This is to continue the discussion between myself, Jane Osa, Seahorse and anyone else interested.
Originally posted by Jane Osa
Ah!
Well, if Chuck Green's reporting is accurate, Patsy was never in bed that night. As for where they were going, they were headed to the family's summer home in Charlevoix Michigan to meet up with John's children from his first marriage where they'd head for Florida, I believe.
Yeah, maybe!
I think that was part of it. I think it's more of an instance of not being able to help JB anymore, so you save the living. See, some people, including John Ramsey, have said that if Patsy killed JB, he'd have thrown her to the wolves. Yeah, sure. He's already lost one daughter from his previous marriage (who he admits he cared about more than JB), he's just lost JB, and we really expect him to lose Patsy, too? IMO (Big caveat there), he figured Patsy would die in prison. He probably blamed himself for not seeing the warning signs of danger and not saving JB when he had the chance, so in a sense, it was HE who killed her, and if he gave up Patsy, he'd kill her too, and in one day, his son Burke would have lost his sister AND his mother and would probably hate John for the rest of his life. Save the living. He claims to be a religious man. Maybe he figured that if he could save Patsy's life, she could repent and escape the flames of hell. (Not only that, but you have to remember one other thing. John had already been married once. That marriage ended when his wife found out he had cheated on her. He got caught. They ALWAYS get caught, because they think they won't. If he turned Patsy in, he'd have to admit that he screwed up his first marriage just to marry a monster. That's very hard for the fragile male ego to take. Trust me, I know.)
I can see faulty memory, to a point. What makes the pineapple important is that they said JB was asleep when they got home and never woke up. The pineapple says that didn't happen. It could be completely innocent. Kids are always hungry. And JB hadn't eaten that much that day. Fleet White even made her a doggy bag to take home from his party. The kids could have been awake and wanted a bedtime snack. We know that John was going to help Burke work on his train set for a little while before bed. He may have called him. Burke left the room, Patsy takes a piece of pineapple from the bowl and says, "Here, honey. Don't tell your Daddy." Nothing wrong with that. My parents used to do that with us every now and then. If that happened, why not just say so? (It'd be a great story for a jury, wouldn't it?) JB may have been up and roaming the house, but from all accounts, she couldn't have reached the bowl on top of the counter. Someone HAD to get it for her. As for hanging out and eating it in the dining room, then what? He waited the two and a half hours it took to digest? I don't buy it.
No, it was JB's blood on the underwear, nobody elses. What you have to remember is DNA is EVERYWHERE, and it's extremely easy to get on a lot of things. The advances in DNA technology are wonderful, but a criminologist who talked about this case said it, so it's not just my opinion: the more sensitive it gets, the more likely it is to find irrelevant DNA. She used those very words, or may I be struck dead.
That's what the criminologist said. As for being degraded, DNA analysis studies the 13 markers left in fresh DNA. None of the samples left on JB (haven't heard about the leggings) had all of their markers. The nail DNA had about 4, and the panty DNA had 9 and one that was highly questionable. Not very likely they were from that day. Not only that, but Mark Fuhrman said that some of those markers may be shadow bands, which is where the PCR tests used on low-quality DNA try to "fill in the gaps," as it were. This new DNA test is so sensitive, it might reproduce those shadow bands as well, but that's just a guess.
be more specific, Jane Osa.
Hey, I say use it. There's not reason not to. it's just not enough to exclude anyone. That it clears the R's is only the opinion of the DA, who has always thought them innocent, even before she saw any evidence. Read Steve Thomas's book if you want to know what I'm talking about. It's replete with stories about how she tried to hang this crime on Santa Bill McReynolds and wouldn't entertain the idea of Patsy being guilty because she was a woman. Mary Lacy is a very committed feminist, a mother and a career woman. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not one of these "a woman's place is in the home" type guys. I'm secure enough in my manhood to say that if I woman wants it all, she can have it. I just hope she can handle it and she doesn't lose perspective. I think (MY OPINION!) that Mary Lacy saw Patsy, a wealthy, successful mother and indentified with her. She saw this successful, lovely lady being grilled by a bunch of macho male cops and that was it. Frank Coffman, a journalist in Boulder, said that after Detective Tom Haney's interview with Patsy in 1998, Lacy told him he was too rough on her. WHAT?! For one thing, Tom Haney is one of the FINEST homicide detectives in the entire Rocky Mountain area, if not the country. His record speaks for itself. And here's this assistant DA, who at that time I don't think had ever tried a murder case in her entire career, telling him he was too tough for using absolutely STANDARD interrogation techniques that a rookie on the BEAT would know! Haney's general feeling was, "who the h*** does she think SHE is?" Later on, she had the unmitigated gall to tell the cops that because they were men, they couldn't understand a woman's mindset. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! That may or may not be true, but it's a hell of a way to decide guilt or innocence! She makes her predecessor look like Rudy Giuliani.
