Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[BBB167893]

Lacy’s reign of misinformation and outrageous bias has thankfully ended.

As our Jedi friend might say, "at an end you rule is. And not short enough it was."

I will agree that the Anthony jury would most certainly be swayed by it or any “shiny object” that the defense would dangle in front of it.

I like that. "Shiny object." I'll have to remember that one.

Two mistakes made with respect to DNA by proponents of the intruder theory are the following:
1. The elevation of the probative value of DNA evidence to such a position of dominance that it dictates the relevance of all other evidence in the case, regardless of the direction and implication of that evidence.

You're not kidding. Recently, I got into a scrap with someone else over the DNA's value. Maybe I'll get to that here later.

 

[cynic]

It is my belief that Lacey's exoneration is premature as well. the only reason Beckner and Garnett say such is because the Ramsey's could be an accompliss based on circumstances. I think the DNA has been rendered very reliable by all involved.

There are many cases where there has been DNA found, and yes, even in multiple locations, and it was set aside by prosecutors because other evidence pointed elsewhere.
(And that DNA had nothing to do with accomplices.)
I listed two examples above and I have more, not that it would mean much to you, I’m sure.
There is no reason to believe Lacy’s biased misinformation any longer.

 

[Roy23]

Number one, since you dragged me into this, I'll put in my 2 cents.

Number two, you have me wrong. I understand full well that the DNA would stand in the way of making a circumstantial case, just for different reasons than you do. I believe it would because most jurors have the wrong idea about these things. They think DNA is the end-all, be-all of forensics, but it's just another tool in the box. The added problem here is that you had a prosecutorial team that was equally ignorant.

Like I said, pilgrim: no amount of technology will ever replace legwork and prosecutorial skill.

I understand your feelings on that Dave.

Let me entertain you and Cynic for a moment. And then like I have said a lot lately, lets leave each other alone in peace. Not trying to muzzle anyone but I am tired of the criticizing of each other.

The DNA doesn't just hurt a circumstancial case against the Ramsey's. It will hurt a case against anyone. As a matter of fact, so much misinformation is out there that Justice for JonBenet (something I actually believe all of us want) is going to be difficult. Cynic's information on the DNA is a handbook of destruction when and if a defense lawyer gets ahold of it. And I don't think it matters if it is a Ramsey or not.

There are many people smarter than all of us that understand this. Lacy didn't create some DNA profile and put it together AND enter it into Codis. Cynic articles suggest a number of different possibilities of partial profiles, degradation, along with mixture. These DNA people aren't dumb. Especially the ones that I am familiar with. No doubt they had some initial troubles with the DNA. But when you get forensic advancement, numerous samples, it becomes a simple puzzle. And i think they have tested all investigators that could have erred in leaving something.

Regardless, I have come to respect that the RDI are going to continue their fight. I am glad too. RDI or IDI, we have to respect that IN THIS CASE we need an answer to the DNA. And it is not because of your suggestion of the CSI effect. This suggestion says almost all people are idiots and you are not. But let me say, there are a lot of idiots out there.

 

[Roy23]

There are many cases where there has been DNA found, and yes, even in multiple locations, and it was set aside by prosecutors because other evidence pointed elsewhere.
(And that DNA had nothing to do with accomplices.)
I listed two examples above and I have more, not that it would mean much to you, I’m sure.
There is no reason to believe Lacy’s biased misinformation any longer.

Let me break that down for you, Dave, and anybody else wanting to listen. And I wish face to face I could explain this drawing on my past knowlege of this. When DNA is found in a 6 year old girls underpants and surrounding areas, it is pertinent information in ANY situation. Especially when she is found murdered and sexually assulted. Many people murdered are sexually active freaks. Not a 6 year old enclosed shielded in her own house.

All RDI's should accept and understand that it shouldn't be there. They should also accept that it is in different places enough to where a full COMPLETE profile is most certainly found.

 

[cynic]

Let me break that down for you, Dave, and anybody else wanting to listen. And I wish face to face I could explain this drawing on my past knowlege of this. When DNA is found in a 6 year old girls underpants and surrounding areas, it is pertinent information in ANY situation. Especially when she is found murdered and sexually assulted. Many people murdered are sexually active freaks. Not a 6 year old enclosed shielded in her own house.

All RDI's should accept and understand that it shouldn't be there. They should also accept that it is in different places enough to where a full COMPLETE profile is most certainly found.

Let me “break it down for you and anyone else willing to listen,” many factors need to be taken into consideration when ascribing relevance to DNA.
As I have stated, and given examples of, there have been other cases where there has been three or more matching samples of DNA, and it has been found to be completely irrelevant.
And BTW, you are once again suggesting that there is a complete DNA profile in this case which is completely false. A 9 marker profile that was pushed to 10 markers is not a complete profile, and you know it. 13 markers is a complete profile.

 

[BBB167893]

I understand your feelings on that Dave.

I'm glad to hear that.

Let me entertain you and Cynic for a moment. And then like I have said a lot lately, lets leave each other alone in peace. Not trying to muzzle anyone but I am tired of the criticizing of each other.

Fine by me. I'm willing to call off the dogs.

The DNA doesn't just hurt a circumstantial case against the Ramsey's. It will hurt a case against anyone. As a matter of fact, so much misinformation is out there that Justice for JonBenet (something I actually believe all of us want) is going to be difficult. Cynic's information on the DNA is a handbook of destruction when and if a defense lawyer gets ahold of it. And I don't think it matters if it is a Ramsey or not.

Now you're talking my language, pilgrim! That's what I've been trying to say.

I plan to expand on that later. There's no time now.

There are many people smarter than all of us that understand this. Lacy didn't create some DNA profile and put it together AND enter it into Codis. Cynic articles suggest a number of different possibilities of partial profiles, degradation, along with mixture. These DNA people aren't dumb. Especially the ones that I am familiar with. No doubt they had some initial troubles with the DNA. But when you get forensic advancement, numerous samples, it becomes a simple puzzle.

Well, like you say, pilgrim, the DNA itself did not get better, the testing methods did. But that doesn't change the condition the DNA was found in.

And i think they have tested all investigators that could have erred in leaving something.

I seriously doubt that, Roy. Not because I'm trying to be contrarian, but because with all the people who came and went in this investigation and all the years that went by and the general weirdness of the case. Even Bill Wise said it wasn't likely that they had.

Regardless, I have come to respect that the RDI are going to continue their fight. I am glad too.

That makes one of you.

I realize this may not take, pilgrim, but I'm glad you're here. You're far better than some of your fellow IDIs give you credit for. I believe "Bantha fodder" was the term they used. (That's the kind of thing that got them banned from here in the first place, what!)

RDI or IDI, we have to respect that IN THIS CASE we need an answer to the DNA. And it is not because of your suggestion of the CSI effect. This suggestion says almost all people are idiots and you are not.

Easy, pilgrim. I realize it may seem that way, but that was not quite my meaning. I wouldn't use the word "idiot," so much as "misinformed." And I'm not the only person to point out the CSI effect, or as cynic put it, the shiny object effect. So, you can SAY that it's not because of that, but PART of it is. No shame in owning up to that.

But let me say, there are a lot of idiots out there.

Don't I KNOW IT! Oh, GOD, do I know it!

 

[cynic]

I understand your feelings on that Dave.

Let me entertain you and Cynic for a moment. And then like I have said a lot lately, lets leave each other alone in peace. Not trying to muzzle anyone but I am tired of the criticizing of each other.

The DNA doesn't just hurt a circumstancial case against the Ramsey's. It will hurt a case against anyone. As a matter of fact, so much misinformation is out there that Justice for JonBenet (something I actually believe all of us want) is going to be difficult. Cynic's information on the DNA is a handbook of destruction when and if a defense lawyer gets ahold of it. And I don't think it matters if it is a Ramsey or not.

There are many people smarter than all of us that understand this. Lacy didn't create some DNA profile and put it together AND enter it into Codis. Cynic articles suggest a number of different possibilities of partial profiles, degradation, along with mixture. These DNA people aren't dumb. Especially the ones that I am familiar with. No doubt they had some initial troubles with the DNA. But when you get forensic advancement, numerous samples, it becomes a simple puzzle. And i think they have tested all investigators that could have erred in leaving something.

Regardless, I have come to respect that the RDI are going to continue their fight. I am glad too. RDI or IDI, we have to respect that IN THIS CASE we need an answer to the DNA. And it is not because of your suggestion of the CSI effect. This suggestion says almost all people are idiots and you are not. But let me say, there are a lot of idiots out there.

I definitely see a potential problem with the interpretation of the profile that has been entered into CODIS, it lies with the fact that it was by all accounts a mixed partial profile and the minor donor contributed only 9 markers.
Given the fact that 10 markers are required, how did it end up in CODIS?
It’s a good question and one to which we have only a vague answer from Lin Wood.

It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.
-Lin Wood
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html
One of the 2 drops of blood that were on the garment was tested early in the investigation, but was not of sufficient quality to be placed in data banks. But the DNA from the second spot is "of sufficient quality" to be added to the agency's Combined DNA Index System, Wood said.
"They had to spend some time, probably months, to get that DNA sample up to the qualifications to be submitted to the national databank," Wood said.
CNN, December 27, 2003

What exactly was done, and more importantly would an independent DNA analyst agree with the process?
Often when there is pressure on a lab to, shall we say, “find something” it’s amazing how often it’s found.
Other people have noticed the phenomenon.

But DNA is not as objective as you might think. ..The findings suggest that the difference between prison and freedom could often rest on the opinions of a single individual.
Much of the DNA analysis conducted can suffer from worrying subjectivity and bias
The introduction of DNA evidence to the courtroom in the mid 1980s revolutionized forensic science, resulting in thousands of convictions and exonerating 255 wrongly convicted people so far in the US alone. The reason for more than 50 per cent of these wrongful convictions was unvalidated or improper forensic testing, including incorrect hair, blood or fingerprint analysis.
"It's not unreasonable to hold up DNA as a way that the rest of forensic science should be done," says William Thompson of the University of California, Irvine, and an occasional expert witness on DNA. "It is better validated, and often more carefully done and more rigorously interpreted than many areas of forensic science."
That's not the same as saying DNA is perfect, however.
In a growing number of cases, DNA samples taken from crime scenes produce partial profiles, partly because smaller samples are collected. "Labs are trying to get more samples and they're trying to [get results from] lower and lower amounts of DNA," says John Butler, head of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology's genetics group, which aims to improve standards in DNA testing.
A standard DNA profile consists of a series of peaks relating to the number of repeating stretches of DNA found in certain genetic sequences, or alleles. The repeats occur at specific locations on the chromosomes, called loci, and there are two alleles at each locus- one inherited from each parent. The number of repeats in each allele varies widely between individuals, allowing a person to be identified this way. Labs in the US look at 13 loci.
Yet in partial profiles, alleles may fail to show up, a phenomenon called "drop-out". False peaks in the profile created by imperfections in the analysis machine may also be mistaken for alleles. This is called "drop-in".
It gets more complicated when several people's DNA is mixed. Butler has reviewed more than 5000 DNA samples from 14 US labs and found that mixing is a common occurrence: 34 per cent of the samples he studied included DNA from two people, while 11 per cent were three or four-person mixtures.
Interpreting alleles in a mixed or partial sample is where the subjective opinion of an analyst could play a part. To test this, New Scientist teamed up with Itiel Dror, a neuroscientist at University College London and head of Cognitive Consultants International, and Greg Hampikian of Boise State University in Idaho.
We took a mixed sample of DNA evidence from an actual crime scene- a gang rape committed in Georgia, US- which helped to convict a man called Kerry Robinson, who is currently in prison. We presented it, and Robinson's DNA profile, to 17 experienced analysts working in the same accredited government lab in the US, without any contextual information that might bias their judgement.
In the original case, two analysts from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation concluded that Robinson "could not be excluded" from the crime scene sample, based on his DNA profile. (A second man convicted of the same crime also testified that Robinson was an assailant, in return for a lesser jail term.) Each of our 17 analysts independently examined the profiles from the DNA mixture, the victim's profile and those of two other suspects and was asked to judge whether the suspects' profiles could be "excluded", "cannot be excluded" or whether the results were "inconclusive".
If DNA analysis were totally objective, then all 17 analysts should reach the same conclusion. However, we found that just one agreed with the original judgement that Robinson "cannot be excluded". Four analysts said the evidence was inconclusive and 12 said he could be excluded.
"Fingerprinting and other forensic disciplines have now accepted that subjectivity and context may affect their judgement and decisions," says Dror. "It is now time that DNA analysts accept that under certain conditions, subjectivity and even bias may affect their work." Dror presented the results at the Green Mountain DNA conference in Burlington, Vermont, last month.
Varying the identity of the suspect changed the answers that DNA analysts gave
Christine Funk, an attorney in the Office of the Public Defender for the State of Minnesota, says the results of New Scientist's survey have profound implications for criminal justice. "The difference between prison and freedom rests in the hands of the scientist assigned the case," she says.
Eric Buel, director of Vermont Forensic Laboratory in Waterbury agrees that there is a problem, although he doesn't think it will apply to every lab. "I would be a little bit concerned if one person excludes, and one person includes him. At the end of the day, we all should come to about the same answer on this stuff." Both he and Butler suggest that inconsistencies in analysts' training may be partly to blame.
The problem of subjective interpretation could be further exacerbated by differences in procedure between labs. According to a second survey conducted by New Scientist, many crime labs set their own thresholds for how high a peak must be to demonstrate the presence of an allele, and these can be inconsistently applied.
New Scientist sent a questionnaire to crime labs in the US, Canada, UK and Australia. Of the 19 that replied, we found that four labs routinely allow analysts to use their discretion when interpreting peaks whose height is below their statistical cut-off. A further two said that although it wasn't routine, there were circumstances when analysts could use their discretion. Fifteen labs said that they did not have a minimum requirement below which someone would be excluded from a mixture.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733.500-fallible-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom.html?full=true

 

[Roy23]

I definitely see a potential problem with the interpretation of the profile that has been entered into CODIS, it lies with the fact that it was by all accounts a mixed partial profile and the minor donor contributed only 9 markers.
Given the fact that 10 markers are required, how did it end up in CODIS?
It’s a good question and one to which we have only a vague answer from Lin Wood.

It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.
-Lin Wood
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html
One of the 2 drops of blood that were on the garment was tested early in the investigation, but was not of sufficient quality to be placed in data banks. But the DNA from the second spot is "of sufficient quality" to be added to the agency's Combined DNA Index System, Wood said.
"They had to spend some time, probably months, to get that DNA sample up to the qualifications to be submitted to the national databank," Wood said.
CNN, December 27, 2003

What exactly was done, and more importantly would an independent DNA analyst agree with the process?
Often when there is pressure on a lab to, shall we say, “find something” it’s amazing how often it’s found.
Other people have noticed the phenomenon.

But DNA is not as objective as you might think. ..The findings suggest that the difference between prison and freedom could often rest on the opinions of a single individual.
Much of the DNA analysis conducted can suffer from worrying subjectivity and bias
The introduction of DNA evidence to the courtroom in the mid 1980s revolutionized forensic science, resulting in thousands of convictions and exonerating 255 wrongly convicted people so far in the US alone. The reason for more than 50 per cent of these wrongful convictions was unvalidated or improper forensic testing, including incorrect hair, blood or fingerprint analysis.
"It's not unreasonable to hold up DNA as a way that the rest of forensic science should be done," says William Thompson of the University of California, Irvine, and an occasional expert witness on DNA. "It is better validated, and often more carefully done and more rigorously interpreted than many areas of forensic science."
That's not the same as saying DNA is perfect, however.
In a growing number of cases, DNA samples taken from crime scenes produce partial profiles, partly because smaller samples are collected. "Labs are trying to get more samples and they're trying to [get results from] lower and lower amounts of DNA," says John Butler, head of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology's genetics group, which aims to improve standards in DNA testing.
A standard DNA profile consists of a series of peaks relating to the number of repeating stretches of DNA found in certain genetic sequences, or alleles. The repeats occur at specific locations on the chromosomes, called loci, and there are two alleles at each locus- one inherited from each parent. The number of repeats in each allele varies widely between individuals, allowing a person to be identified this way. Labs in the US look at 13 loci.
Yet in partial profiles, alleles may fail to show up, a phenomenon called "drop-out". False peaks in the profile created by imperfections in the analysis machine may also be mistaken for alleles. This is called "drop-in".
It gets more complicated when several people's DNA is mixed. Butler has reviewed more than 5000 DNA samples from 14 US labs and found that mixing is a common occurrence: 34 per cent of the samples he studied included DNA from two people, while 11 per cent were three or four-person mixtures.
Interpreting alleles in a mixed or partial sample is where the subjective opinion of an analyst could play a part. To test this, New Scientist teamed up with Itiel Dror, a neuroscientist at University College London and head of Cognitive Consultants International, and Greg Hampikian of Boise State University in Idaho.
We took a mixed sample of DNA evidence from an actual crime scene- a gang rape committed in Georgia, US- which helped to convict a man called Kerry Robinson, who is currently in prison. We presented it, and Robinson's DNA profile, to 17 experienced analysts working in the same accredited government lab in the US, without any contextual information that might bias their judgement.
In the original case, two analysts from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation concluded that Robinson "could not be excluded" from the crime scene sample, based on his DNA profile. (A second man convicted of the same crime also testified that Robinson was an assailant, in return for a lesser jail term.) Each of our 17 analysts independently examined the profiles from the DNA mixture, the victim's profile and those of two other suspects and was asked to judge whether the suspects' profiles could be "excluded", "cannot be excluded" or whether the results were "inconclusive".
If DNA analysis were totally objective, then all 17 analysts should reach the same conclusion. However, we found that just one agreed with the original judgement that Robinson "cannot be excluded". Four analysts said the evidence was inconclusive and 12 said he could be excluded.
"Fingerprinting and other forensic disciplines have now accepted that subjectivity and context may affect their judgement and decisions," says Dror. "It is now time that DNA analysts accept that under certain conditions, subjectivity and even bias may affect their work." Dror presented the results at the Green Mountain DNA conference in Burlington, Vermont, last month.
Varying the identity of the suspect changed the answers that DNA analysts gave
Christine Funk, an attorney in the Office of the Public Defender for the State of Minnesota, says the results of New Scientist's survey have profound implications for criminal justice. "The difference between prison and freedom rests in the hands of the scientist assigned the case," she says.
Eric Buel, director of Vermont Forensic Laboratory in Waterbury agrees that there is a problem, although he doesn't think it will apply to every lab. "I would be a little bit concerned if one person excludes, and one person includes him. At the end of the day, we all should come to about the same answer on this stuff." Both he and Butler suggest that inconsistencies in analysts' training may be partly to blame.
The problem of subjective interpretation could be further exacerbated by differences in procedure between labs. According to a second survey conducted by New Scientist, many crime labs set their own thresholds for how high a peak must be to demonstrate the presence of an allele, and these can be inconsistently applied.
New Scientist sent a questionnaire to crime labs in the US, Canada, UK and Australia. Of the 19 that replied, we found that four labs routinely allow analysts to use their discretion when interpreting peaks whose height is below their statistical cut-off. A further two said that although it wasn't routine, there were circumstances when analysts could use their discretion. Fifteen labs said that they did not have a minimum requirement below which someone would be excluded from a mixture.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733.500-fallible-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom.html?full=true

Cynic,

I didn't read all of that yet but i read your statement. And I understand it is going to be a problem. You had some DNA with nine markers. It could be saliva or some skin. Maybe new techniques subsequently clarify it more. Or some other with 13 markers is found. I feel pretty comfortable with 9 markers if it matches up with some other that is 13.

I know this is where we differ. I also know it is gonna be trouble in a courtroom. Especially if it was someone known to have ever been around JBR. It has gotten to be answered though I am afraid. Now, I am still on record as to saying they don't have even enough circumstancial evidence against any R. But don't think I discount every thing you are saying because I wouldnt be surprised if they actually had a DNA match and are investigating the pieces around it.

 

[Roy23]

And Cynic, the profile in Codis most certainly has 10 markers. Dont wait around on the BPD to explain that to you. It ain't happenin. They have no reason to.

 

[cynic]

And Cynic, the profile in Codis most certainly has 10 markers. Dont wait around on the BPD to explain that to you. It ain't happenin. They have no reason to.

It’s clear from your post that you didn’t read mine because that’s not what I said.

 

[BBB167893]

Let me break that down for you, Dave, and anybody else wanting to listen.

No need. I understand what he said just fine.

And I wish face to face I could explain this drawing on my past knowlege of this. When DNA is found in a 6 year old girls underpants and surrounding areas, it is pertinent information in ANY situation. Especially when she is found murdered and sexually assulted.

I would certainly agree to that, on its face, Roy. You don't need to explain that to me. Indeed, that's the mindset that seems to have permeated the DA's office. And it's not as if I don't think that it would have to be used. The trouble here is, cynic is correct: you have to take all the factors into account. Just as a for-instance, you use the term "sexually assaulted." But as we've shown multiple times, what was done to JB was not a true sexual assault, but rather someone wanting it to LOOK like a sexual assault.

So let ME break it down, pilgrim: when a 6-year-old is found murdered and sexually assaulted, damn right DNA takes an important role.

When a 6-year-old girl is found dead inside her own with a ton of staging, a ransom note in Mama's handwriting and signs of previous sexual abuse with fibers from the parents' clothing in areas they shouldn't be, it's hard not to have doubts.

Many people murdered are sexually active freaks. Not a 6 year old enclosed shielded in her own house.

That's true enough.

All RDI's should accept and understand that it shouldn't be there. They should also accept that it is in different places enough to where a full COMPLETE profile is most certainly found.

I don't know, pilgrim. Like the experts keep telling us, these aren't your father's DNA testing methods.

 

[BBB167893]

Now, I am still on record as to saying they don't have even enough circumstancial evidence against any R.

I believe that's what I've been saying, pilgrim! There's plenty of evidence against them (more than there has been against other people who went to prison, as you were realistic enough to admit). There's just not enough against any ONE of them.

A breakthrough at last!

 

[BBB167893]

While we're on the subject, there's something that I'd like to discuss. And I think I might need cynic's help on this.

Over on another forum, someone asked the question: if the DNA was as useless as the BPD said it was, wasn't it a risky proposition to exclude people as suspects using it.

For me, this was like sunlight through a thunderhead. Finally, I thought, someone's getting what I've been trying to say. Because I've been saying for years that IDI has essentially shot themselves in the foot. By using the DNA as the linchpin of their investigation, they have limited themselves. This way, if a suspect DOES come along that matches all the other evidence, it's not going to matter. If that person's DNA doesn't match, that's it. Game over.

As I explained to this person, number one, the police did not exclude people on DNA alone. That's a myth. Number two, and more importanly, the police were being realistic. They were smart enough to realize that since the DNA was so degraded, its value was doubtful at best, but they still had to TRY, because if they didn't, then the accusations by the Ramseys, Lin Wood and their acolytes on the Internet about how the police tried to hide the DNA and explain it away would be TRUE.

Another poster, who is definitely OFF my Christmas card list, challenged this notion, using, of all things, the example of John Mark Karr. This person's assertion was that, if Mary Lacy were in the tank for the Rs as I (and MANY others) have said, she would not have let him go when his DNA test came back negative. Instead, she would have focused on all the other evidence and just dismissed the DNA as the police and RDI have done so easily.

For me, this was PERFECT. John Mark Karr was the PERFECT example of what I meant. Here you had a guy who SAID he did it, and I have no doubt in my mind that the DA WOULD have gone after him after the DNA match came back negative, IF it had been an option.

The problem was, as I tried to explain, it WASN'T an option, for a few reasons. Number one, the "other" evidence turned out to be a mirage. Karr's confession turned out to be an obvious fraud, engineered by an unethical filmmaker who cultivated his story by feeding him information to make it halfway accurate; the "experts" who said his handwriting was similar to the ransom note turned out to be obvious frauds, the media, who had been supportive of her efforts (based on Craig Silverman's expressed belief that "she can't be THAT stupid"), was turning on her, etc.

But more to the point, it wasn't an option because for Mary Lacy to dismiss the DNA the way the police had would have been the ULTIMATE backpedaling. After three straight years of placing all of her faith in the DNA as a case-breaker, she had bricked herself into a corner. She COULDN'T do a 180 and suddenly adopt the police line. That would have been admitting defeat, and admitting that the police might be right. And as Jeff Shapiro has reminded us, Lacy ego was everything.

And for those of you who don't have cynic's prodigious memory (and I'm sure cynic will help me out on this), the DA TRIED to do just that! At the press conference after Karr was cut loose, the DA said that the DNA was not necessarily the killer's. But she quickly abandoned it, for the reasons I've just described.

madeleine's right: Mary Lacy was never about solving this case. She was all about her friends, the Ramseys. John Mark Karr would have been perfect: a way for her to, as Craig Silverman put it, give a gift to the Ramseys and make herself a hero at the same time. It didn't work out, so the touch DNA was the consolation prize.

I tried to explain all of this to these people. But instead of seeing it for what it was, they twisted my words, put words in my mouth and distorted my message beyond meaning.

You're right, Roy: there ARE a lot of idiots out there! And God only knows why I put up with it!

 

[SunnieRN]

There are many cases where there has been DNA found, and yes, even in multiple locations, and it was set aside by prosecutors because other evidence pointed elsewhere.
(And that DNA had nothing to do with accomplices.)
I listed two examples above and I have more, not that it would mean much to you, I’m sure.
There is no reason to believe Lacy’s biased misinformation any longer.

Cynic, you are brilliant!! I hope your three part DNA lesson, does not get lost in the shuffle, as it informative, understandable and full of pertinent information!! Thank you, once again!:seeya:

 

[cynic]

For me, this was PERFECT. John Mark Karr was the PERFECT example of what I meant. Here you had a guy who SAID he did it, and I have no doubt in my mind that the DA WOULD have gone after him after the DNA match came back negative, IF it had been an option.

Karr looked like a dream come true for Lacy, certainly. The situation turned out to be a nightmare, though, as it exposed her to the world as the incompetent, desperate, biased, puppet of the Ramseys that she was.

The problem was, as I tried to explain, it WASN'T an option, for a few reasons. Number one, the "other" evidence turned out to be a mirage. Karr's confession turned out to be an obvious fraud, engineered by an unethical filmmaker who cultivated his story by feeding him information to make it halfway accurate; the "experts" who said his handwriting was similar to the ransom note turned out to be obvious frauds, the media, who had been supportive of her efforts (based on Craig Silverman's expressed belief that "she can't be THAT stupid"), was turning on her, etc.

Lacy’s arrest of Karr was completely without foundation. His so called “confession” was so full of holes it was pathetic, and this was the cornerstone of the arrest affidavit, amazing.
I will list one example (from the arrest affidavit) below, which I have posted before:
Karr added he placed underwear or "knickers" onto JonBenet that he brought with him. The underwear brought by Karr was several sizes too large for JonBenet.”
http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf

If this isn’t a red flag that this guy is lying, I don’t know what is. I will spare you a replay of a full discussion of the oversized Bloomies, but there is no doubt, whatsoever, that the panties that JBR was found in were panties that were purchased by Patsy Ramsey, and not brought into the home by an outside party.
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start with what - I will make it very simple for you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you in possession of or what do you know about the underwear that your daughter was wearing at the time she was found murdered?
A. I have heard that she had on a pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.
Q. The underwear that she was wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you know where they come from as far as what store?
A. Bloomingdale’s in New York.
Q. Who purchased those?
A. I did.
Q. Do you recall when you purchased them?
A. It was, I think, November of '96.
…
Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you understand the reason we are asking this, we want to make sure that this intruder did not bring these panties with him, this was something –
A. Right.
Q. - that was in the house.
A. Yes.
Q. And we are clear that, as far as you know, that is something that was in this house?
A. Yes.
Q. -- that belonged to your daughter, these panties?
A. Correct.
Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000

So remind me again, why was this guy arrested???

But more to the point, it wasn't an option because for Mary Lacy to dismiss the DNA the way the police had would have been the ULTIMATE backpedaling. After three straight years of placing all of her faith in the DNA as a case-breaker, she had bricked herself into a corner. She COULDN'T do a 180 and suddenly adopt the police line. That would have been admitting defeat, and admitting that the police might be right. And as Jeff Shapiro has reminded us, Lacy ego was everything.

The reasons for the BPD keeping the Ramseys under the "umbrella of suspicion," (to use Beckner-speak,) and being dismissive of the DNA evidence are numerous.
With respect to the way that the BPD used DNA in their investigation of suspects in general, Beckner commented on the process in an affidavit. The DNA evidence was not regarded as a means, in and of itself, to exclude a suspect. Steve Thomas echoed that view:

And we're looking for things that corroborate other evidence. And if you have somebody, for instance, whether it's this case or another case, that you have got some evidence that you can put them at the scene and now you have a handwriting expert that says, yeah, there's some similarities there, that's corroborating evidence. That's building that person up as a stronger suspect in the case. If you have -- if you run down these leads and you have no evidence that pans out in any of these other areas, fingerprints, hair, DNA, whatever.
Q Witnesses, alibi?
A Witnesses, alibis, and the handwriting comes back negative, well, that's corroborating why nothing else is lining up as well. So it's you can't look at it in a vacuum.
Q The handwriting is not -- would not be looked at in a vacuum to determine the ultimate issue of whether someone was believed to be involved or not involved in the case. You have to look at, as you say, all of the evidence; is that right?
A That's correct.
Deposition of Mark Beckner, Wolf v Ramsey, 2001

Also…

A. There was a huge controversy about the DNA.
Q. So it was not in and of itself viewed as a forensic piece of evidence that eliminated anyone, was it?
A. Correct.
Deposition of Steve Thomas, Wolf v Ramsey, 2001

The Karr situation is profoundly different, and DNA evidence can be used to exclude him and expose him as a liar.
One of the problems I have with this is that it was simply not necessary to go that far (literally and figuratively) to eliminate him. That being said, let’s play along with Lacy.
Mary Lacy: So when you say “was it the DNA, the lynchpin? It was based on his story. The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all…there’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else. But the way he (Karr) told the story, it had to be his and it’s not. So once that came back as not a match, he is not the killer.
Mary Lacy Press Conference Regarding John Mark Karr - 8/29/06

In Karr’s arrest affidavit (see reference/source above) we find that he made certain claims in his “confession,” and amongst those claims we find that he would have deposited bodily fluid and had considerable ungloved contact with JonBenet. So as Lacy said, the way Karr told the story the DNA would have to be his and his alone. There is simply no way that Karr’s DNA profile would not have been found if he did what he claimed. Not only were the bloodstains from JonBenet’s panties tested, multiple swabs were taken from the pelvic region of JonBenet.
Where is Karr’s DNA?
It’s not there because he was not there. Being there in imagination only doesn’t count.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf

Had Lacy simply waited, rather than “arrest first,” “investigate later” because the exoneration of the Ramseys couldn’t wait a moment longer, she would have been told the following by the BPD who she asked for help after the fact.
Beckner said police investigators have proven that Karr was not in Boulder the day JonBenet was killed, and there’s “not a shred of evidence” he was involved.
By Heath Urie, Daily Ccamera, December 27, 2008

Yes, the BPD was not involved in the initial “investigation” (LOL) and arrest of Karr.
The responsibility lies with Lacy and her investigators.
Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy has asked the Boulder Police Department to assist with additional investigation that must yet be completed. Police Chief Mark Beckner has agreed to assist in any way possible.
"We are cautiously optimistic with this development in the case and will certainly help as requested," stated Chief Beckner. "We know that there are still many questions that need to be answered and we are ready to assist in finding those answers
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9695653/detail.html

Undoubtedly, Lacy was desperately hoping that the BPD would be able to place Karr in Boulder on the night in question, in which case I’m certain she wouldn't have hesitated to throw the DNA, and anything else that stood in her way, under the bus.

 

[Roy23]

While we're on the subject, there's something that I'd like to discuss. And I think I might need cynic's help on this.

Over on another forum, someone asked the question: if the DNA was as useless as the BPD said it was, wasn't it a risky proposition to exclude people as suspects using it.

For me, this was like sunlight through a thunderhead. Finally, I thought, someone's getting what I've been trying to say. Because I've been saying for years that IDI has essentially shot themselves in the foot. By using the DNA as the linchpin of their investigation, they have limited themselves. This way, if a suspect DOES come along that matches all the other evidence, it's not going to matter. If that person's DNA doesn't match, that's it. Game over.

As I explained to this person, number one, the police did not exclude people on DNA alone. That's a myth. Number two, and more importanly, the police were being realistic. They were smart enough to realize that since the DNA was so degraded, its value was doubtful at best, but they still had to TRY, because if they didn't, then the accusations by the Ramseys, Lin Wood and their acolytes on the Internet about how the police tried to hide the DNA and explain it away would be TRUE.

Another poster, who is definitely OFF my Christmas card list, challenged this notion, using, of all things, the example of John Mark Karr. This person's assertion was that, if Mary Lacy were in the tank for the Rs as I (and MANY others) have said, she would not have let him go when his DNA test came back negative. Instead, she would have focused on all the other evidence and just dismissed the DNA as the police and RDI have done so easily.

For me, this was PERFECT. John Mark Karr was the PERFECT example of what I meant. Here you had a guy who SAID he did it, and I have no doubt in my mind that the DA WOULD have gone after him after the DNA match came back negative, IF it had been an option.

The problem was, as I tried to explain, it WASN'T an option, for a few reasons. Number one, the "other" evidence turned out to be a mirage. Karr's confession turned out to be an obvious fraud, engineered by an unethical filmmaker who cultivated his story by feeding him information to make it halfway accurate; the "experts" who said his handwriting was similar to the ransom note turned out to be obvious frauds, the media, who had been supportive of her efforts (based on Craig Silverman's expressed belief that "she can't be THAT stupid"), was turning on her, etc.

But more to the point, it wasn't an option because for Mary Lacy to dismiss the DNA the way the police had would have been the ULTIMATE backpedaling. After three straight years of placing all of her faith in the DNA as a case-breaker, she had bricked herself into a corner. She COULDN'T do a 180 and suddenly adopt the police line. That would have been admitting defeat, and admitting that the police might be right. And as Jeff Shapiro has reminded us, Lacy ego was everything.

And for those of you who don't have cynic's prodigious memory (and I'm sure cynic will help me out on this), the DA TRIED to do just that! At the press conference after Karr was cut loose, the DA said that the DNA was not necessarily the killer's. But she quickly abandoned it, for the reasons I've just described.

madeleine's right: Mary Lacy was never about solving this case. She was all about her friends, the Ramseys. John Mark Karr would have been perfect: a way for her to, as Craig Silverman put it, give a gift to the Ramseys and make herself a hero at the same time. It didn't work out, so the touch DNA was the consolation prize.

I tried to explain all of this to these people. But instead of seeing it for what it was, they twisted my words, put words in my mouth and distorted my message beyond meaning.

You're right, Roy: there ARE a lot of idiots out there! And God only knows why I put up with it!

I see Dave.

This is our impasse though as you know. I am of the opinion that they got a quality sample now. And you are not. Only time will tell. I don't see the JMK is such a big issue as others. What I would really love is for the investigators to just come out and explain the situation as it really is.

 

[BBB167893]

Karr looked like a dream come true for Lacy, certainly. The situation turned out to be a nightmare, though, as it exposed her to the world as the incompetent, desperate, biased, puppet of the Ramseys that she was.
Lacy’s arrest of Karr was completely without foundation. His so called “confession” was so full of holes it was pathetic, and this was the cornerstone of the arrest affidavit, amazing.
I will list one example (from the arrest affidavit) below, which I have posted before:
Karr added he placed underwear or "knickers" onto JonBenet that he brought with him. The underwear brought by Karr was several sizes too large for JonBenet.”
http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf

If this isn’t a red flag that this guy is lying, I don’t know what is. I will spare you a replay of a full discussion of the oversized Bloomies, but there is no doubt, whatsoever, that the panties that JBR was found in were panties that were purchased by Patsy Ramsey, and not brought into the home by an outside party.
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start with what - I will make it very simple for you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you in possession of or what do you know about the underwear that your daughter was wearing at the time she was found murdered?
A. I have heard that she had on a pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.
Q. The underwear that she was wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you know where they come from as far as what store?
A. Bloomingdale’s in New York.
Q. Who purchased those?
A. I did.
Q. Do you recall when you purchased them?
A. It was, I think, November of '96.
…
Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you understand the reason we are asking this, we want to make sure that this intruder did not bring these panties with him, this was something –
A. Right.
Q. - that was in the house.
A. Yes.
Q. And we are clear that, as far as you know, that is something that was in this house?
A. Yes.
Q. -- that belonged to your daughter, these panties?
A. Correct.
Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000

So remind me again, why was this guy arrested???
The reasons for the BPD keeping the Ramseys under the "umbrella of suspicion," (to use Beckner-speak,) and being dismissive of the DNA evidence are numerous.
With respect to the way that the BPD used DNA in their investigation of suspects in general, Beckner commented on the process in an affidavit. The DNA evidence was not regarded as a means, in and of itself, to exclude a suspect. Steve Thomas echoed that view:

And we're looking for things that corroborate other evidence. And if you have somebody, for instance, whether it's this case or another case, that you have got some evidence that you can put them at the scene and now you have a handwriting expert that says, yeah, there's some similarities there, that's corroborating evidence. That's building that person up as a stronger suspect in the case. If you have -- if you run down these leads and you have no evidence that pans out in any of these other areas, fingerprints, hair, DNA, whatever.
Q Witnesses, alibi?
A Witnesses, alibis, and the handwriting comes back negative, well, that's corroborating why nothing else is lining up as well. So it's you can't look at it in a vacuum.
Q The handwriting is not -- would not be looked at in a vacuum to determine the ultimate issue of whether someone was believed to be involved or not involved in the case. You have to look at, as you say, all of the evidence; is that right?
A That's correct.
Deposition of Mark Beckner, Wolf v Ramsey, 2001

Also…

A. There was a huge controversy about the DNA.
Q. So it was not in and of itself viewed as a forensic piece of evidence that eliminated anyone, was it?
A. Correct.
Deposition of Steve Thomas, Wolf v Ramsey, 2001

The Karr situation is profoundly different, and DNA evidence can be used to exclude him and expose him as a liar.
One of the problems I have with this is that it was simply not necessary to go that far (literally and figuratively) to eliminate him. That being said, let’s play along with Lacy.
Mary Lacy: So when you say “was it the DNA, the lynchpin? It was based on his story. The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all…there’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else. But the way he (Karr) told the story, it had to be his and it’s not. So once that came back as not a match, he is not the killer.
Mary Lacy Press Conference Regarding John Mark Karr - 8/29/06

In Karr’s arrest affidavit (see reference/source above) we find that he made certain claims in his “confession,” and amongst those claims we find that he would have deposited bodily fluid and had considerable ungloved contact with JonBenet. So as Lacy said, the way Karr told the story the DNA would have to be his and his alone. There is simply no way that Karr’s DNA profile would not have been found if he did what he claimed. Not only were the bloodstains from JonBenet’s panties tested, multiple swabs were taken from the pelvic region of JonBenet.
Where is Karr’s DNA?
It’s not there because he was not there. Being there in imagination only doesn’t count.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf

Had Lacy simply waited, rather than “arrest first,” “investigate later” because the exoneration of the Ramseys couldn’t wait a moment longer, she would have been told the following by the BPD who she asked for help after the fact.
Beckner said police investigators have proven that Karr was not in Boulder the day JonBenet was killed, and there’s “not a shred of evidence” he was involved.
By Heath Urie, Daily Ccamera, December 27, 2008

Yes, the BPD was not involved in the initial “investigation” (LOL) and arrest of Karr.
The responsibility lies with Lacy and her investigators.
Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy has asked the Boulder Police Department to assist with additional investigation that must yet be completed. Police Chief Mark Beckner has agreed to assist in any way possible.
"We are cautiously optimistic with this development in the case and will certainly help as requested," stated Chief Beckner. "We know that there are still many questions that need to be answered and we are ready to assist in finding those answers
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9695653/detail.html

Undoubtedly, Lacy was desperately hoping that the BPD would be able to place Karr in Boulder on the night in question, in which case I’m certain she wouldn't have hesitated to throw the DNA, and anything else that stood in her way, under the bus.

And do you know what the WORST part of it is, cynic? I'll tell you:

NOBODY CARED. There should have been a recall election. She should have been forced to resign. The case should have been taken over by capable professionals. But none of that happened, because after ten years nobody gave a damn.

 

[BBB167893]

I see Dave.

I sure hope to God you DO! I don't do this for my health, you know.

I don't see the JMK is such a big issue as others.

That's too bad. It's crucial to finding some insight as to why this case never stood a chance.

What I would really love is for the investigators to just come out and explain the situation as it really is.

I seem to recall one of them did a few years ago. But I know exactly what you mean.

 

[erinleigh]

call me crazy but i am one of the conspiracy theorists when it comes to this case. there are child sex rings prevalant in the colorado area.
i think jon benet was being molested by the Ramsey's high powered friends. i think her parents allowed it. the fact patsy came to the door to police in the same clothes as the night before tell me she was up all night, the redressing of underpants, the fibers on the tape being patsys, the way patsy flug herself on the JonBenets body to contaminate evidence, the randsom note, the golf bag that Jr had to have that was never checked, the possible 3rd person in the house ect all lead me to believe the Ramsey's had brought JonBenet home Christmas eve to be molested. did the molester kill her for making noise or for the fact she was old enough to speak out? were her parents angry and surprised their daughter had been killed and had to go into coverup mode to protect the molester and their knowledge or did they understand it "had to be done"
JonBenet's bed wetting and multiple trips to peditrician some with vaginal checkups are signs of possible sexual abuse.
i cant get past the bizarre randsom note that patsy could not have been excluded from. this family knew something and knowledge in my mind leads to involvement.

 

[UKGuy]

Karr looked like a dream come true for Lacy, certainly. The situation turned out to be a nightmare, though, as it exposed her to the world as the incompetent, desperate, biased, puppet of the Ramseys that she was.
Lacy’s arrest of Karr was completely without foundation. His so called “confession” was so full of holes it was pathetic, and this was the cornerstone of the arrest affidavit, amazing.
I will list one example (from the arrest affidavit) below, which I have posted before:
Karr added he placed underwear or "knickers" onto JonBenet that he brought with him. The underwear brought by Karr was several sizes too large for JonBenet.”
http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf

If this isn’t a red flag that this guy is lying, I don’t know what is. I will spare you a replay of a full discussion of the oversized Bloomies, but there is no doubt, whatsoever, that the panties that JBR was found in were panties that were purchased by Patsy Ramsey, and not brought into the home by an outside party.
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start with what - I will make it very simple for you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you in possession of or what do you know about the underwear that your daughter was wearing at the time she was found murdered?
A. I have heard that she had on a pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.
Q. The underwear that she was wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you know where they come from as far as what store?
A. Bloomingdale’s in New York.
Q. Who purchased those?
A. I did.
Q. Do you recall when you purchased them?
A. It was, I think, November of '96.
…
Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you understand the reason we are asking this, we want to make sure that this intruder did not bring these panties with him, this was something –
A. Right.
Q. - that was in the house.
A. Yes.
Q. And we are clear that, as far as you know, that is something that was in this house?
A. Yes.
Q. -- that belonged to your daughter, these panties?
A. Correct.
Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000

So remind me again, why was this guy arrested???
The reasons for the BPD keeping the Ramseys under the "umbrella of suspicion," (to use Beckner-speak,) and being dismissive of the DNA evidence are numerous.
With respect to the way that the BPD used DNA in their investigation of suspects in general, Beckner commented on the process in an affidavit. The DNA evidence was not regarded as a means, in and of itself, to exclude a suspect. Steve Thomas echoed that view:

And we're looking for things that corroborate other evidence. And if you have somebody, for instance, whether it's this case or another case, that you have got some evidence that you can put them at the scene and now you have a handwriting expert that says, yeah, there's some similarities there, that's corroborating evidence. That's building that person up as a stronger suspect in the case. If you have -- if you run down these leads and you have no evidence that pans out in any of these other areas, fingerprints, hair, DNA, whatever.
Q Witnesses, alibi?
A Witnesses, alibis, and the handwriting comes back negative, well, that's corroborating why nothing else is lining up as well. So it's you can't look at it in a vacuum.
Q The handwriting is not -- would not be looked at in a vacuum to determine the ultimate issue of whether someone was believed to be involved or not involved in the case. You have to look at, as you say, all of the evidence; is that right?
A That's correct.
Deposition of Mark Beckner, Wolf v Ramsey, 2001

Also…

A. There was a huge controversy about the DNA.
Q. So it was not in and of itself viewed as a forensic piece of evidence that eliminated anyone, was it?
A. Correct.
Deposition of Steve Thomas, Wolf v Ramsey, 2001

The Karr situation is profoundly different, and DNA evidence can be used to exclude him and expose him as a liar.
One of the problems I have with this is that it was simply not necessary to go that far (literally and figuratively) to eliminate him. That being said, let’s play along with Lacy.
Mary Lacy: So when you say “was it the DNA, the lynchpin? It was based on his story. The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all…there’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else. But the way he (Karr) told the story, it had to be his and it’s not. So once that came back as not a match, he is not the killer.
Mary Lacy Press Conference Regarding John Mark Karr - 8/29/06

In Karr’s arrest affidavit (see reference/source above) we find that he made certain claims in his “confession,” and amongst those claims we find that he would have deposited bodily fluid and had considerable ungloved contact with JonBenet. So as Lacy said, the way Karr told the story the DNA would have to be his and his alone. There is simply no way that Karr’s DNA profile would not have been found if he did what he claimed. Not only were the bloodstains from JonBenet’s panties tested, multiple swabs were taken from the pelvic region of JonBenet.
Where is Karr’s DNA?
It’s not there because he was not there. Being there in imagination only doesn’t count.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...d/johnkarr.pdf

Had Lacy simply waited, rather than “arrest first,” “investigate later” because the exoneration of the Ramseys couldn’t wait a moment longer, she would have been told the following by the BPD who she asked for help after the fact.
Beckner said police investigators have proven that Karr was not in Boulder the day JonBenet was killed, and there’s “not a shred of evidence” he was involved.
By Heath Urie, Daily Ccamera, December 27, 2008

Yes, the BPD was not involved in the initial “investigation” (LOL) and arrest of Karr.
The responsibility lies with Lacy and her investigators.
Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy has asked the Boulder Police Department to assist with additional investigation that must yet be completed. Police Chief Mark Beckner has agreed to assist in any way possible.
"We are cautiously optimistic with this development in the case and will certainly help as requested," stated Chief Beckner. "We know that there are still many questions that need to be answered and we are ready to assist in finding those answers
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9695653/detail.html

Undoubtedly, Lacy was desperately hoping that the BPD would be able to place Karr in Boulder on the night in question, in which case I’m certain she wouldn't have hesitated to throw the DNA, and anything else that stood in her way, under the bus.

cynic,
Incisive analysis and unquestionable rebuttal. With the passage of time it looks very much like Lacy was simply a puppet. She was doing and saying stuff that was refutable.

One wonders if its not the crime that will break the case open but the cover up?


.