08-28-2006, 07:57 PM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
If DNA Evidence Cleared Karr Then Why....
If DNA evidence cleared Karr then why can't the police say matter of factly once and for all whether or not JR, BR, JAR, etc. can be cleared based on DNA?
Also, with all the attention, resources, and blind misses devoted to finding who murdered JonBenet (especially in light of the latest Karr bungle), perhaps investigators would have done better to test the DNA of everyone in the area during the time JonBenet was killed. Yes, I know it sounds a bit far-fetched, but if you think about it... Presumably the DNA found on the body has enough markers to identify it as male or female, from there the population of Boulder is roughly 100,000, half that if you know the sex of the DNA, 50,000, you could even narrow that number down further by age. Again, this is a far-fetched and albeit costly idea, but you can't really put a price on justice.
08-28-2006, 08:04 PM #2Registered User
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
leigh, there's no guarantee that the DNA found was actually from the killer. As far as we know, there were minute quantities of DNA found in her underpants which could have been left by the manufacturer, also, the tiny amount of DNA under her fingernails didn't necessarily come from the killer either, she may have just touched something that someone else sneezed on, for example.
It's difficult to rule out DNA from family members being on her body because they live together and it's expected that you'd find your family members' DNA on you.
08-28-2006, 08:22 PM #3
This is another Dr. Henry Lee "bombshell"
LKL Friday 8/25
KING: Dr. Kobilinsky, it's known that Dr. Henry Lee, another frequent guest on this show, found DNA on newly -- the newly purchased girl's underwear, tested right after the packaging. Do you think that fact may leave a misleading impression on the public?
KOBILINSKY: I think so actually, Larry. Let me explain why. When you take a garment, a brand new garment, you un-package it, you open it up, put it down on your laboratory bench and you look for the presence of DNA from its manufacturer.
What you do is you take a scalpel or a razor blade and you scrape the entire garment, the front, the back, the inside, the outside, so you're taking the entire area and then you take all of those scrapings and you isolate DNA. And, apparently Dr. Lee found the presence of some DNA.
That is a very far cry from looking at the panties of JonBenet which had a discreet little droplet of blood and from that droplet they were able to isolate DNA and we now know that it is from a male. It is not related to any member of the Ramsey family and therefore it's likely that it comes from the perpetrator, the intruder.
Corpus Christi, Texas
08-28-2006, 08:51 PM #4Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
The Ramsey's DNA is all over the house....as it should be, since they live there.
They haven't "officially" cleared the Ramseys, because there are so many
reasons to believe that they could have done this.Justice for Jonbenet!
08-28-2006, 08:58 PM #5
I heard today that the DNA tested was the blood stain on the undies.Now if that is the case let them test the DNA from the Ramsey's an either clear them or bring them in one more time.TYBEE U WILL ALWAYS BE MISSED AND LOVED.
08-28-2006, 09:04 PM #6Former Member
Originally Posted by JDB
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
08-28-2006, 09:18 PM #7Originally Posted by kcksumTYBEE U WILL ALWAYS BE MISSED AND LOVED.
08-28-2006, 09:20 PM #8Registered User
Originally Posted by leighl
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
08-28-2006, 09:40 PM #9
"If DNA evidence cleared Karr then why can't the police say matter of factly once and for all whether or not JR, BR, JAR, etc. can be cleared based on DNA?"
"They haven't "officially" cleared the Ramseys, because there are so many
reasons to believe that they could have done this."
Thank you! Without the DNA, there was nothing on Karr.
"Obviously the evidence isnt as cut & dry pointing to Ramsey family guilt as some here try and pretend it is."
When you add it all up, it really is.
"I would like to think that if any of the Ramseys were easily guilty based on evidence they would have arrested them by now."
Excpet that we KNOW the DA (at least the current one) is extremely biased. Let's bring in a special prosecutor. Then we'll see what happens.
"it boggles my mind why if some here are soooooo certain it was them why they havent they ever been charged."
RJML, I could answer that, but it would take a while...
Henry Lee and Barry Scheck told the police that the DNA had nothing to do with this case.
08-28-2006, 10:20 PM #10Former Member
Originally Posted by SuperDave
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- New England
We'll be patient...
08-28-2006, 11:01 PM #11
Cryptic, nothing! I was giving a fair warning.
Okay, here goes.
There are several parts to this.
1) The DA's office. When this one got dropped on Hunter, he had things pretty good. Status quo for almost thirty years. No one rocks the boat. He spent his time plea-bargaining minor cases. He didn't want this. He was cruising toward an easy retirement. He set up a definition of beyond a reasonable doubt that NO ONE could meet! He gave the Ramseys SO MUCh evidence that the FBI was aghast and said he was a fool. He was BUSINESS partners with them! And he was weak. The police wanted to arrest the Ramseys, let them stew in jail for a while, and see which one cracked first. That is a STANDARD ploy in cases like this. He wouldn't do it. Too bad.
