652 users online (87 members and 565 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1

    The Importance of DNA

    Hi all, miss me?

    Well well, Patsy isn’t around any longer. What a shame she hadn’t taken the time in the last 10 years to help the police solve the mystery of who murdered her little girl. I found some very strange comments from her sister, and the fact that Patsy wanted her legacy to be the fact she brought attention to ovarian cancer? How’d she do that? By the fact she was simply known as a prime suspect in the murder of her daughter and people just happen to hear she had ovarian cancer? Did she give any talks about it? Tour the country? Donate large sums of money to finding a cure? Why wasn’t her legacy that of a mother who spent the rest of her life searching for the “monster” that killed her baby? I mean wasn’t Pasty worried about all those mommies that she warned to “keep your babies close”? Just what did Patsy do to bring attention to the importance of ovarian cancer? Can somebody please tell me?

    Anyhow, the point of this post was to discuss my favorite topic, DNA. I was watching 48 hours I believe about the Leitman case a couple of weeks ago. Anyone happen to catch that? Interesting case regarding DNA and its importance. This was a case about a woman who was murdered and found in a graveyard. At the time it was believed she was murdered perhaps by a serial killer who was later apprehended, but her death wasn’t consistent with the other women he had murdered. Anyhow a cold case detective dug up the case and tested the pantyhose this woman was wearing for any possible DNA. In three separate places, the DNA of a man Leitman was found. He was now married with grown kids and had NO criminal past. Denied being involved or that he knew the woman at all, however did live in the vicinity of the victim. His DNA was all over this woman’s pantyhose, WHY? But here is the odd thing, and perhaps will remind us all the complexity of the Ramsey case. A single spot of blood was found on this woman and when it was tested it was that of a man, who was now a convicted sexual offender. But here is the kicker at the time of this woman’s murder he was only 4 years old and lived in a different town. So how did the blood of a four year old child get on this woman???? What I found amazing was that the 12 jurors actually convicted Leitman of the crime and he was sentenced to life in prison. Now make no mistakes about it, I feel he “probably” did do it. But how does one explain the DNA of one man but completely ignore the blood of a child on this woman who didn’t live anywhere near the crime scene? On that basis alone, I would have found Lietman innocent. You can’t explain one DNA and not the other? Now granted, I don’t think a 4 year old boy could have murdered this woman, but there certainly must have been an explanation of how the child’s blood got onto this woman, yet it was never explained and surprisingly the jury found Leitman guilty anyway. It was amazing to see a case that was so old be brought to trail and a man convicted of it all due to DNA. In this case they clearly had a blood drop that yielded an identifiable genetic profile, that of a child, yet it was never explained. Makes you wonder why the Grand Jury chose not to indite the Ramsey’s if a case like this was solved and considering the DNA on Jon Benet’s marker was degraded and not completely identifiable. It just goes to show YOU CAN have DNA at a crime scene that’s unexplainable and STILL convict someone else for the crime. So looking at the Ramsey case, you have two parents with no criminal background and yet we have a single spot of DNA on the crotch of their murdered daughter’s underwear that doesn’t belong to either one of them.

    On a separate note. I also watched the Discovery channel last night. New program called Most Evil. I highly recommend it. Dr. Michael Stone rates murderers on a scale of 1-22 which is now being used in court cases to help jurors understand their scale of evil. They replayed parts of the broadcast with Susan Smith and how she seemed to cry yet shed no tears and she referred to her children as “these boys”. Clearly disconnecting herself from them, which reminded me of Patsy Ramsey when she referred to Jon Benet as “that child”. They said these were all signs that Susan was “lying”. They showed that pathological liars have a larger frontal cortex and they now can tell if someone is lying by a cat scan and monitoring brain activity. (Dr. Georgio Gannis) They now can also tell the difference between someone who just tells a white lie compared to someone like Susan Smith, who rehearsed her lie over and over again, but finally crumbled under the pressure. I think Patsy Ramsey’s behavior afterwards always pointed to her involvement right along with that ridiculous ransom note, in which her handwriting was the only one that couldn’t be eliminated.

