Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[UKGuy]

:moo:I post on many other cases here, but the JBR case has long since left the realm of my thinking. I must say for 15 years this case has been dissected, written about numerous times, Patsy Ramsey is no longer here, and the ineptness of Boulder Law Enforcement has been crucified.

I dare say there has been more attention to this case, even 15 years later. My theory is "It is what it is" a beautiful young child was murdered in her own home by someone yet to be identified. This may be one of those cases we never have answers for. However I truly believe if the family was involved in any way someone somehow would have slipped up and said something to someone in these past 15 years. Since there has been no evidence this has happened I chose to believe they are NOT responsible in any part with Jonbenet's death.
Maybe one day someone will confess, and they will have the evidence for an arrest. Until then how can anyone believe the Ramsey's are to blame when they have been under the microscope from day one. Surely by now they would of been imprisoned .

There are so many children who have disappeared and could benefit from the talent here at WS, this just seems like time that could be put to better use in finding some of these other children who have recently been abducted or murdered.
....and that is my take on the matter---JMO<JMO<JMO:moo:

R.U.Kidding!

Since there has been no evidence this has happened I chose to believe they are NOT responsible in any part with Jonbenet's death.

What a name, no I am laughing, LOL. Absence of evidence is not absence of proof, read my lips. You can choose anything, absolutely anything, you can also believe anything, absolutely anything. Shirley MacLaine believes in reincarnation as does the Dalai Lama, both people wish to suggest they have appeared on this planet before?

Having a belief does not confer any validity upon the holder. Once upon a time the keeping and onwership of slaves was a belief based on the natural supramacy of one race over another

Until then how can anyone believe the Ramsey's are to blame

Well accepting your own reasoning, e.g. by belief one of the R's is guilty!


.

 

[DeeDee249]

:moo:I post on many other cases here, but the JBR case has long since left the realm of my thinking. I must say for 15 years this case has been dissected, written about numerous times, Patsy Ramsey is no longer here, and the ineptness of Boulder Law Enforcement has been crucified.

I dare say there has been more attention to this case, even 15 years later. My theory is "It is what it is" a beautiful young child was murdered in her own home by someone yet to be identified. This may be one of those cases we never have answers for. However I truly believe if the family was involved in any way someone somehow would have slipped up and said something to someone in these past 15 years. Since there has been no evidence this has happened I chose to believe they are NOT responsible in any part with Jonbenet's death.
Maybe one day someone will confess, and they will have the evidence for an arrest. Until then how can anyone believe the Ramsey's are to blame when they have been under the microscope from day one. Surely by now they would of been imprisoned .

There are so many children who have disappeared and could benefit from the talent here at WS, this just seems like time that could be put to better use in finding some of these other children who have recently been abducted or murdered.
....and that is my take on the matter---JMO<JMO<JMO:moo:

The Rs WOULD have been imprisoned. The police wanted to arrest them the day JR "found" his daughter's body. The FBI knew even before her body was found that the parents were involved and told the police that morning "You're going to be finding her body". They were right.
It was the DA who caved in to the defense lawyers (who were his personal friends) and pressure from the Rs powerful ties to the governor's office. There was no way that DA was going to allow an arrest. He had no intentions of prosecuting them. Why? They KNEW who had done it. And the arrest wasn't going to happen. The End.

"It is what it is" certainly does apply here, though. What exactly is it? Well....it is the unintentional death of a child that occurred during a sexual assault by a family member that was covered up to look like an kidnapping (except she wasn't). The ransom note, three pages long, was clearly in Patsy's handwriting- all you have to do is look at the exemplars to see that.
That's what it is.

What it ALSO is ...is one of the most blatant cases of an obstruction of justice by a DA's office that I have seen. Mix that in with the incompetence of the police and you can clearly see WHY the Rs were never arrested. "By now" is meaningless. The passing years have nothing to do with it because nothing has changed. Patsy is still dead, BR will forever be untouchable because of his age. So two out of the three family members present in the house when she was killed are not prosecutable. And the third had Lockheed Martin working behind the scenes on his behalf.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

:moo:I post on many other cases here, but the JBR case has long since left the realm of my thinking. I must say for 15 years this case has been dissected, written about numerous times, Patsy Ramsey is no longer here, and the ineptness of Boulder Law Enforcement has been crucified.

