Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > JonBenet Ramsey

Notices

JonBenet Ramsey What really happened to 6 year old JonBenet? Someone is getting away with murder. All information posted on this site is gained through published documentation on this case. It is strictly opinion only.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-22-2012, 05:46 PM
cynic cynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,399
DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

There are six unique and unidentified genetic profiles – five male profiles and one female profile.
DNA testing involving fingernail scrapings from both hands revealed JonBenet’s genetic profile on both sides.
In addition to JonBenet’s profile, scrapings from the left fingernails revealed unidentified male #1
The right fingernails indicated that two further unique profiles were present, unidentified male #2, and a unique unknown female profile. (JonBenet could not be excluded as a contributor)
The waistband, seams, and crotch of panties (Distal Stain 007-2) CODIS all matched and produced the profile that has been entered into the CODIS database, unidentified male #3 (Strength/weakness of profile: 10 markers)

The above profiles were determined through typical STR DNA testing.
Touch DNA (TDNA) testing, all presumably done at the Bode facility revealed one matching profile and a further two unique profiles, both male:
TDNA on the waistband of leggings matching DS 007-2 male #3
TDNA on the wrist bindings – male #4 (Strength/weakness of profile: 6 markers)
TDNA on the “garrote” – male #5 (Strength/weakness of profile: 7 markers)

(Also, TDNA on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét was identified as belonging to BR and PR.)

A full CODIS profile has 13 markers; any profile with fewer markers is a partial profile. All DNA profiles in this case are partial profiles
The highest quality DNA, and the only profile in this case that has been entered in the CODIS database, at 10 markers, is Distal Stain 007-2
All other DNA is weaker, in other words, less markers.

Kolar’s book confirmed the speculation that the profile from one of the blood spots that eventually ended up in CODIS originally had only 9 markers.
The male DNA sample, subsequently identified as Distal Stain 007-2, only contained 9 genetic markers, and like the DNA collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails, was of insufficient strength to be entered into the state and national databases. Moreover, the sample was so small that technicians were not able to identify the biological origin of the exemplar.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 140

Eventually a 10th marker was identified which then met the minimum standard for entry into CODIS:

DNA replication technology was utilized in the Denver Police Department’s crime lab, and the 10th marker was eventually strengthened to the point that the unidentified male sample discovered in JonBenét’s underwear was able to be entered into the state and national databases. This laboratory success didn’t take place until 2002, nearly 6 years after the murder of JonBenét
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 140

I met with the man who had worked so diligently to enhance the DNA sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2. Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg Laberge met me for lunch in early December 2005 and advised me that the forensic DNA sample collected from the underwear was microscopic, totally invisible to the naked eye. So small was it in quantity, consisting of only approximately 1/2 nanogram of genetic material, equivalent to about 100 – 150 cells, that it took him quite a bit of work to identify the 10th marker that eventually permitted its entry into the CODIS database.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 303 - 304

The profiles found from the fingernail clippings of JonBenet were presumably not from the non-sterile nail clippers that the coroner was in the habit of using.
(However, to the best of my knowledge, clippers are not used in medical autopsies, only in autopsies performed for legal reasons. I don’t know the reasons for those eight prior autopsies. Therefore, as an example, if the last time the clippers were actually used was 10 autopsies ago it would have missed by this screening process.)
Investigators were able to obtain the DNA samples from eight (8) of the autopsy examinations that preceded that of JonBenét. These samples were analyzed, but none of these matched the unknown male and female samples collected from JonBenét’s fingernails. Perhaps more disappointing, was the fact that the unknown samples lacked sufficient identifying markers that permitted their entry into the state and national DNA databases.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 137 - 138

Amylase or something else?
Laberge indicated that the sample had flashed the color of blue during CBI’s initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva, and it had been theorized by other investigators in the case that someone involved in the production phase of this clothing article could have been the source of this unknown DNA sample. It was thought that this could have been deposited there by coughing, sneezing, or spitting or through a simple transfer of saliva on the hands of a garment handler.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 137 - 138

The only test that “flashes blue,” in the presence of amylase is the Phadebas test. Take note of some of the things which can produce a false positive:
What is the Phadebas Press Test? How specific is it and what can cause a false positive result?
The Phadebas Press Test uses a filterpaper “test sheet” impregnated with an insoluble starch-dye complex. The test sheets are moistened with sterile water and then laid on an article of evidence. Saliva present on the item being examined will contain α-amylase that will hydrolyze the starch in the overlying area of the test sheet. This process releases a blue dye to form a blue stain that co-localizes with the position of the saliva stain. Areas of the evidence that do not contain α-amylase should not show the presence of a blue stain. Phadebas Press Test provides only a presumptive indication of saliva and is not human specific. This test is known to yield false positive results with fecal samples and some investigators have reported positive results with vaginal swabs, human milk, some plant materials and the saliva of animals including dogs and cats. Positive results have also been reported as very likely resulting from secondary transfer of saliva (e.g., from the hands to an article of clothing).
http://forsci-associates.com/serologysaliva.html

Pro and con for the “sweatshop” theory
Pro:
The male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples of the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear. It was observed that these were areas of the clothing that would have been handled more strenuously during the production phase of the clothing article.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 304
Con:
Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in ‘off-the-shelf’ children’s underwear
[SNIP]
He indicated that DNA samples had been located on the articles of new clothing, but that they had been approximately 1/10 the strength of the unknown sample found in JonBenét’s underwear.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 304 - 305

Conclusions (from the book.)

Laberge indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpetrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 305

The same theoretical principles of transfer thought to be involved in the DNA collected from beneath JonBenét’s nails could be applied to the transfer of genetic material from her underwear to the leggings. “Cloth to cloth” transfer could be responsible for this new evidence.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 427

I believed, as did many of the other investigators working the case, that that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét. The presence of this DNA is a question that remains to be resolved, but it continues to be my opinion that this single piece of DNA evidence has to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that has been collected over the course of the investigation.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 305
__________________
This time we get it right

Last edited by cynic; 07-22-2012 at 08:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to cynic For This Useful Post:
  #2  
Old 07-22-2012, 11:50 PM
brit1981 brit1981 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,473
For some of the partial samples is it not impossible these came from the same person, going by the info provided?

one way to test out the underwear dna theory is to trace where the underwear was made, and packaged. If they had the original packaging then it should not be impossible. A lot of this sort of clothing is manufactured in places like China. The dna may be able to be examined (depends on quantity and quality) to determine the race and likely origin of the donor. If the underwear was made in china, and the donor was a white male of northern european extraction then the chances are it was not put there during manufacture. It is not a foolproof idea, but it could help exclude some possibilities.

the thing I find odd about this case is not the dna that was found, but the lack of it. Jonbent was killed by another person that is beyond doubt. Another person hit her head, tied the garrote around her neck and twisted it, and sexually assaulted her and had to undress and dress her. Whoever did it, how did they not leave dna - more hair, skin cells on the rope, etc. It makes me think that the person who did it was quite prepared. HOWEVER, this was back in 1996, when forensic use of dna was not so good and people were not so aware of it.