    So where does this case go from here? I think it will be one of those cases no one ever gets tired of talking about. John Ramsey will live his life in quiet solitude, probably re-marring after a couple years. I don’t see politics in his future. I don’t think he will publicly ever talk about the case again. You would think now that Patsy is gone, he would step forward to help hunt down this monstrous killer still on the loose that he believes murdered his daughter, since it would no longer affect poor Patsy. But he won’t. Because the killer of this child is already dead and he knows it. I imagine the Ramsey’s life was hell after leaving Boulder. For two people that were so concerned with their “image”, I think the outcome suited them. They basically lost everything they had worked for. Lin Wood took most of their fortune early on and I can’t imagine it was easy for John to find work, even as a Consultant or running his own business. They lost what they valued most, their reputation. His name will always be linked to “possible murderer”. Had it been me and I knew I was innocent I would have done everything to clear my name. These people didn’t. And that is telling considering how important “public image” was to them. Patsy Ramsey will ONLY be remembered as a self absorbed mother and the prime suspect in her daughter’s murder. Most people think she was the one to kill Jon Benet. That the Ramsey’s themselves are eccentric and strange and lacked any sympathy for “that child” or acted in a way that normal parents would have in this situation. That the only reason either of them got away with it was due to the inaptness unfortunately of a police department not equipped with handling crime scenes and that the Ramsey’s had enough money to hire their quick talking southern talking spit fire attorney, Lin Wood. What a circus side show he was. It was just too much for little ole Boulder to handle.

    To close, Ned’s honest opinion of what happened that night lies deep in a grave and in the mind of Patsy Ramsey. We all know Patsy’s past and her upbringing. The obsession with pageants, herself and Jon Benet. I have watched enough documentaries and studied enough cases to know that Patsy Ramsey has psychological issues. There is nothing normal about a woman that dresses up her 4-5-6 year old daughter in provocative outfits and parades her around. A woman that constantly brought attention to her daughter and herself. I think Patsy has a Narcissist Personality Disorder and probably suffers from bouts of Psychosis and that in a fit of rage, she snapped and killed her child then elaborately covered it up with the help of John Ramsey. There was no way she would have admitted to hurting her child, because she was afraid of how it would make her “look”. I don’t think John Ramsey was involved until he held the ransom note in his hand. I don’t believe he would have been stupid enough to have handed that over to police had he known about it ahead of time. I think John Ramsey loved his wife and knew she was mentally ill and he did what he could to protect her, even if it meant covering up the crime. So all we can do now is remember the smile of an innocent child, caught up in the 'grandeur' of her crazy mother. That her short stint here on earth was to remind us that children need to be children, and not some source of outlet for their parents to 'live through'. It’s time to remember Jon Benet Ramsey.

  2. #2

    Wenchie

    When LK asked John (on the replay last night) why he picked up Jonbenet when he found her on the basement floor, his response is what I would call "normal" - "She's my DAUGHTER - I didn't know whether or not she was dead - it didn't register."

    Yet, when Patsy runs from the other room to where John has lain Jonbenet on the floor - she ALREADY knows that Jonbenet is dead. She doesn't touch or hug her - she throws her body on top of her. She starts the "Jesus, you raised Lazarus...." carp instantly - without looking for any signs of life.

    How did she know Jonbenet was dead? I would think that with any parent, it would take a few minutes (or more) for it to even register.


    Ned: Great post! LOL, John picked up her cold stiff body yet he claimed he didn't know she was dead, and there was Patsy ready on que for her dramatic crying scene.

  3. #3

    Sissi

    I talked to a homicide detective shortly after we both watched the CRT TV segment. He said one of the things they got "right", was that the force behind the blow to the head indicated it could not have been delivered by Patsy or a child. That idea should be put to rest.


    Ned: WHO said that? BS. All it took was one good whack.

  4. #4

    Rashomon

    The fibers from John's shirt found in JB's crotch area imo indicate that he was actively involved in the cover-up. And I think the cover-up started way before JB's dead body was finally put in the wine cellar, where John "found" it later


    Ned: I had forgotten all about that. It sure would explain how oversized bloomers would have been placed on JB. He simply wouldn't have known to check the size. It's hard to stomach he allowed the ransom note to get into the police's hands if he knew about it ahead of time however

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Nedthan Johns
    Hi all, miss me?
    Hell yeah! Ned my old friend, how fabulous to see you back Hope you'll stick around a while.