I dare say there has been more attention to this case, even 15 years later. My theory is "It is what it is" a beautiful young child was murdered in her own home by someone yet to be identified. This may be one of those cases we never have answers for. However I truly believe if the family was involved in any way someone somehow would have slipped up and said something to someone in these past 15 years. Since there has been no evidence this has happened I chose to believe they are NOT responsible in any part with Jonbenet's death.
Maybe one day someone will confess, and they will have the evidence for an arrest. Until then how can anyone believe the Ramsey's are to blame when they have been under the microscope from day one. Surely by now they would of been imprisoned .

There are so many children who have disappeared and could benefit from the talent here at WS, this just seems like time that could be put to better use in finding some of these other children who have recently been abducted or murdered.
....and that is my take on the matter---JMO<JMO<JMO:moo:

I hope you post that paragraph over at the Caylee Anthony forum. :twocents:

1. Most posters on the JBR forum also post in other forums.

2. Recently abducted or murdered children always have loads of people talking about their cases.

3. It's the older cases that are inactive. And it's not just the JBR posters who are "ignoring" those cases. Most cases go inactive because there is not enough information about them. This case doesn't have that problem.

4. I think it bothers you that people still remember JonBenet, still talk about her, while other cases go inactive after a few months. But your solution of letting JonBenet be forgotten is not logical. I made two new topics in the Baby Lisa forum to try to keep discussion going, and they have barely received any replies. Where are the hundreds of members who talked about Lisa in October?

5. Do you also have a problem with people talking about Jack the Ripper and The Black Dahlia, two cases where the killer is long dead? Or what about the Manson murders and the Lindbergh baby, where they've been solved? Or Casey or OJ, where they were acquitted? Or how about JFK; no one will ever know the truth there. These cases---"crime phenomenons"---are always going to have people discussing them.

6. If I were you, I would be more annoyed at all the airtime the national media gave John Ramsey to promote his book. We are not going to find a missing child sitting at our computers. But national media coverage could really break a case wide open.

7. I am surprised that you are IDI. It seems that if you thought an intruder was involved, you would think there's still a chance it could get solved. It just seems more likely that RDI's would move on quicker due to feeling like justice is completely impossible.

It's unfortunate that most posters "leave" a case as soon as it leaves the news. THAT is the problem. Not that people still talk about JonBenet. If you want to "blame" anyone for JonBenet's forum being active 15 years later, and other forums going inactive after 3 months, blame the media.

(BTW, I'm not "pissed" or anything if the tone or length of my post comes across that way. I just have a lot of opinions. )

 

[azwriter]

:moo:I post on many other cases here, but the JBR case has long since left the realm of my thinking. I must say for 15 years this case has been dissected, written about numerous times, Patsy Ramsey is no longer here, and the ineptness of Boulder Law Enforcement has been crucified.

I dare say there has been more attention to this case, even 15 years later. My theory is "It is what it is" a beautiful young child was murdered in her own home by someone yet to be identified. This may be one of those cases we never have answers for. However I truly believe if the family was involved in any way someone somehow would have slipped up and said something to someone in these past 15 years. Since there has been no evidence this has happened I chose to believe they are NOT responsible in any part with Jonbenet's death.
Maybe one day someone will confess, and they will have the evidence for an arrest. Until then how can anyone believe the Ramsey's are to blame when they have been under the microscope from day one. Surely by now they would of been imprisoned .

There are so many children who have disappeared and could benefit from the talent here at WS, this just seems like time that could be put to better use in finding some of these other children who have recently been abducted or murdered.
....and that is my take on the matter---JMO<JMO<JMO:moo:

R.U. Kidding, you are correct the Ramseys have been under the microscope from day one, unfortunatly, not entirely under the eyes or microscope that could help solve this case. The Boulder officials didn't spend the time and trouble to investigate this case. From the very first moment that the 911 call was answered, there were many mistakes in handling this case in the home. The task of solving JonBenet's death has always had conflict among the cops, the detectives and the DA's office. No one seemed to be working toward the same goal.
You're right, it is a shame that there are so many child murder cases that should be looked into. But, this case, maybe because of its massive press coverage or unusual circumstances, has drawn heavy sleuthing involvement from the public. Just because there is a thread here on this tragedy, doesn't mean those posting haven't been lending their energy to other cases too.
jm Opinion.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

:what:WOW!!! What just happened??

I simply stated MOO and I believe I am entitled to that. Surely I hit a Nerve with some of you, and apologize for not sharing your "OPINIONS", but are some of you actually lecturing me?

UK Guy said it best "You can believe anything, absolutely anything", thank you I "absolutely" agree, so why not leave it there. "Absence of evidence is not absence of proof", huh?:waitasec: Now that is something I must think about.

DeeDee249, I am inclined to believe the miscarriage of justice , cover-up, and corruption, you so adamantly profess. Question, if after 15 years we are no further in proving all of this criminality how much longer do you think it will take to bring these agencies to justice. Whom is actually doing anything about this, or do we just talk about it.

.........and Eileenhawkeye--no need to explain how many opinions you have, that is abundantly clear.
You may want to rethink Telling me:

It bothers me that people still remember JonBenet and still talk about her-REALLY?

My solution is to allow JonBenet to be forgotten and that is Not logical--REALLY?

That I have a problem with the following cases; Jack the Ripper, the Black Dahlia, Manson Murders, Lindenberg , Casey Athony and O.J. Simpson, and oh, even JFK --for allowing them to be "still" be discussed after all these years---as if I had the power to allow or disallow their discussion. Yikes!! I am really at a loss.

I gave my opinion. It was noted as such. Passing judgement on that opinion is not necessary. IT is what it is, and in all fairness I did not need to be lectured about my beliefs and in no way would I ever demean the members of Websleuths by asserting they were remiss in their dedication to the cause of victim rights. AGAIN MOO!!

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

The Rs WOULD have been imprisoned. The police wanted to arrest them the day JR "found" his daughter's body. The FBI knew even before her body was found that the parents were involved and told the police that morning "You're going to be finding her body". They were right.
It was the DA who caved in to the defense lawyers (who were his personal friends) and pressure from the Rs powerful ties to the governor's office. There was no way that DA was going to allow an arrest. He had no intentions of prosecuting them. Why? They KNEW who had done it. And the arrest wasn't going to happen. The End.

"It is what it is" certainly does apply here, though. What exactly is it? Well....it is the unintentional death of a child that occurred during a sexual assault by a family member that was covered up to look like an kidnapping (except she wasn't). The ransom note, three pages long, was clearly in Patsy's handwriting- all you have to do is look at the exemplars to see that.
That's what it is.

What it ALSO is ...is one of the most blatant cases of an obstruction of justice by a DA's office that I have seen. Mix that in with the incompetence of the police and you can clearly see WHY the Rs were never arrested. "By now" is meaningless. The passing years have nothing to do with it because nothing has changed. Patsy is still dead, BR will forever be untouchable because of his age. So two out of the three family members present in the house when she was killed are not prosecutable. And the third had Lockheed Martin working behind the scenes on his behalf.

I wonder how big of a sigh of relief John gave when Pasty died? Unless Pasty gave a deathbed confession to someone, he knows he's home free.

If John had died before Pasty, I wonder if she would of pointed the finger and blamed John?

Pasty did love drama and the cameras.

 

[DeeDee249]

:what:WOW!!! What just happened??

DeeDee249, I am inclined to believe the miscarriage of justice , cover-up, and corruption, you so adamantly profess. Question, if after 15 years we are no further in proving all of this criminality how much longer do you think it will take to bring these agencies to justice. Whom is actually doing anything about this, or do we just talk about it.

!

I think those agencies (i.e. whoever was DA in 1996, and the previously mentioned LE) will NEVER be brought to justice. No one is doing anything about it, although the "new " DA (really the same as the "old" DA) has made some mumblings about looking at the case with "fresh eyes", those eyes are still shaded by the same blinders that hindered the "old" investigation.
Boulder does not want this case solved and it does not want it looked at too closely. It's no big conspiracy, really. Doesn't loom too large in the world's legend. A simple case of well-connected people who found themselves in the middle of a horrific event. They had the means to deflect blame from themselves and they did. None of them has a guilty conscience, I assure you. The DA sleeps well at night, as does his predecessor. So do their lawyers and so does the family. Each day they breathe a collective "whew" that another day went by without the truth being known, and after so many years I am sure they feel it never will be.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I wonder how big of a sigh of relief John gave when Pasty died? Unless Pasty gave a deathbed confession to someone, he knows he's home free.

If John had died before Pasty, I wonder if she would of pointed the finger and blamed John?

Pasty did love drama and the cameras.

He is not home free, and never will be while Burke is still alive. The adult Burke needs to talk.

Further, as if Patsy Perfect would EVER admit to being married to a child molester/murderer! Not on her watch! She would just keep lying...and digging her own grave...:liar:

 

[SapphireSteel]

:moo:I post on many other cases here, but the JBR case has long since left the realm of my thinking. I must say for 15 years this case has been dissected, written about numerous times, Patsy Ramsey is no longer here, and the ineptness of Boulder Law Enforcement has been crucified.

I dare say there has been more attention to this case, even 15 years later. My theory is "It is what it is" a beautiful young child was murdered in her own home by someone yet to be identified. This may be one of those cases we never have answers for. However I truly believe if the family was involved in any way someone somehow would have slipped up and said something to someone in these past 15 years. Since there has been no evidence this has happened I chose to believe they are NOT responsible in any part with Jonbenet's death.
Maybe one day someone will confess, and they will have the evidence for an arrest. Until then how can anyone believe the Ramsey's are to blame when they have been under the microscope from day one. Surely by now they would of been imprisoned .

There are so many children who have disappeared and could benefit from the talent here at WS, this just seems like time that could be put to better use in finding some of these other children who have recently been abducted or murdered.
....and that is my take on the matter---JMO<JMO<JMO:moo:

If they were black and poor, they would've been in jail so damn fast your head would spin.

They weren't. They lawyered up and a very high level conspiracy began.

 

[azwriter]

:what:WOW!!! What just happened??

I simply stated MOO and I believe I am entitled to that. Surely I hit a Nerve with some of you, and apologize for not sharing your "OPINIONS", but are some of you actually lecturing me?

UK Guy said it best "You can believe anything, absolutely anything", thank you I "absolutely" agree, so why not leave it there. "Absence of evidence is not absence of proof", huh?:waitasec: Now that is something I must think about.

DeeDee249, I am inclined to believe the miscarriage of justice , cover-up, and corruption, you so adamantly profess. Question, if after 15 years we are no further in proving all of this criminality how much longer do you think it will take to bring these agencies to justice. Whom is actually doing anything about this, or do we just talk about it.

Lectured? Really? You think all who posted in answer to your post gave you a lecture? Really this is how the forum works. You post and others give their opinion of your post, or try to make a point they too have a right to make.

I'll go out on a limb and say I doubt any of those who posted, including myself, saw what you wrote as a lecture to them. But with your way of thinking, all posts that are written as an answer is a lecture.

I'm sorry Websleuth has not been a comfortable place for you.
.........and Eileenhawkeye--no need to explain how many opinions you have, that is abundantly clear.
You may want to rethink Telling me:

It bothers me that people still remember JonBenet and still talk about her-REALLY?

My solution is to allow JonBenet to be forgotten and that is Not logical--REALLY?

That I have a problem with the following cases; Jack the Ripper, the Black Dahlia, Manson Murders, Lindenberg , Casey Athony and O.J. Simpson, and oh, even JFK --for allowing them to be "still" be discussed after all these years---as if I had the power to allow or disallow their discussion. Yikes!! I am really at a loss.

I gave my opinion. It was noted as such. Passing judgement on that opinion is not necessary. IT is what it is, and in all fairness I did not need to be lectured about my beliefs and in no way would I ever demean the members of Websleuths by asserting they were remiss in their dedication to the cause of victim rights. AGAIN MOO!!

Lectured? Really? You think all who posted in answer to your post gave you a lecture? Really this is how the forum works. You post and others give their opinion of your post, or try to make a point they too have a right to make.

I'll go out on a limb and say I doubt any of those who posted, including myself, saw what you wrote as a lecture to them. But with your way of thinking, all posts that are written as an answer or opinion is a lecture.

I'm sorry Websleuth has not been a comfortable place for you.
I for one do not think I have given you a lecture or a put down. My post was simply a method to express my opinion, just as you did with your post.
jmo.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Lectured? Really? You think all who posted in answer to your post gave you a lecture? Really this is how the forum works. You post and others give their opinion of your post, or try to make a point they too have a right to make.

I'll go out on a limb and say I doubt any of those who posted, including myself, saw what you wrote as a lecture to them. But with your way of thinking, all posts that are written as an answer or opinion is a lecture.

I'm sorry Websleuth has not been a comfortable place for you.
I for one do not think I have given you a lecture or a put down. My post was simply a method to express my opinion, just as you did with your post.
jmo.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to lecture either. I simply explained why there's no correlation between people still talking about JonBenet, and other cases being inactive. I know this case isn't going to be solved, but I like discussing it. There are many other forums I check everyday, but most cases are either moving so fast that it's hard to keep up, or people are just waiting around for the next development. Those are like the two "stages" of every case here.

 

[Chrishope]

:moo:I post on many other cases here, but the JBR case has long since left the realm of my thinking. I must say for 15 years this case has been dissected, written about numerous times, Patsy Ramsey is no longer here, and the ineptness of Boulder Law Enforcement has been crucified.

I dare say there has been more attention to this case, even 15 years later. My theory is "It is what it is" a beautiful young child was murdered in her own home by someone yet to be identified. This may be one of those cases we never have answers for. However I truly believe if the family was involved in any way someone somehow would have slipped up and said something to someone in these past 15 years. Since there has been no evidence this has happened I chose to believe they are NOT responsible in any part with Jonbenet's death.
Maybe one day someone will confess, and they will have the evidence for an arrest. Until then how can anyone believe the Ramsey's are to blame when they have been under the microscope from day one. Surely by now they would of been imprisoned .

There are so many children who have disappeared and could benefit from the talent here at WS, this just seems like time that could be put to better use in finding some of these other children who have recently been abducted or murdered.
....and that is my take on the matter---JMO<JMO<JMO:moo:

I'm not sure that it's correct to say the Rs have been under the microscope for 15 years. I'd say at most they were under the microscope from 26 Dec 96 to 13 Oct 98. The latter date being when the DA announced that no indictments were issued by the Grand Jury. Certainly they've been under no microscope since then.

It's debatable whether they were under the microscope for very long at all.

One thing that has been consistently underestimated is that the Rs had excellent legal advice. Say what you like about conspiracy, but really a big part of the reason they aren't in prison is that they simply exercised all of their rights. One does not have to talk to the police -even if they arrest you. (And of course, no arrests were made) There really isn't a good case against them, because reasonable doubt is a pretty high standard. There exists reasonable doubt about why fibers where in certain places, and why objects in the house were used rather than objects brought in by the "intruder", and so on with most of the evidence. There exists reasonable doubt in the form of touch DNA. I know my fellow RDIs are going to pipe up and explain all the reasons that the DNA is not that of the killer (and I think it probably doesn't belong to the killer) but if we (RDIs) are honest, the touch DNA does provide reasonable doubt.

The only other case I follow is the murder of Julia Wallace in 1931. Both that case, and Jonebent's case are examples of "perfect murders". The evidence cuts both ways and neither case is likely to ever be solved.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I'm not sure that it's correct to say the Rs have been under the microscope for 15 years. I'd say at most they were under the microscope from 26 Dec 96 to 13 Oct 98. The latter date being when the DA announced that no indictments were issued by the Grand Jury. Certainly they've been under no microscope since then.

It's debatable whether they were under the microscope for very long at all.

One thing that has been consistently underestimated is that the Rs had excellent legal advice. Say what you like about conspiracy, but really a big part of the reason they aren't in prison is that they simply exercised all of their rights. One does not have to talk to the police -even if they arrest you. (And of course, no arrests were made) There really isn't a good case against them, because reasonable doubt is a pretty high standard. There exists reasonable doubt about why fibers where in certain places, and why objects in the house were used rather than objects brought in by the "intruder", and so on with most of the evidence. There exists reasonable doubt in the form of touch DNA. I know my fellow RDIs are going to pipe up and explain all the reasons that the DNA is not that of the killer (and I think it probably doesn't belong to the killer) but if we (RDIs) are honest, the touch DNA does provide reasonable doubt.

The only other case I follow is the murder of Julia Wallace in 1931. Both that case, and Jonebent's case are examples of "perfect murders". The evidence cuts both ways and neither case is likely to ever be solved.

October 13, 1999

If Patsy had been indicted, and the DNA was presented at trial by her defense, I think it's possible that it could've gotten her acquitted. We are always told about how significant DNA is, and I think it would be hard for many to grasp that unknown male DNA can be on a murder victim, but not from her killer. I think the only way the prosecution could save their case would be if they matched the DNA and explained why there's no way that the DNA identifier could be the killer.

I also think that all the shady stuff that happened during the murder investigation would be nothing compared to all the shady stuff that would've happened during a trial.

 

[Chrishope]

October 13, 1999

If Patsy had been indicted, and the DNA was presented at trial by her defense, I think it's possible that it could've gotten her acquitted. We are always told about how significant DNA is, and I think it would be hard for many to grasp that unknown male DNA can be on a murder victim, but not from her killer. I think the only way the prosecution could save their case would be if they matched the DNA and explained why there's no way that the DNA identifier could be the killer.

I also think that all the shady stuff that happened during the murder investigation would be nothing compared to all the shady stuff that would've happened during a trial.

Thank you for the correction.

Yes, I agree, the DNA would probably have gotten her acquitted. DNA is not like fingerprints, where something must be touched to leave the trace. But people think it's like that.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Thank you for the correction.

Yes, I agree, the DNA would probably have gotten her acquitted. DNA is not like fingerprints, where something must be touched to leave the trace. But people think it's like that.

The touch DNA would not have got her acquitted.

Touch DNA occurs everywhere, and the presence at a scene is not considered proof of anything - except to Mary Lacey that is.

That woman has done the biggest knowlegable disservice to justice that I have ever seen. Touch DNA is "junk science" and should NEVER have been used to acquit.


But it is the use of DNA profiling that raises the greatest public concern in regard to its accuracy, ethical use and impact on privacy...There are hints that the use of DNA evidence might be reined in, albeit temporarily. Some experts believe that it is now time to take stock and ensure that DNA profiling meets the fundamental rule for evidence used to convict criminals—that it is correct beyond all reasonable doubt—before further extending its use. In fact, the field faces a test case later this year when the Australian High Court hears the appeal of Benjamin Forbes against his conviction for sexual assault, which was based on DNA evidence as the victim was unable to identify her attacker. The appeal was inspired partly by an earlier Australian case, when a 22-year-old man was eventually freed in December 2009. It turned out that he had been wrongly convicted of rape in 2006 based on DNA evidence that turned out to be seriously flawed. This led Forbes' council to argue that conviction based on DNA evidence alone was unsafe for various reasons, such as incorrect procedures being followed or the prospect that future improvements in technology would shed a different light on it.


The Forbes appeal coincided with a paper published by the Australian Institute of Criminology, which stated that DNA evidence made convictions 33 times more likely in sexual assault cases (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010). The paper also found that jurors were generally more likely to convict based on DNA evidence even though they often did not understand the science involved. The authors even suggested that the safety of these verdicts might be compromised by widespread misconceptions about the infallibility of DNA evidence by jurors who are “overawed by the scientific garb in which the evidence is presented and attach greater weight to it than it is capable of bearing.” If successful, Forbes' appeal could have a profound impact on the use of DNA evidence in court if jurors lose confidence in its infallibility..


If successful, Forbes' appeal could have a profound impact on the use of DNA evidence in court if jurors lose confidence in its infallibility
The controversy has arisen partly out of confusion between the use of DNA profiling as an investigative tool and as evidence in court. Its power as an investigative tool continues to increase, but its reliability as evidence will always vary depending on the exact nature of the DNA profile obtained and the state of the sample from which it was derived. The very fact that it is possible to obtain DNA profiles from degraded samples means that there are borderline cases in which the accuracy of DNA profiles is doubtful.

Having more loci increases the statistical power of DNA matching as a tool and decreases the chance of suspects being falsely identified. But other factors play a role too, notably the state of the sample. The older and more degraded the biological material is, the less loci can be amplified and the higher the risk of laboratory error. In such cases, the actual probability of a match between the partial DNA profile and an entry in a DNA database is a matter of intelligent guesswork; in fact this is the reason why the Forbes case was appealed.
There is also considerable risk arising from basic laboratory errors, as the hunt for the elusive ‘phantom of Heilbronn' demonstrated. For years, German, French and Austrian police investigators pursued a female suspect who, according to DNA evidence, had committed dozens of crimes and several murders over the course of 14 years including shooting two police officers in Heilbronn in 2007. Eventually, however, they discovered that the DNA profile retrieved from 40 crime scenes in three countries actually came from an employee of the Austrian company that produced the swabs police used to take samples at the crime scenes.

source - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892330/

Clearly, the chain of evidence for JBR is pretty much shot, as she laid undiscovered for hours then was moved, carried, touched by several people once found. The scene was not secured, and PR's sister was allowed in to remove items from the home and do God knows what else unmonitored. The Colorado "justice" system of the time was inept, out of their depth, and completely blindsided by this crime. Mary Lacey compounds the embarrasment and confusion by claiming an exoneration that is far from certain in the eyes of any DNA expert.

She needs to hang her head in shame. She has ensured this case will likely never be solved, which was part of the plan all along. No one wants it solved, as too many heads will roll.:banghead: MOO.

 

[Chrishope]

The touch DNA would not have got her acquitted.

Touch DNA occurs everywhere, and the presence at a scene is not considered proof of anything - except to Mary Lacey that is.

That woman has done the biggest knowlegable disservice to justice that I have ever seen. Touch DNA is "junk science" and should NEVER have been used to acquit.


But it is the use of DNA profiling that raises the greatest public concern in regard to its accuracy, ethical use and impact on privacy...There are hints that the use of DNA evidence might be reined in, albeit temporarily. Some experts believe that it is now time to take stock and ensure that DNA profiling meets the fundamental rule for evidence used to convict criminals&#8212;that it is correct beyond all reasonable doubt&#8212;before further extending its use. In fact, the field faces a test case later this year when the Australian High Court hears the appeal of Benjamin Forbes against his conviction for sexual assault, which was based on DNA evidence as the victim was unable to identify her attacker. The appeal was inspired partly by an earlier Australian case, when a 22-year-old man was eventually freed in December 2009. It turned out that he had been wrongly convicted of rape in 2006 based on DNA evidence that turned out to be seriously flawed. This led Forbes' council to argue that conviction based on DNA evidence alone was unsafe for various reasons, such as incorrect procedures being followed or the prospect that future improvements in technology would shed a different light on it.


The Forbes appeal coincided with a paper published by the Australian Institute of Criminology, which stated that DNA evidence made convictions 33 times more likely in sexual assault cases (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010). The paper also found that jurors were generally more likely to convict based on DNA evidence even though they often did not understand the science involved. The authors even suggested that the safety of these verdicts might be compromised by widespread misconceptions about the infallibility of DNA evidence by jurors who are &#8220;overawed by the scientific garb in which the evidence is presented and attach greater weight to it than it is capable of bearing.&#8221; If successful, Forbes' appeal could have a profound impact on the use of DNA evidence in court if jurors lose confidence in its infallibility..


If successful, Forbes' appeal could have a profound impact on the use of DNA evidence in court if jurors lose confidence in its infallibility
The controversy has arisen partly out of confusion between the use of DNA profiling as an investigative tool and as evidence in court. Its power as an investigative tool continues to increase, but its reliability as evidence will always vary depending on the exact nature of the DNA profile obtained and the state of the sample from which it was derived. The very fact that it is possible to obtain DNA profiles from degraded samples means that there are borderline cases in which the accuracy of DNA profiles is doubtful.

Having more loci increases the statistical power of DNA matching as a tool and decreases the chance of suspects being falsely identified. But other factors play a role too, notably the state of the sample. The older and more degraded the biological material is, the less loci can be amplified and the higher the risk of laboratory error. In such cases, the actual probability of a match between the partial DNA profile and an entry in a DNA database is a matter of intelligent guesswork; in fact this is the reason why the Forbes case was appealed.
There is also considerable risk arising from basic laboratory errors, as the hunt for the elusive &#8216;phantom of Heilbronn' demonstrated. For years, German, French and Austrian police investigators pursued a female suspect who, according to DNA evidence, had committed dozens of crimes and several murders over the course of 14 years including shooting two police officers in Heilbronn in 2007. Eventually, however, they discovered that the DNA profile retrieved from 40 crime scenes in three countries actually came from an employee of the Austrian company that produced the swabs police used to take samples at the crime scenes.

source - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892330/

Clearly, the chain of evidence for JBR is pretty much shot, as she laid undiscovered for hours then was moved, carried, touched by several people once found. The scene was not secured, and PR's sister was allowed in to remove items from the home and do God knows what else unmonitored. The Colorado "justice" system of the time was inept, out of their depth, and completely blindsided by this crime. Mary Lacey compounds the embarrasment and confusion by claiming an exoneration that is far from certain in the eyes of any DNA expert.

She needs to hang her head in shame. She has ensured this case will likely never be solved, which was part of the plan all along. No one wants it solved, as too many heads will roll.:banghead: MOO.

Well I suppose you're right, in so far as there must be a trial to acquit, and there would have been no trial with the touch DNA because it would not have added anything that would make the GJ hand down an indictment.

I think it's pretty certain that had there been a trail, the defense team would have tried to introduce the touch DNA, (had it been possible at the time of trial) and I think it's likely they'd have succeeded. Like it or not, most jurors are going to look at the touch DNA as reasonable doubt as to the R's guilt.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Excuse me AZWriter, somehow you must have thought my post was addressed to you. I assure you it wasn't. I do know how Websleuths works and have great respect for it's members. Also I never said "all" those responding to my post were lecturing me. However when " EIleenhawkeye" proceeds to Tell me what I think and believe, I get a little testy. Sorry, it's just a quirky thing with me. Perhaps I should have addressed my comment ONLY to her. My Mistake.

This thread was listed as "Do you believe the Ramsey's were guilty", and my post was my belief. I never attacked any other posters POV. You can disagree with me all you want, just do not TELL me why I feel that way--Please just ask me. Fair?

With all this to-and-fro I personally don't have a clue if you support the Ramseys or not?

If anyone does indeed still support the intruder theory, please answer me one question -

Why were there no footprints in the snow?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Well I suppose you're right, in so far as there must be a trial to acquit, and there would have been no trial with the touch DNA because it would not have added anything that would make the GJ hand down an indictment.

I think it's pretty certain that had there been a trail, the defense team would have tried to introduce the touch DNA, (had it been possible at the time of trial) and I think it's likely they'd have succeeded. Like it or not, most jurors are going to look at the touch DNA as reasonable doubt as to the R's guilt.

Unfortunately this statement reflects the erronous belief of the public that Touch DNA is foolproof.

There is an enormous difference between touch DNA and DNA recovered from blood, semen, or hair. The touch DNA would have been used by the defence, certainly, but their own experts would be forced to also concede that it's presence at a crime scene (especially one that was so contaminated) is proof of exactly NOTHING, without other circumstantial evidence.

IMO there is MOUNTAINS of circumstantial evidence. If this had occured today, the Ramseys would have been convicted, touch DNA or not. Our understanding of Munchausen by Proxy and child sexual abuse has increased one hundred fold since the 90's.

It is my opinion that PR suffered Munchausen by Proxy.

 

[BOESP]

... Like it or not, most jurors are going to look at the touch DNA as reasonable doubt as to the R's guilt.

I disagree. Any prosecutor worth his salt would explain, in no uncertain terms, exactly why the touch DNA means nothing. It must be connected to a known contributor and there must be corroborative evidence proving that the contributor was the offender.

Then, after doing that, the other evidence such as the fiber evidence from John and Patsy must be accounted for and dismissed in an intelligent manner. Just saying the fibers were "transferred" won't get it. It is highly unlikely an Intruder picked up fibers from both John and Patsy from clothing consistent with those fibers and worn the night JonBenet was killed, not to mention that John's shirt fibers were found in JonBenet's underwear and Patsy's fibers were found entwined in the ligature.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I wish Mary Lacey could be charged with misleading the public or something.

Pity arse-covering is not illegal.