I think it would be worth re-examining all of the material to see if there is anything that could be used. (if this has already been done I apologize).
One thing I read once was that when a person hits another person and damages the skin, as well as blood splatter there may also be tiny fragments of skin found on their clothes, which can help differntiate between innocent blood transfer, and transfer as the result of being the person who hit the victim. pparently it does take time to appear. I wonde rif this is accurate and if it was done with any of the ramsey's clothing.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to brit1981 For This Useful Post:
  #3  
Old 07-23-2012, 09:25 AM
Roy23 Roy23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,248
Yep Cynic,

They have tried anything possible to prove tranference and the "factory worker" theory. It hasn't really worked. We have thrown the blame to two former DA's and still we got the same thing. My book is on its way so we will discuss this more later. Right now we got more TDNA hits that match at least the DNA in the panties. This was after Mr. Kolar left. And as far as we know, it could have had 13 markers. Maybe not. But like Mr. Kolar told you, the Ramseys were not unexhonerated.

Now that doesn't mean that they all should have been exonerated to begin with. The only RDI scenario that makes sense to me is some sort of BDI theory. But I remain convinced as do I believe Garnett and Beckner are that someone unknown committed the act of actual killing. And staging or no staging by the R's or unknown, we know this was brutal, brutal, brutal.
__________________
The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roy23 For This Useful Post:
  #4  
Old 07-23-2012, 10:55 AM
KoldKase's Avatar
KoldKase KoldKase is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 985
I've posted more from the book on the DNA on cynic's DNA FFJ thread, for anyone who's interested.

Here's the link. The quotes from the book I posted are on page 2:

DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book - Forums For Justice
__________________
Bloomies underwear model:
Bloomies model


My opinions, nothing more.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:
  #5  
Old 07-23-2012, 10:58 AM
cynic cynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
Yep Cynic,

They have tried anything possible to prove tranference and the "factory worker" theory. It hasn't really worked. We have thrown the blame to two former DA's and still we got the same thing. My book is on its way so we will discuss this more later. Right now we got more TDNA hits that match at least the DNA in the panties. This was after Mr. Kolar left. And as far as we know, it could have had 13 markers. Maybe not. But like Mr. Kolar told you, the Ramseys were not unexhonerated.

Now that doesn't mean that they all should have been exonerated to begin with. The only RDI scenario that makes sense to me is some sort of BDI theory. But I remain convinced as do I believe Garnett and Beckner are that someone unknown committed the act of actual killing. And staging or no staging by the R's or unknown, we know this was brutal, brutal, brutal.
As usual, I pretty much disagree with everything you’ve said, but I can assure you that the book will be an eye opener.
The DNA evidence reeks of contamination and that is Kolar’s view.
Re Kolar disagreeing about the Ramseys being unexonerated, did you actually hear that? I was on the show and that’s not what he said. Kolar couldn’t remember. He didn’t agree or disagree because he didn’t know.
Garnett was clear in his KHOW radio interview. If you recall, you were quite shocked at the time and you knew exactly what Garnett said. Perhaps if you review your post from that thread you will see what I mean.
__________________
This time we get it right
Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to cynic For This Useful Post:
  #6  
Old 07-23-2012, 11:27 AM
Roy23 Roy23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynic View Post
As usual, I pretty much disagree with everything you’ve said, but I can assure you that the book will be an eye opener.
The DNA evidence reeks of contamination and that is Kolar’s view.
Re Kolar disagreeing about the Ramseys being unexonerated, did you actually hear that? I was on the show and that’s not what he said. Kolar couldn’t remember. He didn’t agree or disagree because he didn’t know.
Garnett was clear in his KHOW radio interview. If you recall, you were quite shocked at the time and you knew exactly what Garnett said. Perhaps if you review your post from that thread you will see what I mean.
I wasn't shocked. I think you have me confused with someone else. As far as the book being an eye opener for me, let me read it and I will let you know. I know this is hard for you to believe, but I will read carefully without too much bias. I would love for Garnett and or Beckner to clear the air about Mr. Kolar and his book. Seems like they are blowing it off and don't really care much about reading it. And to top it off, Kolar was gone before much of the DNA evidence that seemed to push the investigation into an Intruder by Beckner and Lacy.
__________________
The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet

Last edited by Roy23; 07-23-2012 at 11:29 AM. Reason: c
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roy23 For This Useful Post:
  #7  
Old 07-23-2012, 11:47 AM
KoldKase's Avatar
KoldKase KoldKase is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
I wasn't shocked. I think you have me confused with someone else. As far as the book being an eye opener for me, let me read it and I will let you know. I know this is hard for you to believe, but I will read carefully without too much bias. I would love for Garnett and or Beckner to clear the air about Mr. Kolar and his book. Seems like they are blowing it off and don't really care much about reading it. And to top it off, Kolar was gone before much of the DNA evidence that seemed to push the investigation into an Intruder by Beckner and Lacy.

Roy, I don't know where you got the idea Beckner pushed the DNA as intruder evidence. He said it was "important" when the second sample was developed and when the tenth marker was "teased" out, and that it had to be dealt with. That's not the same as "it belongs to an intruder." Maybe you have source for that, but I've never heard or read where Beckner claimed there was an intruder.

The DNA is important: as we've seen, it's led some people to completely dismiss Patsy's ransom note, among a mountain of other evidence leading to the Ramseys. It was the cornerstone of Queen Mary "exonerating" the Ramseys, though she really had no legal authority to fabricate that public relations farce, other than in her unethical and incompetent fantasies.

As for LE in Boulder blowing off the book, that's also speculative. What they say to the press and what they think privately can be very different things, especially in this case. Kolar knows Beckner and Garnett and writes about them in the book.