He surrounded himself with people who were more like defense attorneys than prosecutors. Trip DeMuth, before ANY evidence was in, decided that the Ramseys couldn't do it. Why? Because he couldn't do it. That kind of thinking has NO PLACE in LE offices. I can forgive the average person for that kind of naivete, but he should KNOW better! One week before Karr's arrest, he said that just because a ten-month-old was dead with 28 fractures, it doesn't mean murder. I KID YOU NOT! This man openly mocked the police presentation of evidence at the FBI meeting. Trip has a thing about "witch hunts." He said the cops were on a witch hunt agianst the Ramseys, a witch hunt against the mother who beat that 10-month-old to death, and now he's afraid of a witch hunt against the DA. That sounds like a DEFENSE attorney talking, like he just stepped out of a Perry Mason episode.
None of them had any real expertise with Grand Juries.
Have you read this, julianne:
It shows that Hunter was undercutting his own WITNESSES! How much worse can you get?
When Keenan (now Lacy took over), it was worse. She had wanted to go after Santa Bill McReynolds from day one. She was biased in the favor of the Ramseys because of their status. She has so much as said so. Lacy is known as a radical feminist who lets her belief in women's innocence cloud her reason. She demonstrated that in the U of CO case. Duke before Duke! She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Number one, Haney was using standard techniques. Two, if you look at the tape, he's being perfectly calm! No threats, no intimidation. He's very calmly giving her a chance to explain the evidence. SHE'S the one cursing and jumping around and acting like she's got a scorpion in her panties! What was LACY watching?!
2) Money. Yeah, I know, "Oh, Dave, that's so cheap," but it's true. if this were a regular, blue-collar family like mine, they would be in prison this very day, right or wrong. This was a weak Da's office. No one really disputes that. They were used to handling indigent non-whites with public defenders, not a former Miss West Virginia whose husband is loaded and whose lawyer owns half the state! Who can hire their own experts! How many of us could do that?
COME ON, HOW MANY!?
That was a big part of it: John was able to hire an army of lawyers and PR people and PIs to keep him out of prison. You don't have to take my word for it. Robert Ressler, profiler extraordinaire, said the same. Heck, John Ramsey admitted that he hired them to keep him out of jail!
When I was a kid, I was taught the Pledge of Allegiance. That part about justice for all should MEAN something. But there's one set of rules for the rich, one for the rest of us.
3) Specifics. When you have a case where there is evidence that points to both people, you as a prosecutor have to decide who did what. You HAVE to. You can't say "one did it, the other helped, you decide." Can't do that. They never could. One of them (Hofstrom I think) said "So what if she wrote the note? Doesn't mean she killed her daughter." Sad as it is to admit, he's RIGHT! It only proves she wrote the note.
4) The idea that a parent could do this rocks the comfort zone for too many people. Who wants to think that the Girl Scout Den Mother is a murderer? That's what did in the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury looked at the autopsy photos, and despite everything we know about murdering parents and despite all the evidence, they decided, based on NOTHING but emotion and naivete, that no parent could do this. You don't have to take my word for that. I can prove they did that.
The pictures were so horrible that the jurors felt it was absolutely inconceivable that any mother on Earth could have been capable of doing such a thing to their own child.
Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children.
An arrest was never a question in this case.
Chief Beckner: "Arrest them."
FBI: "Arrest them."
Dream Team Lawyers: "Arrest them."
And on and on. But the DA wouldn't go for it. Do you like the show "Law & Order?" It my favorite. Those DAs work WITH the cops. "Find out this," or "find out that," or "bring me some evidence of this." None of that here.
I said it was long!
08-28-2006, 11:26 PM #12Inactive
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
They don't call him "SuperDave" for nothing!
08-28-2006, 11:30 PM #13
08-28-2006, 11:34 PM #14Inactive
Originally Posted by sandraladeda
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
08-28-2006, 11:44 PM #15Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
This is NOT a DNA case. While a match with Karr would have shown him to have been there and thus the killer, the lack of a DNA match does not in and of itself clear anybody (Karr, Ramseys, etc.) since the DNA found on JBR isn't necessarily that of the killer. Karr was released because they have NOTHING on him. He was not in Colordo on Christmas night 1996. He never knew JBR, and was never in her home. Everything he knows about the case he learned from reading websites and books just like the rest of us. The DNA was the only possible chance to charge this guy and it was not a match so they had to let him go.