Or this article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379981,00.html
Her decision was based on the fact that minuscule particles of foreign DNA that were found in JonBenet’s underpants apparently match skin cells discovered on the waistband of JonBenet’s leggings. Although this DNA may match, Lacy’s own words prove this particular DNA may not even be relevant.
In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn't necessarily the killer’s. There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s. But it could be something else."
It’s no secret that in 1997, when Lacy was a sex-assault prosecutor under then-DA Alex Hunter, she was furious when he did not appoint her to work on the case. Because Hunter and the police shied away from the intruder theory, many law enforcement officials often wonder if Lacy’s attempts to prove them wrong are driven more by her personal feelings than by the actual pursuit of justice.
Shortly after taking office, Lacy announced in 2003 that she believed the Ramseys were innocent, an unusual and inappropriate statement for a prosecutor to make during an ongoing investigation.
What that article doesn't mention is that in 2002, Lin Wood, the Ramseys' attorney, threatened to sue the police department if they didn't turn over the case to the DA's office, when he knew full well that Mary Lacy was sympathetic to his clients. What kind of sleazy backroom deal is THAT?! I've never even heard of such a thing: a suspect's lawyer deciding who the investigation is run by? I'm not a legal expert, so I don't know if that could be constituted obstruction of justice, or collusion, or not, but it damn well ought to be a disbarring offense. As far as I know, it may be legal, but it can't be ethical. Then, when she had the case, she made absolutely no attempt to even contact any of the original investigators, she brought in a whole new team consisting of people totally loyal to her point of view, including private investigators paid by the Ramseys, not to find the killer, but, as John admitted in his court deposition, to build a defense and keep him and Patsy out of jail. Alex Hunter was a lousy DA, (more on him per request) but at least he'd hear all sides. Lacy refuses to even talk to people who think the Ramseys might have been involved. That kind of "investigation" may fly in places like the Soviet Union or Zimbabwe or North Korea, but this is America, and we're supposed to be better than that.
This stinks, Jane Osa. There's no other word for it. This is the most despicable instance of legal masturbation I've ever heard of since Watergate. I apologize if I seem angry, but ever since I was a kid, I learned the Pledge of Allegiance. I believed in it.
"Justice for all."
What a load that turned out to be.
Now, if you'll all excuse me, I think I have to lie down.
Originally posted by Jane Osa
Ah!
Well, if Chuck Green's reporting is accurate, Patsy was never in bed that night. As for where they were going, they were headed to the family's summer home in Charlevoix Michigan to meet up with John's children from his first marriage where they'd head for Florida, I believe.
Yeah, maybe!
I think that was part of it. I think it's more of an instance of not being able to help JB anymore, so you save the living. See, some people, including John Ramsey, have said that if Patsy killed JB, he'd have thrown her to the wolves. Yeah, sure. He's already lost one daughter from his previous marriage (who he admits he cared about more than JB), he's just lost JB, and we really expect him to lose Patsy, too? IMO (Big caveat there), he figured Patsy would die in prison. He probably blamed himself for not seeing the warning signs of danger and not saving JB when he had the chance, so in a sense, it was HE who killed her, and if he gave up Patsy, he'd kill her too, and in one day, his son Burke would have lost his sister AND his mother and would probably hate John for the rest of his life. Save the living. He claims to be a religious man. Maybe he figured that if he could save Patsy's life, she could repent and escape the flames of hell. (Not only that, but you have to remember one other thing. John had already been married once. That marriage ended when his wife found out he had cheated on her. He got caught. They ALWAYS get caught, because they think they won't. If he turned Patsy in, he'd have to admit that he screwed up his first marriage just to marry a monster. That's very hard for the fragile male ego to take. Trust me, I know.)
I can see faulty memory, to a point. What makes the pineapple important is that they said JB was asleep when they got home and never woke up. The pineapple says that didn't happen. It could be completely innocent. Kids are always hungry. And JB hadn't eaten that much that day. Fleet White even made her a doggy bag to take home from his party. The kids could have been awake and wanted a bedtime snack. We know that John was going to help Burke work on his train set for a little while before bed. He may have called him. Burke left the room, Patsy takes a piece of pineapple from the bowl and says, "Here, honey. Don't tell your Daddy." Nothing wrong with that. My parents used to do that with us every now and then. If that happened, why not just say so? (It'd be a great story for a jury, wouldn't it?) JB may have been up and roaming the house, but from all accounts, she couldn't have reached the bowl on top of the counter. Someone HAD to get it for her. As for hanging out and eating it in the dining room, then what? He waited the two and a half hours it took to digest? I don't buy it.
No, it was JB's blood on the underwear, nobody elses. What you have to remember is DNA is EVERYWHERE, and it's extremely easy to get on a lot of things. The advances in DNA technology are wonderful, but a criminologist who talked about this case said it, so it's not just my opinion: the more sensitive it gets, the more likely it is to find irrelevant DNA. She used those very words, or may I be struck dead.
That's what the criminologist said. As for being degraded, DNA analysis studies the 13 markers left in fresh DNA. None of the samples left on JB (haven't heard about the leggings) had all of their markers. The nail DNA had about 4, and the panty DNA had 9 and one that was highly questionable. Not very likely they were from that day. Not only that, but Mark Fuhrman said that some of those markers may be shadow bands, which is where the PCR tests used on low-quality DNA try to "fill in the gaps," as it were. This new DNA test is so sensitive, it might reproduce those shadow bands as well, but that's just a guess.
be more specific, Jane Osa.
Hey, I say use it. There's not reason not to. it's just not enough to exclude anyone. That it clears the R's is only the opinion of the DA, who has always thought them innocent, even before she saw any evidence. Read Steve Thomas's book if you want to know what I'm talking about. It's replete with stories about how she tried to hang this crime on Santa Bill McReynolds and wouldn't entertain the idea of Patsy being guilty because she was a woman. Mary Lacy is a very committed feminist, a mother and a career woman. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not one of these "a woman's place is in the home" type guys. I'm secure enough in my manhood to say that if I woman wants it all, she can have it. I just hope she can handle it and she doesn't lose perspective. I think (MY OPINION!) that Mary Lacy saw Patsy, a wealthy, successful mother and indentified with her. She saw this successful, lovely lady being grilled by a bunch of macho male cops and that was it. Frank Coffman, a journalist in Boulder, said that after Detective Tom Haney's interview with Patsy in 1998, Lacy told him he was too rough on her. WHAT?! For one thing, Tom Haney is one of the FINEST homicide detectives in the entire Rocky Mountain area, if not the country. His record speaks for itself. And here's this assistant DA, who at that time I don't think had ever tried a murder case in her entire career, telling him he was too tough for using absolutely STANDARD interrogation techniques that a rookie on the BEAT would know! Haney's general feeling was, "who the h*** does she think SHE is?" Later on, she had the unmitigated gall to tell the cops that because they were men, they couldn't understand a woman's mindset. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! That may or may not be true, but it's a hell of a way to decide guilt or innocence! She makes her predecessor look like Rudy Giuliani.
Or this article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379981,00.html
Her decision was based on the fact that minuscule particles of foreign DNA that were found in JonBenet’s underpants apparently match skin cells discovered on the waistband of JonBenet’s leggings. Although this DNA may match, Lacy’s own words prove this particular DNA may not even be relevant.
In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn't necessarily the killer’s. There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s. But it could be something else."
It’s no secret that in 1997, when Lacy was a sex-assault prosecutor under then-DA Alex Hunter, she was furious when he did not appoint her to work on the case. Because Hunter and the police shied away from the intruder theory, many law enforcement officials often wonder if Lacy’s attempts to prove them wrong are driven more by her personal feelings than by the actual pursuit of justice.
Shortly after taking office, Lacy announced in 2003 that she believed the Ramseys were innocent, an unusual and inappropriate statement for a prosecutor to make during an ongoing investigation.
What that article doesn't mention is that in 2002, Lin Wood, the Ramseys' attorney, threatened to sue the police department if they didn't turn over the case to the DA's office, when he knew full well that Mary Lacy was sympathetic to his clients. What kind of sleazy backroom deal is THAT?! I've never even heard of such a thing: a suspect's lawyer deciding who the investigation is run by? I'm not a legal expert, so I don't know if that could be constituted obstruction of justice, or collusion, or not, but it damn well ought to be a disbarring offense. As far as I know, it may be legal, but it can't be ethical. Then, when she had the case, she made absolutely no attempt to even contact any of the original investigators, she brought in a whole new team consisting of people totally loyal to her point of view, including private investigators paid by the Ramseys, not to find the killer, but, as John admitted in his court deposition, to build a defense and keep him and Patsy out of jail. Alex Hunter was a lousy DA, (more on him per request) but at least he'd hear all sides. Lacy refuses to even talk to people who think the Ramseys might have been involved. That kind of "investigation" may fly in places like the Soviet Union or Zimbabwe or North Korea, but this is America, and we're supposed to be better than that.
This stinks, Jane Osa. There's no other word for it. This is the most despicable instance of legal masturbation I've ever heard of since Watergate. I apologize if I seem angry, but ever since I was a kid, I learned the Pledge of Allegiance. I believed in it.
"Justice for all."
What a load that turned out to be.
Now, if you'll all excuse me, I think I have to lie down.
*back to my corner*!