And Kolar didn't just wake up one day years after he left the investigation and say to himself, I'm going to write a book and I won't bother to do any research about the last 6 years since I was working for Mary "Karr" Lacy.

He did what any good writer and investigator does: he researched, interviewed, and also participated in the Cold Case panel Garnett and Beckner put together in 2009 to re-visit the case.

Just FYI.
__________________
Bloomies underwear model:
Bloomies model


My opinions, nothing more.
Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:
  #8  
Old 07-23-2012, 12:06 PM
Roy23 Roy23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
Roy, I don't know where you got the idea Beckner pushed the DNA as intruder evidence. He said it was "important" when the second sample was developed and when the tenth marker was "teased" out, and that it had to be dealt with. That's not the same as "it belongs to an intruder." Maybe you have source for that, but I've never heard or read where Beckner claimed there was an intruder.

The DNA is important: as we've seen, it's led some people to completely dismiss Patsy's ransom note, among a mountain of other evidence leading to the Ramseys. It was the cornerstone of Queen Mary "exonerating" the Ramseys, though she really had no legal authority to fabricate that public relations farce, other than in her unethical and incompetent fantasies.

As for LE in Boulder blowing off the book, that's also speculative. What they say to the press and what they think privately can be very different things, especially in this case. Kolar knows Beckner and Garnett and writes about them in the book.

And Kolar didn't just wake up one day years after he left the investigation and say to himself, I'm going to write a book and I won't bother to do any research about the last 6 years since I was working for Mary "Karr" Lacy.

He did what any good writer and investigator does: he researched, interviewed, and also participated in the Cold Case panel Garnett and Beckner put together in 2009 to re-visit the case.

Just FYI.

Beckner's quote can just be taken as what it is. I never said he expressly said it was an intruder. You can read the quote and take it how you want to. And I think you calling that note equivically Patsy's is a little over the top. You guys want to have conversation or not? Both of your posts are misleading talking about markers being teased out or hair being pulled out of a scalp could be just a mistake by Kolar.

There is lots of stuff on the DNA that could be pertinent or not. Even in Cynic's post. Want to blow it off and just argue how stupid each other is or have a discussion. I will read the book first. Should get it today.
__________________
The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roy23 For This Useful Post:
  #9  
Old 07-23-2012, 12:26 PM
cynic cynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
I wasn't shocked. I think you have me confused with someone else.
One thing I do have is a good memory. It was you.
You said, and I quote, “Gotta admit Dave that I thought it was gonna never happen too. I sure wish they would give us more. Hopefully they really are trying to crack this thing.
You were clearly aware of what happened on that radio show, we all were.
__________________
This time we get it right
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cynic For This Useful Post:
  #10  
Old 07-23-2012, 12:35 PM
KoldKase's Avatar
KoldKase KoldKase is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
Beckner's quote can just be taken as what it is. I never said he expressly said it was an intruder. You can read the quote and take it how you want to. And I think you calling that note equivically Patsy's is a little over the top. You guys want to have conversation or not? Both of your posts are misleading talking about markers being teased out or hair being pulled out of a scalp could be just a mistake by Kolar.

There is lots of stuff on the DNA that could be pertinent or not. Even in Cynic's post. Want to blow it off and just argue how stupid each other is or have a discussion. I will read the book first. Should get it today.
I never said the word "stupid" I don't think. If that's your reading of what I did say, then I apologize.

To me, the note is unequivocally Patsy's. How's that? All of this is our personal opinions, as I see it, so let me say that up front.

Hope you enjoy the read. It's not easy--this case is too big for it to be--and it's not perfect, but it is another voice, as Tricia said, that can't be ignored by anyone who's interested enough in the case to still be discussing it after all these years.
__________________
Bloomies underwear model:
Bloomies model


My opinions, nothing more.
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:
  #11  
Old 07-23-2012, 12:45 PM
cynic cynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
Beckner's quote can just be taken as what it is.
It can, but context is important.

The Mark Beckner that you have created bears no resemblance to the real Mark Beckner. As I mentioned before, you are attempting to rewrite history with a fictional cast of your own making.
The fact of the matter is this. Mark Beckner and the BPD were not involved with the investigation of the JonBenet case during the dark reign of Mary Lacy. That is an irrefutable fact and I will present my sources below. Stan Garnett turned the case over to the BPD in addition to convening an independent task force to review the evidence.
If the BPD, Beckner, and the task force found strong evidence pointing to an intruder and agreed with Lacy’s assertions regarding the infallibility of the DNA evidence, why not keep the Ramseys cleared??? After all, there are a number of people who have been cleared over the years and remain cleared.
You talk about reading between the lines, how about reading between the lines of the un-exoneration of the Ramseys.
There has only been one time period during which the Ramseys were not cleared and it was when the BPD was not in any way connected with the case, the way Lin Wood wanted it, with his puppet in charge.
1996 – 2000: Ramseys not cleared, BPD in charge
2001 – 2008: Ramseys cleared unofficially early on, then officially in 2008. BPD not in charge.
2009 – present: Ramseys not cleared, BPD in charge.

July 9, 2008 - Police chief issues statement regarding JonBenet Ramsey case
www.boulder-police.com
Police chief issues statement regarding JonBenet Ramsey case
The Boulder Police Department is issuing the following statement from Chief Mark Beckner in relation to the JonBenet Ramsey case:
"The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The Boulder Police Department concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet. We remain committed to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice. That is, and always will be, our goal.
The investigation of this case has been under the direction of the DA's office for a number of years now and it would be inappropriate for us to discuss the details of this case publicly. We will, of course, continue to assist the DA's office in any way that we can, and we are hopeful that this new development will lead to the identification and successful prosecution of this child's killer.
We will be issuing no further statements at this time."
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9532&Ite mid=2934

A little history helps set the stage for the above comment.
The Boulder PD was excluded from active investigation of the case, by Lacy, who was an IDI proponent and terrified of Lin Wood.

"John and Patsy Ramsey have asked the Boulder County district attorney to find another police agency to investigate fresh leads into their daughter JonBenet's Christmas 1996 slaying."
"If that doesn't happen, the Ramseys may sue to force the Boulder Police Department to turn its case over to another agency, L. Lin Wood, the family's attorney, said Monday."
Daily Camera, Matt Sebastian, October 29, 2002

And

"Wood said he expects to file a civil lawsuit against the Boulder Police Department by the end of the year seeking compensatory damages for the Ramseys, and possibly seeking to transfer the investigation to another law enforcement agency."
Daily Camera,Katherine Vogt (Associated Press) November 20, 2002

One month later…

Based on the above and after consultation with Chief Beckner, I have made a decision to conduct further investigation from within my office, using our investigative resources.
Mary Keenan, Letter to Lin Wood, December 20, 2002

Lin Wood: There's no doubt in my mind, because I met with Mary Keenan before she took this case over in December. I've met with her since then. I know what she has said. I know the actions she has taken, and it's very clear that the days of the criminal investigation of John and Patsy Ramsey are over.
Larry King Live, July 11, 2003

Lin Wood: "Well, I think the timing of the decision on Friday may have been affected by my letter. I did write Mary Keenan. I've been trying for over three and a half years as the attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey to get this case out of the hands of the Boulder Police Department
NBC Today Show, Katie Couric interview with Lin Wood, Dec 23, 2002

The fact that the BPD would no longer be involved in the investigation of the JonBenet case is echoed in the following press release from Beckner:

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner today announced that the JonBenet Ramsey investigation will be taking a new direction. Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan and Chief Beckner have agreed that the District Attorney will follow-up on new leads and information in the case. This will involve the assignment of DA investigators who have not previously worked on the Ramsey case. This is an investigative strategy that has been discussed in the District Attorney’s Office and the Police Department for several weeks.
"The primary reason for this change is an attempt to further the investigation in a positive manner," said Chief Beckner. "The interests of the Boulder Police Department have always been to do what is in the best interests of the investigation. This is a strategy to address concerns expressed by the Ramseys and their attorney that the Boulder Police Department is not following up additional leads. This may provide the Ramseys and their attorney greater comfort in forwarding what they believe is new information or leads that need to be investigated."
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index...=3623&Itemid=0

"Keenan didn't tell Boulder residents of her decision to take an active role in the case, but she did tell Ramsey attorney Wood. In a letter to him, she said the Boulder police investigation of the Ramseys had been "exhaustive and thorough," that she would proceed without any further investigation by police, using her department's own investigators, that she would focus on new leads or leads not previously investigated, that she would work "cooperatively" with retired detective Smit who is the prime advocate of the intruder theory, that she would make "every effort to communicate openly with you," and that she would not go to the press to publicize her decision."

ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS Publish date: June 13, 2003:
The Boulder district attorney's office is devoting 70 to 100 hours a week to the JonBenet Ramsey case, a commitment that could increase with the recent hiring of an investigator.
District Attorney Mary Keenan listed five people who have worked on the case to varying degrees since her office took jurisdiction of the investigation from the Boulder Police Department late last year.
Personnel include a full-time investigator, an assistant district attorney, a computer-savvy investigator just finishing his trip through police academy, retired Colorado Springs homicide detective Lou Smit and Keenan

John Mark Karr was detained in Bangkok, Thailand, on August 16, 2006

On August 28, 2006, the Boulder County District Attorney's Office announced the charges against Karr were dropped.

"The DNA could be an artifact," Lacy said in August. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else."

"Where you have DNA, particularly where it's found in this case, prosecuting another (suspect) that doesn't match that DNA is highly problematic," she said. "It's not impossible, but it's highly problematic - and it doesn't make any difference who it is.
Mary Lacy Press Conference Re: John Mark Karr – August 29, 2006
(Rocky Mountain News, December 23, 2006)

The best-case scenario for prosecutors would be slam-dunk DNA evidence linking John Mark Karr to the battered and strangled body of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey.
Without it, experts say, it's still possible — but much more difficult — to build a strong murder case against the 41-year-old teacher who has said he was there when the girl died 10 years ago but stopped short of an outright confession
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt...#ixzz1LMaRzKHr

DNA swiped from John Mark Karr after his arrest last week in connection with the JonBenet Ramsey murder might be irrelevant, in part because "something got screwed up" when samples were taken from the crime scene in 1996, a former investigator on the case said.
Bill Wise, former first assistant with the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, said that although DNA "absolutely could be one of the biggest things in the case," it could also be nothing.
Some of the DNA taken from the 6-year-old pageant queen's fingernails and underwear was "degraded," Wise said. He said the tool used to take samples wasn't clean.
"It had foreign DNA on it," he said.
Daily Camera, 08/22/2006

July 9, 2008
Lacy exonerates the Ramseys:

Mr. John Ramsey,

As you are aware, since December 2002, the Boulder District Attorney's Office has been the agency responsible for the investigation of the homicide of your daughter

Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence

Later that same day…
July 9, 2008 - Police chief issues statement regarding JonBenet Ramsey case
The Boulder Police Department is issuing the following statement from Chief Mark Beckner in relation to the JonBenet Ramsey case:
"The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The Boulder Police Department concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet. We remain committed to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice. That is, and always will be, our goal.
The investigation of this case has been under the direction of the DA's office for a number of years now and it would be inappropriate for us to discuss the details of this case publicly. We will, of course, continue to assist the DA's office in any way that we can, and we are hopeful that this new development will lead to the identification and successful prosecution of this child's killer.

As Lacy’s term in office drew to a close Alex Hunter had this to say:
Hunter said the case is most likely to be solved if it's sent back to the Boulder Police Department, which handed over the investigation in 2002 to Hunter's successor, District Attorney Mary Lacy.
Hunter said he's not sure police Chief Mark Beckner wants the case, but he said that department is better equipped to solve it because there's a better chance of continuity in its leadership. The DA's position is an elected one, and term limits will force Lacy out of office in 2008.
The police also have a better relationship with the FBI, Hunter said.
Lacy disagreed with the need for a change and defended the investigation led by her office, which will have a team of six investigators by next year.
"I think all of law enforcement would say Tom Bennett is top-notch," Lacy said of her lead investigator.
Beckner couldn't be reached for comment.
By Vanessa Miller, Daily Camera Staff Writer
Saturday, December 23, 2006

More from Alex Hunter…

At the same time, however, he was critical of several decisions made in the case over the years, including some of those of his successor, Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy.
It's wrong, Hunter said, for the investigation to remain under her authority, as it has since it was transferred to her office from Boulder police in December 2002.
"I don't think anything like that has ever happened, such a transfer," said Hunter. "It may have been a highlight in (Boulder Police Chief Mark) Beckner's whole career to be able to say goodbye to this, outside the door. You know, 'Here, Mary, it's yours.' But I think it's unfortunate for a couple of reasons."
For one, Hunter, said, district attorneys' offices are typically not equipped as fully functioning investigative agencies, with all the contacts, relationships and resources of a police department.
"Another question is . . . what happens when Mary Lacy leaves" when her last term expires in January 2009?
"Then, does it stay there? No, it needs to come back to the Boulder Police Department sooner or later, in my opinion," Hunter said.
Hunter admitted, however, "I'm not sure Beckner wants it back - or whoever his successor might be. But that's where it should be."

Unlike his predecessor, Mary Lacy, who has made clear her view that an intruder killed JonBenet, Garnett said he doesn’t have any preconceived notions about the case or where any future investigation should lead.
“District attorneys have to be very thoughtful and very sober and clear-eyed,” Garnett said. “I have very high regard for Mary Lacy, and I’m not a person who second guesses other people’s decisions. But I’ve been elected by the people of Boulder County to use my own judgment.”
JonBenet Ramsey: 12 years later, Cold case gets fresh look
Daily Camera, Heath Urie, December 26, 2008

7 months later, at a news conference, Beckner had the chance to personally rubber stamp the Ramsey exoneration that ML granted, but did not.

Reporter: Mary Lacy cleared the Ramseys in this case, are they still cleared?
Beckner: Again, in keeping our focus on where we go from here, I don’t want to answer that question for a couple of reasons.
One, we are bringing in people on this task force that are going to have a fresh perspective, they are people who have never worked on this case, who are well known in the law enforcement and the district attorney field who can come in and look at this case, lay out the evidence on the table and tell us what they think, challenge us, ask us questions, give us ideas.
I think, to say anything, I would have to get into the evidence, and I don’t want to do that.
And secondly, I don’t want to set any expectations or biases for people coming into this committee.
If the police chief stands here and says, I think this, or, I think that, they may come in with some bias, we don’t want that, we want them to tell us what they think.
Press conference, February 2, 2009

He did not say, yes, the Ramseys are cleared, and we are bringing in a task force to investigate the intruder theory, did he?
Why not? The DNA is such compelling evidence, right?

"Understand there are six years of information that we're not fully aware of when the case has been with the district attorney's office. That's stuff we need to get caught up on," Beckner said during the news conference.
In response to a question about previous problems between two entities, Beckner said he did not think that would be an issue.
"We're looking now toward the future and we're focused on: what are the next steps?" said Beckner. "I think we see eye to eye on where this case needs to go, what steps need to take place, so I think you're going to see a strong working team."

There’s no question, whatsoever, that Beckner was not involved in any meaningful way in Mary Lacy’s 8 year long dog and pony show. To say otherwise is baseless speculation.

For Immediate Release
Feb. 2,2009
Public Information Officer
Boulder Police Department
Police reactivate Ramsey case, appoint advisory multi-agency task force
The Boulder Police Department is reactivating its investigation into the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, effective immediately. This action was taken in consultation and agreement with newly elected Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett.
This unsolved homicide is going into its 13th year. The department plans to approach it as a cold case and has invited veteran investigators from a variety of state and federal agencies to participate in an advisory task force. The group will meet in the upcoming weeks to assist Boulder investigators to review all the evidence in the case, help to identify any additional testing that might be done and explore all possible theories about what happened the night JonBenet was killed. Detectives with the Boulder Police Department will perform all follow-up investigative work while maintaining their regular caseloads.
While the list of participants in the advisory task force is still being finalized, the following
agencies have agreed to send one or more representatives:
• Colorado Bureau of Investigation
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Boulder District Attorney's Office
• Telluride Police Department
• Boulder County Sheriff s Office
• Jefferson County Sheriffs Office
• Attorney General's Office
• Denver District Attorney's Office
• Denver Police Department
Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner and the district attorney are in agreement that a traditional law enforcement/prosecution relationship is appropriate in this and other cold cases. Police resources will be used to investigate the crime. The district attorney's office will prosecute any suspect or suspects, if the evidence is deemed sufficient.
"After more than 12 years, the bottom line is that we still have an unsolved homicide," Chief
Beckner said. "This effort will be focused on reviewing the case and evidence from beginning to end in the hope that we will come up with new ideas on efforts that could lead to additional evidence. We are doing this for JonBenet."
The department does not plan to give regular updates about the work of this task force, unless there is a significant development or a determination is made that releasing information would be helpful to the ongoing investigation.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/find/li...mseyfeb208.pdf

And then, finally, Stan Garnett said what Mark Beckner didn’t, the Ramseys are no longer exonerated.
This statement was made nearly two years after the task force to review the evidence was convened.
Obviously the DNA evidence is not nearly as impressive as Lacy would have us believe or the task force would have reported as much, and the Ramseys would have remained cleared.

On a Denver radio show, KHOW’s Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman interviewed Boulder DA, Stan Garnett.

Dan Caplis: And Stan, so it would be fair to say then that Mary Lacy’s clearing of the Ramseys is no longer in effect, you’re not bound by that, you’re just going to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Stan Garnett: What I’ve always said about Mary Lacy’s exoneration is that it speaks for itself.
I’ve made it clear that any decisions made going forward about the Ramsey case will be made based off of evidence…
Dan Caplis: Stan, when you say that the exoneration speaks for itself, are you saying that it’s Mary Lacy taking action, and that action doesn’t have any particular legally binding effect, it may cause complications if there is ever a prosecution of a Ramsey down the road, but it doesn’t have a legally binding effect on you, is that accurate?
That is accurate, I think that is what most of the press related about the exoneration at the time that it was issued.

Craig Silverman: I’d say the headline out of our show is once again you established out of your questioning of Stan Garnett that that letter (of exoneration) isn’t worth the paper it’s written on as far as Stan Garnett is concerned.
__________________
This time we get it right
Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to cynic For This Useful Post:
  #12  
Old 07-23-2012, 01:33 PM
otg's Avatar
otg otg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynic View Post
It can, but context is important.
.
.
.
.
(snipped -- For the sake of bandwidth, I wouldn't dare quote the entire thing.)

All I can say is, wow!
.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to otg For This Useful Post:
  #13  
Old 07-23-2012, 02:01 PM
Roy23 Roy23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,248
"Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet. We remain committed to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice. That is, and always will be, our goal."


I have kept it in context. They did not unexonerate the Ramsey's. What they hint at is she should not have exonerated them in the first place. And it doesn't matter. Just because you don't commit an actual act of killing doesn't mean you are innocent. But read the above quote. Garnett knows and I imagine that Lacy knew too that if evidence existed to implicate a Ramsey that this public statement doesn't hold water.

What it also says above is that the DNA is not a Red Herring like many thought it was in the past. But I have kept that in context too depending on whom that DNA belonged to. Whether we like it or not, they almost have to find the donor. Also, Mark Beckner was actively involved with Mary Lacy with the Bode Laboratory studies and with the scenario of the Perp pulling down the pants. He was in it for the entirety of it.

Don't be so long winded if you don't mind. 90 % of your responses are immaterial and a waste of time. Just say in a couple of paragraphs so you don't lose your readers. Just my opinion.
__________________
The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet

Last edited by Roy23; 07-23-2012 at 02:04 PM. Reason: w
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roy23 For This Useful Post:
  #14  
Old 07-23-2012, 02:13 PM
Roy23 Roy23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
I never said the word "stupid" I don't think. If that's your reading of what I did say, then I apologize.

To me, the note is unequivocally Patsy's. How's that? All of this is our personal opinions, as I see it, so let me say that up front.

Hope you enjoy the read. It's not easy--this case is too big for it to be--and it's not perfect, but it is another voice, as Tricia said, that can't be ignored by anyone who's interested enough in the case to still be discussing it after all these years.
i know you didn't use the word stupid. Without giving my Rodney King cant we all just get along speech, I wish we would all keep an open mind. I am going to try. To say the note is patsy's is one thing but if it was she would have gone to jail. Opinions are one thing, facts are another. This case has lots of areas that you have to make a decision. And I am going to read this book with an open mind. Got it right now here at the office.
__________________
The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Roy23 For This Useful Post:
  #15  
Old 07-23-2012, 02:33 PM
brit1981 brit1981 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,473
people keep talkling about the ramseys being exonerated or unexonerated, cleared or not cleared. I am in the UK, and it is very much that someone is innocent until a court proves them guilty. Therefore the police cannot really exonerate someone. the nearest they can do is drop charges if they have made them. But whilst they may say "we do not believe person x is involved" or "we are looking for someone else", they do not really exonerate someone simply because they are already innocent if they have not been proven by a court. I got the impression that the DA here had exonerated the ramseys simply because there was a feeling they had been tried in the media. is that correct?

I actually do not think there will ever be a guilty verdict in any murder trial of jonbenet's killer, unless that person confesses.

If a ramsey is arrested then there is plenty of reasonable doubt they did not do it - they have not been arrested in sixteen years after all, so the evidence so far is not beyond reasonable doubt. And if it was the blame would be shifted onto Patsy, who has died. Plus there has been so much negative media their defence owuld argue that they could nto get a fair trial.

If someone other than a Ramsey is arrested, then all the claims about the ramseys, including this book, will be used to demonstrate that it is not beyond all reasonable doubt that the ramseys did not do it, therefore there is reasonable doubt the defendent did not do it.

If
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to brit1981 For This Useful Post:
  #16  
Old 07-23-2012, 02:47 PM
Roy23 Roy23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
people keep talkling about the ramseys being exonerated or unexonerated, cleared or not cleared. I am in the UK, and it is very much that someone is innocent until a court proves them guilty. Therefore the police cannot really exonerate someone. the nearest they can do is drop charges if they have made them. But whilst they may say "we do not believe person x is involved" or "we are looking for someone else", they do not really exonerate someone simply because they are already innocent if they have not been proven by a court. I got the impression that the DA here had exonerated the ramseys simply because there was a feeling they had been tried in the media. is that correct?

I actually do not think there will ever be a guilty verdict in any murder trial of jonbenet's killer, unless that person confesses.

If a ramsey is arrested then there is plenty of reasonable doubt they did not do it - they have not been arrested in sixteen years after all, so the evidence so far is not beyond reasonable doubt. And if it was the blame would be shifted onto Patsy, who has died. Plus there has been so much negative media their defence owuld argue that they could nto get a fair trial.

If someone other than a Ramsey is arrested, then all the claims about the ramseys, including this book, will be used to demonstrate that it is not beyond all reasonable doubt that the ramseys did not do it, therefore there is reasonable doubt the defendent did not do it.

If
Exactly! And great post.
__________________
The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roy23 For This Useful Post:
  #17  
Old 07-23-2012, 03:07 PM
KoldKase's Avatar
KoldKase KoldKase is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 985
Quote:
Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
people keep talkling about the ramseys being exonerated or unexonerated, cleared or not cleared. I am in the UK, and it is very much that someone is innocent until a court proves them guilty. Therefore the police cannot really exonerate someone. the nearest they can do is drop charges if they have made them. But whilst they may say "we do not believe person x is involved" or "we are looking for someone else", they do not really exonerate someone simply because they are already innocent if they have not been proven by a court. I got the impression that the DA here had exonerated the ramseys simply because there was a feeling they had been tried in the media. is that correct?

I actually do not think there will ever be a guilty verdict in any murder trial of jonbenet's killer, unless that person confesses.

If a ramsey is arrested then there is plenty of reasonable doubt they did not do it - they have not been arrested in sixteen years after all, so the evidence so far is not beyond reasonable doubt. And if it was the blame would be shifted onto Patsy, who has died. Plus there has been so much negative media their defence owuld argue that they could nto get a fair trial.

If someone other than a Ramsey is arrested, then all the claims about the ramseys, including this book, will be used to demonstrate that it is not beyond all reasonable doubt that the ramseys did not do it, therefore there is reasonable doubt the defendent did not do it.

If
You've summed it up pretty well.

There will never be a trial of anyone in this case. Not without a confession which details exactly what happened and in which the confessor is able to put him/herself right there with the evidence.

As to the media brouhaha, when the Ramseys chose to go on TV the day after they buried their child, at a time long before they finally showed up 4 months later to be interviewed by the investigating agency, the BPD, they made themselves public figures. Here we are allowed to join the debate in the media and public once people use that same media for their own public relations events.

The Ramseys also held their second press conference the day after their 1997 interview with law enforcement: complete with a small group of invitation only media allowed to be present; allowing questions only on specified topics not involving the investigation or any of their lawyers, family and friends present; including a 30 minute cut off for the whole shebang; and with a secret location and password to even get in.

Then they wrote a book and released it in 2000, doing one of the most viewed book tours on national television, with only the most prestigious interviewers. After that, their "savior" Lou Smit went on another binge of "intruder" media presentations, guaranteed to favor the Ramseys and put forth only case information they chose to spread their propaganda for their own agenda: to present themselves as innocent.

Fine. It was their legal right, if many things about it are questionable.

But to allow only the Ramsey's and their representatives to "have the playing field alone," as the judge who dismissed their lawsuit against Fox News said after one small news report by Carol McKinley aired which included evidence not favorable to them, is hardly conducive to "equal justice under the law." It's the cornerstone of our freedom of the press to be able to communicate without censorship. The Ramseys were all about censoring anything they didn't want the public to hear, IMO.

John Ramsey once said he wanted to change how we get our news. In fact, he went a long way to that goal when he silenced others who don't have the money to fight the Ramseys' "slap suits," designed and effective in keeping people from saying something other than what the Ramseys want people to hear.

But that's still de facto censorship, and as an American who believes without a free press and freedom of speech our Democracy would fall by the wayside, and fast, I resent that as much as anything about the Ramseys.

The Ramseys have been staging this crime since the moment it happened, IMO, and it's why the rare person like Thomas or Kolar is so important. There's more at stake here than this one case. If our legal system is not one of blind justice, if rich people can manipulate our courts, our DAs, our judges, and our media so that they are given preferential and biased treament, then there is no Democracy and we are lost because even the hope of justice is a sham.
__________________
Bloomies underwear model:
Bloomies model


My opinions, nothing more.
Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:
  #18  
Old 07-23-2012, 03:39 PM
cynic cynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
Also, Mark Beckner was actively involved with Mary Lacy with the Bode Laboratory studies and with the scenario of the Perp pulling down the pants. He was in it for the entirety of it.
You are seriously mistaken about that, and if you took the time to read my earlier post giving the context, you wouldn’t be under that mistaken impression.
Before you read the next paragraph, take a moment to answer the following two-part question.
If Lacy and Beckner were working together the whole time, then he would have undoubtedly been working closely with Lacy on the Karr investigation, correct? If no, then how far in advance would he have learned about his arrest?


Here is the answer:
I was embarrassed for the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office and for the Boulder Police Department. Chief Beckner apparently had only been told about this lead in the hours before Karr’s arrest, and no investigator from his agency had participated in the investigation that brought Karr back to U.S. soil.
Nevertheless, Beckner had issued a press release the day after Karr’s arrest, stating that the department was pleased with the recent development in the case, and that his investigators were hopeful that the arrest of John Mark Karr would lead to closure in
the case.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 292
Quote:
Don't be so long winded if you don't mind. 90 % of your responses are immaterial and a waste of time. Just say in a couple of paragraphs so you don't lose your readers. Just my opinion
If I was discussing this with someone who was familiar with much of this background information, I wouldn’t bother being that verbose. All of the information there was necessary in order to form a systematic rebuttal to you.
__________________
This time we get it right
Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to cynic For This Useful Post:
  #19  
Old 07-23-2012, 04:12 PM
KoldKase's Avatar
KoldKase KoldKase is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
i know you didn't use the word stupid. Without giving my Rodney King cant we all just get along speech, I wish we would all keep an open mind. I am going to try. To say the note is patsy's is one thing but if it was she would have gone to jail. Opinions are one thing, facts are another. This case has lots of areas that you have to make a decision. And I am going to read this book with an open mind. Got it right now here at the office.
Yeah, and if O.J. murdered Nicole and Ron, he'd have been convicted, right?

I wish it were that simple.

When I see some evidence that really indicates an intruder committed this crime, I'll certainly revise my opinion.

So far, that hasn't happened.
__________________
Bloomies underwear model:
Bloomies model


My opinions, nothing more.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:
  #20  
Old 07-23-2012, 04:32 PM
Roy23 Roy23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynic View Post
You are seriously mistaken about that, and if you took the time to read my earlier post giving the context, you wouldn’t be under that mistaken impression.
Before you read the next paragraph, take a moment to answer the following two-part question.
If Lacy and Beckner were working together the whole time, then he would have undoubtedly been working closely with Lacy on the Karr investigation, correct? If no, then how far in advance would he have learned about his arrest?


Here is the answer:
I was embarrassed for the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office and for the Boulder Police Department. Chief Beckner apparently had only been told about this lead in the hours before Karr’s arrest, and no investigator from his agency had participated in the investigation that brought Karr back to U.S. soil.
Nevertheless, Beckner had issued a press release the day after Karr’s arrest, stating that the department was pleased with the recent development in the case, and that his investigators were hopeful that the arrest of John Mark Karr would lead to closure in
the case.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 292

If I was discussing this with someone who was familiar with much of this background information, I wouldn’t bother being that verbose. All of the information there was necessary in order to form a systematic rebuttal to you.
Actually I was under the impression that Beckner was working with Lacy and helped to support the areas to be tested with Bode. Quite frankly if I am wrong, I will apologize. I can't really find that information so maybe it wasn't from legitimate news source. I will look again but I promise I am not intending to make stuff up out of thin air. This would change the context of Beckner's statements. Okay?
__________________
The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roy23 For This Useful Post:
  #21  
Old 07-23-2012, 04:53 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
Emutionally Disturbed
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 26,173
Were JonBenet's panties brand new and never washed before?
__________________
Buttons Updated 04-02-2014



Thanks Steadfast for the spinning Buffalo Bills Emu

Made by HD ----->

Warning: Some buttons may be offensive!
BAD WORDS AND OFFENSIVE MATERIAL
AND STUFF LIKE THAT THERE!!


Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Steely Dan For This Useful Post:
  #22  
Old 07-23-2012, 05:45 PM
UKGuy UKGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Were JonBenet's panties brand new and never washed before?
Steely Dan,
Well the size-12's originated from a brand new pack of Bloomingdales size-12's, that Patsy claims she placed into JonBenet's underwear drawer for her personal use.

Nearly everyone and their dog believes the size-12's were brand new, never washed before, and never worn before that night!

The 64K question is why was it important to redress JonBenet in a Wednesday tagged pair of size-12's which were patently too large?


.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:
  #23  
Old 07-23-2012, 06:45 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
Emutionally Disturbed
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 26,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
Steely Dan,
Well the size-12's originated from a brand new pack of Bloomingdales size-12's, that Patsy claims she placed into JonBenet's underwear drawer for her personal use.

Nearly everyone and their dog believes the size-12's were brand new, never washed before, and never worn before that night!

The 64K question is why was it important to redress JonBenet in a Wednesday tagged pair of size-12's which were patently too large?


.
Who wears something right out of the box? Doesn't, almost, everyone wash new things before wearing them?
__________________
Buttons Updated 04-02-2014



Thanks Steadfast for the spinning Buffalo Bills Emu

Made by HD ----->

Warning: Some buttons may be offensive!
BAD WORDS AND OFFENSIVE MATERIAL
AND STUFF LIKE THAT THERE!!


Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Steely Dan For This Useful Post:
  #24  
Old 07-24-2012, 04:07 AM
brit1981 brit1981 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
You've summed it up pretty well.

There will never be a trial of anyone in this case. Not without a confession which details exactly what happened and in which the confessor is able to put him/herself right there with the evidence.

As to the media brouhaha, when the Ramseys chose to go on TV the day after they buried their child, at a time long before they finally showed up 4 months later to be interviewed by the investigating agency, the BPD, they made themselves public figures. Here we are allowed to join the debate in the media and public once people use that same media for their own public relations events.

The Ramseys also held their second press conference the day after their 1997 interview with law enforcement: complete with a small group of invitation only media allowed to be present; allowing questions only on specified topics not involving the investigation or any of their lawyers, family and friends present; including a 30 minute cut off for the whole shebang; and with a secret location and password to even get in.

Then they wrote a book and released it in 2000, doing one of the most viewed book tours on national television, with only the most prestigious interviewers. After that, their "savior" Lou Smit went on another binge of "intruder" media presentations, guaranteed to favor the Ramseys and put forth only case information they chose to spread their propaganda for their own agenda: to present themselves as innocent.

Fine. It was their legal right, if many things about it are questionable.

But to allow only the Ramsey's and their representatives to "have the playing field alone," as the judge who dismissed their lawsuit against Fox News said after one small news report by Carol McKinley aired which included evidence not favorable to them, is hardly conducive to "equal justice under the law." It's the cornerstone of our freedom of the press to be able to communicate without censorship. The Ramseys were all about censoring anything they didn't want the public to hear, IMO.

John Ramsey once said he wanted to change how we get our news. In fact, he went a long way to that goal when he silenced others who don't have the money to fight the Ramseys' "slap suits," designed and effective in keeping people from saying something other than what the Ramseys want people to hear.

But that's still de facto censorship, and as an American who believes without a free press and freedom of speech our Democracy would fall by the wayside, and fast, I resent that as much as anything about the Ramseys.

The Ramseys have been staging this crime since the moment it happened, IMO, and it's why the rare person like Thomas or Kolar is so important. There's more at stake here than this one case. If our legal system is not one of blind justice, if rich people can manipulate our courts, our DAs, our judges, and our media so that they are given preferential and biased treament, then there is no Democracy and we are lost because even the hope of justice is a sham.
First of all this case is not about the Ramseys, it is about a Ramsey: JonBenet Ramsey.

Yes, there is a right to freedom of speech, but even in the US that is not an overriding right. Doctors do not have the right to talk freely about their patient's medical conditions to anyone they want to, the patient's privacy overrides the doctors right to free speech. People do not have the right to harrass someone else, the victims right to not be haressed, overrides the harrassers right to freedom of speech. We would not be happy if some random person decided to go around accussing us of something horrible on the basis we could not prove it was untrue. Proving a negative is nearly impossible.

Also we have to remember that whist there might be a right to freedom of expression, we also have a duty to be responsible with our rights, because grown adults have decided to exercise their right to freedom of speech, this case has been turned from a murder investigation to a reality TV show, and a six year old girl has been robbed of justice. people can talk on the internet, self publish all they want, but because of the media the chances of the person who took Jonbenet down to a cold basement the day after Christmas, sexually assaulted her (agony if she was conscious), garrotted her (that would be agony), and then hit her on the head, and just left her there is never going to be taken to court and face justice and hear a judge sentence them to prison for life.


back to the DNA, the lack of DNA present makes me think that one of two things are possible

1) The crime scene was not examined properly, and it might be worth going back over all the material gathered to see if more DNA can be found

or

2) That the person who did it came prepared, wore gloves, and maybe some sort of overall
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to brit1981 For This Useful Post:
  #25  
Old 07-24-2012, 09:36 AM
Chrishope Chrishope is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
First of all this case is not about the Ramseys, it is about a Ramsey: JonBenet Ramsey.

Yes, there is a right to freedom of speech, but even in the US that is not an overriding right. Doctors do not have the right to talk freely about their patient's medical conditions to anyone they want to, the patient's privacy overrides the doctors right to free speech. People do not have the right to harrass someone else, the victims right to not be haressed, overrides the harrassers right to freedom of speech. We would not be happy if some random person decided to go around accussing us of something horrible on the basis we could not prove it was untrue. Proving a negative is nearly impossible.

Also we have to remember that whist there might be a right to freedom of expression, we also have a duty to be responsible with our rights, because grown adults have decided to exercise their right to freedom of speech, this case has been turned from a murder investigation to a reality TV show, and a six year old girl has been robbed of justice. people can talk on the internet, self publish all they want, but because of the media the chances of the person who took Jonbenet down to a cold basement the day after Christmas, sexually assaulted her (agony if she was conscious), garrotted her (that would be agony), and then hit her on the head, and just left her there is never going to be taken to court and face justice and hear a judge sentence them to prison for life.


back to the DNA, the lack of DNA present makes me think that one of two things are possible

1) The crime scene was not examined properly, and it might be worth going back over all the material gathered to see if more DNA can be found

or

2) That the person who did it came prepared, wore gloves, and maybe some sort of overall

Or

3) There never was an intruder.
__________________
I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.
Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
James Kolar's New Book Will Blow the Lid off the JonBenet Ramsey Investigation Tricia JonBenet Ramsey 1831 02-27-2014 10:09 AM
DNA Revisited cynic JonBenet Ramsey 527 12-17-2012 10:17 AM
BOULDER DA INVESTIGATOR JAMES KOLAR - July 18, 2012 Tricia Tricia's True Crime Radio Sunday's on BlogTalk and Thurs on iHeart Radio.com 0 07-18-2012 07:04 PM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:41 PM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!