    A single spot of blood was found on this woman and when it was tested it was that of a man, who was now a convicted sexual offender. But here is the kicker at the time of this woman’s murder he was only 4 years old and lived in a different town. So how did the blood of a four year old child get on this woman????
    I saw that show. Fascinating. And naturally I have a theory about how that child's blood ended up there.

    I think Gary Leiterman had an accomplice who was the child's father (or other male caretaker) and they had the kid with them when they killed the woman. Think about it... that kid (John Ruelas) is now a convicted killer in prison... probably learned that behavior from his male role model growing up.
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    I'm copying my post from another thread over to here... re the Ramsey claim of the foreign DNA being Caucasian (and therefore not from an Asian factory worker where the underwear were manufactured)...

    At Forums For Justice Tricia posted what a professional criminalist told her about the DNA:

    Excerpts:
    ...you can look at the statistics for a regular DNA sample and make a guess for race based on whichever race has the best stats. However, I am a Caucasian mutt with some Native American (Mongoloid) thrown in, yet my stats would suggest that I'm African-American! So while you might get an "indication" of race, it's by no means accurate -- it's basically just an educated guess.

    ***
    But if the DNA is from semen or saliva or blood, then the DNA would only be an accurate indicator of gender, and the race would basically be a big guess.


    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...4&page=3&pp=12

    SuperDave is right. The Caucasian claim is Ramsey spin.
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Ned, I can't begin to say how pleased I am to see you!

    "Ned: WHO said that? BS. All it took was one good whack."

    Damn skippy! I asked a local doc and he agreed.

    "What a shame she hadn't taken the time in the last 10 years to help the police solve the mystery of who murdered her little girl."

    That's what Robert Ressler said.

    "So how did the blood of a four year old child get on this woman????"

    Ridiculous, isn't it?

    "Makes you wonder why the Grand Jury chose not to indite the Ramsey's if a case like this was solved and considering the DNA on Jon Benet's marker was degraded and not completely identifiable."

    Well, in case you missed Schiller's traveling intruder circus, Ned, we know why: they were too naive to think a parent could do this. I'm tempted to recite the joke about being too stupid to get out of jury duty, but I can excuse them as laypeople for thinking that, to a degree. But when that naivete infects the DA's office like it did with Smit and DeMuth and Lacy, something has gone AWFULLY WRONG! Still, I guess you get the gov't you deserve, right?

    "They replayed parts of the broadcast with Susan Smith and how she seemed to cry yet shed no tears and she referred to her children as "these boys". Clearly disconnecting herself from them, which reminded me of Patsy Ramsey when she referred to Jon Benet as "that child"."

    You remember the ST face-off, Ned? Neither one of them referred to JB by name.

    "You would think now that Patsy is gone, he would step forward to help hunt down this monstrous killer still on the loose that he believes murdered his daughter, since it would no longer affect poor Patsy. But he won't. Because the killer of this child is already dead and he knows it."

    Yeah, I think so, too.

    "That the only reason either of them got away with it was due to the inaptness unfortunately of a police department not equipped with handling crime scenes and that the Ramsey's had enough money to hire their quick talking southern talking spit fire attorney, Lin Wood."

    Ned, over at FFJ, there's a plan to get his law license revoked. Shouldn't be too hard. When the ABA sees how he used his position to take part in a shakedown, it won't look good!

    "There is nothing normal about a woman that dresses up her 4-5-6 year old daughter in provocative outfits and parades her around. A woman that constantly brought attention to her daughter and herself. I think Patsy has a Narcissist Personality Disorder and probably suffers from bouts of Psychosis and that in a fit of rage, she snapped and killed her child then elaborately covered it up with the help of John Ramsey. There was no way she would have admitted to hurting her child, because she was afraid of how it would make her "look"."

    Been done for less, Ned.

    "I think John Ramsey loved his wife and knew she was mentally ill and he did what he could to protect her, even if it meant covering up the crime."

    Yeah. Remember, Ned: he ruined his first marriage when he had an affair and got caught. For him to expose her, he'd have to admit that he married a monster.

    "So all we can do now is remember the smile of an innocent child, caught up in the 'grandeur' of her crazy mother. That her short stint here on earth was to remind us that children need to be children, and not some source of outlet for their parents to 'live through'. It's time to remember Jon Benet Ramsey."

    Damn straight!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    9,182
    Great first post of the thread Ned
    I couldn't agree more with everything you said.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    651
    I also saw that 48 Hours you mention here. Didn't they say that the other DNA that was found on the pantyhose which belonged to a 4 year old at the time of the womans murder was also being tested at the same lab in another case? They denied there was any cross contamination but that's the only answer I could see to explain it. 2 different cases which happened years apart, both cases having DNA testing done at the same lab. Someone messed up!

    OB
    this is just my opinion, it may be wrong, user beware!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Hi Ned - I'd like to have seen that programme. I think it shows here on Sky TV so I'll look out for it.

    I have only one comment to make about your post - regarding the handwriting. I believe ST's statement about Patsy being the only person who couldn't be eliminated has been misquoted over the years and that he actually said that Patsy was the only person WHO WAS KNOWN TO BE IN THE HOUSE THAT NIGHT who couldn't be eliminated.

    I understand that there are others whose handwriting couldn't be eliminated and I'd love to know who they are to put an end to the speculation that goes on elsewhere!

    This is something that has caused a lot of confusion over the years. Thomas has been misquoted and yet it is him who gets accused of "lying" by the RST.
    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


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    202
    " I think Patsy has a Narcissist Personality Disorder and probably suffers from bouts of Psychosis and that in a fit of rage, she snapped and killed her child then elaborately covered it up with the help of John Ramsey. "

    Going into a psychosis is like walking on a gently sloping ocean beach, the water being the psychosis. One may get one's feet wet and not show signs of psychological difficulties. A person can go deeper in and back out again but unlike the real world one can never get completely dry out of the psychotic waters. A person can wade in deeper or get pulled by the current to the point that the person loses control to the current. A person can even prefer the waters to dry land.

    My point is: in a psychosis, there never really is a snapping point. Especially when a person is consciously playing with the water. There often is a point, however, when a person finally goes totally under, and that is what looks like a snap, when in fact the person has been wet for some time.

    Patsy got wet a long time ago. The water may have been splashed onto her by someone else through physical or emotional abuse, or she may have wandered in all by herself. Either way she was wet a long time before 12, 25, '96.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    "I have only one comment to make about your post - regarding the handwriting. I believe ST's statement about Patsy being the only person who couldn't be eliminated has been misquoted over the years and that he actually said that Patsy was the only person WHO WAS KNOWN TO BE IN THE HOUSE THAT NIGHT who couldn't be eliminated.

    I understand that there are others whose handwriting couldn't be eliminated and I'd love to know who they are to put an end to the speculation that goes on elsewhere!

    This is something that has caused a lot of confusion over the years. Thomas has been misquoted and yet it is him who gets accused of 'lying' by the RST."

    Yeah, but there was nothing inherently dishonest in that statement at all. Her handwriting couldn't be eliminated and she was in the house. He stated that those factors together made her the most likely suspect. He's right: what were the chances of someone else breaking in and writing in her writing?

    Not only that, but her left-handed samples were a strong match. People forget that.

    But Ned is correct: the DNA is worthless. The only reason we hear about it is because the perps were wealthy enough to hire their own testers and PI to pimp it on TV.

  13. #13
    Britt: I think Gary Leiterman had an accomplice who was the child's father (or other male caretaker) and they had the kid with them when they killed the woman. Think about it... that kid (John Ruelas) is now a convicted killer in prison... probably learned that behavior from his male role model growing up.

    Ned: Good theroy Britt. Makes sense. Great to see you too!!!!

  14. #14

    Paradox

    Hi and yes, I believe Patsy wondered into those waters long before that night.

    Good to see you all Jayelles, SuperDave, etc.

    So is there ANY news from John Ramsey or any statements by him to the public?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Nothing yet, Ned. But, like Sting, I'm watching him!



Similar Threads

  1. The Importance of the Pineapple
    By Jayelles in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 322
    Last Post: 02-21-2016, 08:51 PM
  2. Importance of hiring a lawyer
    By Jo in Calif in forum Kyron Horman
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 09-04-2010, 12:52 AM