spots of blood found in JonBenetís underwear. And the first was much publicized and tested in 1997. And it did contain male DNA, not related to the Ramseys, but evidently, it was of such poor quality that it would not meet the standards. The big news is a second spot was tested in 1999, this only came out last year in a deposition to a civil case.

    Me: She seems to be referring to the DNA-X, which came out in Beckner's deposition in the Wolf case. But Beckner said it was NOT found on JB's body or clothes. Jayelles previously posted excerpts:

    http://207.36.4.219/forums/showthrea...0&page=2&pp=25

    If Westcott is not referring to the DNA-X, then where, when and by whom did this OTHER DNA come out last year in a deposition to a civil case? What deposition? What case? Who was the deponent?
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    I suppose we are not to believe this DNA expert and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
    The BPD sat on evidence,it's pretty much "out there now",what will it take for those that have that "need" for the killer to be a Ramsey??
    IMO JMO

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    Posner acts like a character on Seinfeld. DNA, Does Not Apply.

  6. #6
    LOL Brother Moon.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    I suppose we are not to believe this DNA expert and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
    Let's not put the spin on it, sissi. The guy may be a DNA expert, but by reading the text he obviously knows nothing about the Ramsey case. He's commenting about DNA and DNA cases in general. Too bad the bimbo didn't have the brains to ask this great expert about "stutter effect" or maybe we might have learned something that actually relates to the case.