NE: Forgotten DNA Evidence Clears Key Figures

candy · Jan 8, 2004

The National Enquirer, JonBenet: Forgotten DNA Evidence Clears Key Figures, 1/20/04

Synopsis:

A newly tested DNA sample taken from blood found on JonBenet Ramsey's underpants does not match the people who have been at the center of the case from the very begininng, a source close to the investigation reveals:

Among the individuals whose DNA does not match:

1) CHRIS WOLF

2) Bill McReynolds

3) John and Patsy Ramsey

4) Gary Oliva

Among those who willingly provided samples are Ramsey housekeeper Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, and Fleet White, who was with John Ramsey when JonBenet's body was found in a basement room of the Ramsey house on December 26, 1996.

Now that Keenan has done what the cops failed to do, Wood is convinced it will solve the crime.

"When you find the match to this DNA profile, you will find the killer of JonBenet Ramsey," he said.

Others close to the case, however, say the DNA testing is a dead end.

Former prosecutor Michael Kane - who ran a 13 month grand jury investigation that yielded no indictments - thinks the DNA could have been left by a worker at the factory where the underwear was made.

He said: "There is always the possibility it got there through human handling.

DON GENTILE

Barbara · Jan 8, 2004

Those three letters D N A will be recited for the next 100 years as to why this case was never solved. It gives the Ramseys a lifetime of lawsuit opportunities and income.

What a strategy!

That's what happens when you have corrupt friends in high places and the financial means to have corrupt friends in high places.

Britt · Jan 8, 2004

How on earth does this "clear the key figures"? What about the phony ransom note written by Patsy Ramsey, and the obvious Ramsey cover-up, and the Ramsey lies, lies and more lies?

If anything, all this does is further complicate the mystery, and inspire questions such as: Who are the Ramseys covering for? Who all is involved in this crime along with the Ramseys? What kind of sickness were they involved in that got their daughter killed? What about sex rings and child *advertiser censored*? The possibilities are endless.

And by the way, is Burke on that list? This will also no doubt encourage the BDI theories. And who knows, maybe they are right after all.

K777angel · Jan 8, 2004

Britt said:
And by the way, is Burke on that list? This will also no doubt encourage the BDI theories. And who knows, maybe they are right after all.

Bingo Britt.

Thorkim · Jan 8, 2004

Yes, I don't see Burke on this list, or John Andrew's name. If the DNA doesn't match these two, why the hello aren't their names mentioned, right along with John & Patsy? I have no doubt Patsy is in on the staging of the crime scene, the fiber evidence screams this. However, I have always thought that a male was involved in this thing, and I also believe she was sexually molested prior to that night. For some reason, after 7 long years, the circle always comes back to John, Burke or JAR. IMO only.

LovelyPigeon · Jan 8, 2004

Well, all ye tabloid affecianados...there it is! DNA eliminates the main gang.

Barbara · Jan 8, 2004

Why Isn't Burke's Name On The List?????

LovelyPigeon · Jan 8, 2004

Why? because Burke is not now and never was a suspect.

Ivy · Jan 8, 2004

LP...the same goes for Sum Yung Gai, whose DNA it probably really is--that is, if the sample is valid and not a false reading resulting from the DNA amplification process.

Barbara · Jan 8, 2004

LovelyPigeon said:
Why? because Burke is not now and never was a suspect.

NOBODY has ever been a "suspect", then or now.

Thorkim · Jan 8, 2004

Barbara said:
NOBODY has ever been a "suspect", then or now.

Barbara is correct. I have never, not once in 7 years, heard ANYONE named as a suspect in this crime. I have only heard people are under the umbrella of suspicion. As far as I'm concerned, all three of the people in that house that came out alive that day have not officially been cleared in this crime. Unless there really were more than just the four Ramseys there...

LovelyPigeon · Jan 8, 2004

Publically named to the media or not, there were suspects who were investigated by the BPD, including Chris Wolf, McReynolds, John & Patsy Ramsey.

Burke, however, was eliminated by BPD as a suspect very early in the investigation.

BlueCrab · Jan 8, 2004

LovelyPigeon said:
Why? because Burke is not now and never was a suspect.

Nonsense. Burke is just as much a suspect as anyone in this case, if not more than anyone else. Burke has also never been cleared as some would have us believe.

The play on words with the terms "suspect" and "witness" has been milked to death by the Ramseys and their supporters. There never has been any official suspects in this case, not even John or Patsy -- and Wood, Hunter, and others have been fraudulently shielding Burke from suspicion by manipulating the terms "suspect" and "witness".

The fraudulent affidavit drafted by Lin Wood and signed by Alex Hunter, dated October 12, 2000, started the deception by trying to make it appear Burke has been cleared in the death of JonBenet, but without using the word "cleared".

They called Burke a witness and not a suspect in the affidavit. However, Wood and Hunter failed to remind everyone that no one in the case is or has ever been a suspect. But the deception succeeded and tricked most people into believing Burke had been cleared. So all of the people who, in any other murder case would be called suspects, in the JonBenet case are called witnesses.

The deception in this case is disgusting.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

Nehemiah · Jan 8, 2004

"The DNA was extracted from a blood spot in 1999, two years after the six-year-old beauty queen was strangled and bludgeoned in her parents' home in Boulder, Colo...

But Ramsey attorney Lin Wood says it sat overlooked until two months ago...Attorney Lin Wood charged that police ignored the DNA sample-which does not match any Ramsey family member - for nearly four years because they were convinced the Ramseys killed their daughter. Now Keenan has done what the cops failed to do, Wood is convinced it will solve the crime."

Can someone answer this for me:
Wood is saying that the BPD knowingly ignored the DNA sample, so that they could continually go after the Rs. I thought that it was not submitted because the testing at that time was not as sophisticated as now (markers, etc). What is the truth here? Did the BPD withhold the DNA, or is Wood playing with words to make the BPD the scapegoats? What is the real deal?

Lance55 · Jan 8, 2004

I think some of you would say He is lying, if God Himself came down here and told you it was an intruder.

I mean, if He didn't invent DNA, who did?

candy · Jan 8, 2004

I only posted a synopsis. This is what the article says, clearly eliminating all Ramsey family members:

Attorney Wood charged that police ignored the DNA sample - which does not match any Ramsey family member - for nearly four years because they were convinced the Ramseys killed their daughter.

sissi · Jan 8, 2004

Lance55 said:
I think some of you would say He is lying, if God Himself came down here and told you it was an intruder.

I mean, if He didn't invent DNA, who did?

What's appropriate..amen..ditto..!! roger that!!

Ivy · Jan 8, 2004

Lance, if God came down and told me an intruder did it...well, I'm an atheist, so I'd want to see his ID.

Maikai · Jan 8, 2004

areas of the underwear? If the DNA was left by a factory worker, then what's the odds it would have only been isolated to the drop of blood?

Maxi · Jan 8, 2004

That's a good point, Maikai. But i suppose an intruder might also have left his DNA on another part of the panties.

NE: Forgotten DNA Evidence Clears Key Figures

Inactive

New Member

New Member

Member

Member

Former Member

New Member

Former Member

Inactive

New Member

Member

Former Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Inactive

Former Member

Inactive

New Member

Maxi

Guest

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics