If your child were murdered

[cynic]

This isn't a murder case (although it's medical miracle that it isn't) and it's generally the most depressing, horrifying crime imaginable in many ways. I've been crying all morning about what the little ones suffered, the way the perps had been dragged up by their 'parents' and what this story tells us about welfare towns and people whose state-financed life consists of procreating for child benefits, neglecting and abusing those kids and basically watching vile movies while getting drunk and smoking cannabis. The other really awful part and the bit that is apposite to this thread is the judge talking about how guilty the parents of the victims feel about not protecting the boys better. WARNING: THIS IS VERY UPSETTING.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8473978.stm

That is an horrendous upbringing; it would have been preferable for them (the perps) to have been raised by wolves. The story is sad and tragic on all levels.

 

[Sophie]

That is an horrendous upbringing; it would have been preferable for them (the perps) to have been raised by wolves. The story is sad and tragic on all levels.

It is, Cynic. I flagged it up mostly for the poignancy of the victims' parents feeling so guilty when all they did was let a couple of lads out on Saturday morning with their bikes and their pocket money - just another layer of the debate about how parents react to violent crimes.

But, as you say, this story is just dreadful on so many levels. Soul-destroying.

 

[BBB167893]

It really preys on the mind and it speaks to everything that has gone wrong in this country since Margaret Thatcher decided that the creation of an unemployed underclass was a reasonable price to pay for low inflation and that there 'is no society.' Anyway, I know I've gone offtopic and I hope the mods will forgive me: I'm just so upset about this.

Careful, Sophie.

 

[Sophie]

There's a debate elsewhere about whether John's and Burke's vacation in Hawaii over Christmas was appropriate in view of the pretty limp attempt via The Fair Justice Foundation to attract attention for the JBR case and the inevitable observation that they can't possibly be as hard up as they like to claim. This may be just my BORG cynicism rearing its ugly head again, but doesn't the juxtaposition of pleas of poverty, the appeal via the FJF and the expensive vacation strike a really jarring note?

 

[cynic]

There's a debate elsewhere about whether John's and Burke's vacation in Hawaii over Christmas was appropriate in view of the pretty limp attempt via The Fair Justice Foundation to attract attention for the JBR case and the inevitable observation that they can't possibly be as hard up as they like to claim. This may be just my BORG cynicism rearing its ugly head again, but doesn't the juxtaposition of pleas of poverty, the appeal via the FJF and the expensive vacation strike a really jarring note?

Well, OJ cried poverty and “woe is me” after the civil court judgment against him, however, his income was $30,000/month from an NFL pension fund.
I’m sure John was in Hawaii looking for the real killer(s). Will he ever rest? What an inspiration to us all.

 

[cynic]

Larry Mason had witnessed many SIDS deaths and fatal accidents to children, but he had never once seen a father as callous as Ramsey appeared to be.
PMPT pg.22

 

[BBB167893]

Well, OJ cried poverty and “woe is me” after the civil court judgment against him, however, his income was $30,000/month from an NFL pension fund.
I’m sure John was in Hawaii looking for the real killer(s). Will he ever rest? What an inspiration to us all.

About 220 pages of inspiration, in my case.

 

[CathyR]

Cynic

Why don't you compare the Ramsey's to another couple who have lost a child of about the same age.

While Goldman's grief cannot accurately be described, it is obviously deep, it is different in quite a few ways.
1. Goldman never was never a suspect in his own sons murder. He wouldn't automatically be one, as his son is much older than JB, A second victim who has a well documented "intimate partner violence" history is also murdered at same time.
2. Nicole Simpson was primary target and a celebrity at that. He made sure people didn't "forget" his son, as he was murdered at the same hands at the same time. He did a good job too cause Media quit referring to the case as only the murder of Nicole Simpson. I am glad he did, his son should not be forgotten.
3. Because parents are suspects it affects the way they are reached out to by support groups. In many such organizations it is required that the police clear them before they aid anyone but the child and the police. Think about how agonizing that is to a truly innocent parent who has a missing child.It may change the way you behave because you know if you do anything police deem somewhat weird, they will be wasting even more time looking at you than looking for your child. The stress to a truly innocent parent must be terrible.

I know the Ramsey's thought kidnapping at first so comparing two cases where the circumstances are different puts the two subjects on two different planes of thought besides just the initial sameness that binds them, they both have children who were murdered.

Social, economic factors and education taken into account too. An educated person is going to react differently than an uneducated one does. Their personalities have to be taken into account some people do get angrier than others, some people react to situations differently.

I can't really think of ANY case similar to this one to compare it to let alone take into account all those other factors to try and get a fair comparison.

The Ramsey's or even the general public haven't had a formal charge, a judge or jury trial so there is no outrage over injustice that Goldman has.

We pick apart people's behavior based on what we think we, or the scope of our friends and family, might do when we might face a similar situation so I would love to be able to compare the Ramsey's to another case but I would prefer it to be of similar nature.

Also what is considered NORMAL behavior for parents and friends when a child is supposed to be kidnapped, most missing cases are kidnappings.
I also ask then what would be normal behavior when a child is found murdered in close proximity to place of abduction.

I can think of polar opposites in my impression of parents in the media.
1. Mark Klaas- angry, outraged, motivated, initial impression is he is so angry at cops cause his daughter might have been saved if they hadn't wasted time looking at him.
2. Elizabeth Shorts dad -can't even remember this mans first name, Religious- Knew he would be praying not only for his daughters return but for the forgiveness of the persons soul that took her. Calm,family man,at the edge of his ability to cope.

Now these statements might not be true about these two men but it was my initial impression of the two men that I am referring too only. The subconscious judgment I made about them based not only what they said but the way I heard it, saw it, and then processed the information making a "judgment call".
Both had very high media coverage of their daughters cases but both men reacted and gave me different impressions despite the fact that they were both innocent. Innocent people can react differently just like guilty people can react differently.

What baseline of behavior do we judge a suspect

 

[joeskidbeck]

The Ramsey's reactions have nothing in common with other families whose little girls were murdered. I'm talking about families that were comparable financially and educationally. The Van Dams and Erin Runnion come to mind immediately. These people were devastated and would have done anything to make sure the killers of their daughters were found and paid dearly for what they did. The Ramsey's only concern was keeping themselves out of jail.

 

[cynic]

Why don't you compare the Ramsey's to another couple who have lost a child of about the same age.

While Goldman's grief cannot accurately be described, it is obviously deep, it is different in quite a few ways.
1. Goldman never was never a suspect in his own sons murder. He wouldn't automatically be one, as his son is much older than JB, A second victim who has a well documented "intimate partner violence" history is also murdered at same time.
2. Nicole Simpson was primary target and a celebrity at that. He made sure people didn't "forget" his son, as he was murdered at the same hands at the same time. He did a good job too cause Media quit referring to the case as only the murder of Nicole Simpson. I am glad he did, his son should not be forgotten.
3. Because parents are suspects it affects the way they are reached out to by support groups. In many such organizations it is required that the police clear them before they aid anyone but the child and the police. Think about how agonizing that is to a truly innocent parent who has a missing child.It may change the way you behave because you know if you do anything police deem somewhat weird, they will be wasting even more time looking at you than looking for your child. The stress to a truly innocent parent must be terrible.

I know the Ramsey's thought kidnapping at first so comparing two cases where the circumstances are different puts the two subjects on two different planes of thought besides just the initial sameness that binds them, they both have children who were murdered.

Social, economic factors and education taken into account too. An educated person is going to react differently than an uneducated one does. Their personalities have to be taken into account some people do get angrier than others, some people react to situations differently.

I can't really think of ANY case similar to this one to compare it to let alone take into account all those other factors to try and get a fair comparison.

The Ramsey's or even the general public haven't had a formal charge, a judge or jury trial so there is no outrage over injustice that Goldman has.

We pick apart people's behavior based on what we think we, or the scope of our friends and family, might do when we might face a similar situation so I would love to be able to compare the Ramsey's to another case but I would prefer it to be of similar nature.

Also what is considered NORMAL behavior for parents and friends when a child is supposed to be kidnapped, most missing cases are kidnappings.
I also ask then what would be normal behavior when a child is found murdered in close proximity to place of abduction.

I can think of polar opposites in my impression of parents in the media.
1. Mark Klaas- angry, outraged, motivated, initial impression is he is so angry at cops cause his daughter might have been saved if they hadn't wasted time looking at him.
2. Elizabeth Shorts dad -can't even remember this mans first name, Religious- Knew he would be praying not only for his daughters return but for the forgiveness of the persons soul that took her. Calm,family man,at the edge of his ability to cope.

Now these statements might not be true about these two men but it was my initial impression of the two men that I am referring too only. The subconscious judgment I made about them based not only what they said but the way I heard it, saw it, and then processed the information making a "judgment call".
Both had very high media coverage of their daughters cases but both men reacted and gave me different impressions despite the fact that they were both innocent. Innocent people can react differently just like guilty people can react differently.

There is no perfect case comparison; however, if you believe that the Ramseys were victimized by a homicidal intruder, their completely passive reaction, devoid of anger, is atypical, to say the least. That, combined with their unprecedented evasiveness which ultimately stalled formal police interviews for 4 months, amounts to highly suspicious behavior.
OJ Simpson ran from police for a little over an hour during the slow speed Bronco “chase.”
The Ramseys took the BPD on a 4 month "slow speed chase."

What baseline of behavior do we judge a suspect

Although the following deals with a general missing child scenario, I thought it was relevant.

To give your child the best chance of being found, you and law
enforcement must treat one another as partners.
—Don Ryce
Few parents have had experience working with law enforcement agencies. Perhaps you have had contact previously with law enforcement as a result of a traffic ticket or an accident. If so, you probably saw law enforcement as the enforcer of rules that had been broken—not as a lifeline.
But when your child is missing, you and law enforcement become partners pursuing a common goal—finding your lost or abducted child. As partners, you need to establish a relationship that is based on mutual respect, trust, and honesty. As partners, however, you do not have to agree on every detail. This chapter provides insight into the relationship you are entering into with law enforcement—what you can expect from the investigation, what types of questions you are likely to be asked, and what situations you and your family are likely to encounter in the process.

Your Partnership With Law Enforcement
When asked if it bothered me to take a lie detector test, I told the reporter, “They can electrocute me if it will bring my son back.”
—Claudine Ryce

Most people do not believe that they will be victims of crime—or that their children will be victimized. But if a young member of your family becomes a victim, you will likely wonder what law enforcement expects of you and what you can expect of law enforcement. Understanding these expectations will deepen your knowledge of law enforcement’s role, establish a sound basis for your relationship with the agencies and organizations that are there to help, and assist you in handling this all-too-sudden change in circumstances.
Make sure law enforcement understands that your child is in danger and that his or her absence is likely to be involuntary. If your child is 10 years old or younger, it will not be hard to show that your child is in danger. However, if your child is older than 10, it is important to let law enforcement know that your child’s absence is not normal behavior and that you would be surprised if your child had disappeared voluntarily.
...
Be prepared for hard, repetitious questions from investigators. As difficult as it may be, try not to respond in a hostile manner to questions that seem personal or offensive. The fact is that investigators must ask difficult and sensitive questions if they are to do their jobs effectively.
...
Do everything possible to get you and your family removed from the suspect list. As painful as it may be, accept the fact that a large number of children are harmed by members of their own families, and therefore you and your family will be considered suspects until you are cleared. To help law enforcement move on to other suspects, volunteer early to take a polygraph test. Insist that both parents be tested at the same time by different interviewers, or one after another. This will help to deflect media speculation that one of you was involved in the disappearance.

Insist that everyone close to your child be interviewed. Encourage everyone—including family members, friends, neighbors, teachers, and coaches—to cooperate in the investigatory process. Although polygraph testing is voluntary, refusal to take a polygraph can cause law enforcement to spend time trying to eliminate an individual from the suspect list through other means and, as a result, take valuable time away from finding the real suspect.
...
Talk regularly with your primary law enforcement contact.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/204958/ch2.html

 

[DeeDee249]

The Ramsey's reactions have nothing in common with other families whose little girls were murdered. I'm talking about families that were comparable financially and educationally. The Van Dams and Erin Runnion come to mind immediately. These people were devastated and would have done anything to make sure the killers of their daughters were found and paid dearly for what they did. The Ramsey's only concern was keeping themselves out of jail.

These families had their loved ones actually murdered by someone other than themselves. They all cooperated with police from the beginning. Big difference. You need to compare this case to other cases where parents were the murderers. Try Lisa Steinberg.

 

[BBB167893]

The Ramsey's reactions have nothing in common with other families whose little girls were murdered. I'm talking about families that were comparable financially and educationally. The Van Dams and Erin Runnion come to mind immediately. These people were devastated and would have done anything to make sure the killers of their daughters were found and paid dearly for what they did. The Ramsey's only concern was keeping themselves out of jail.

Absolutely right. It's the difference between night and day.

 

[madeleine]

This sounds more like an Oscar speech to me(thanks mom and dad,thanks to my manager,my editor,bla bla).I think people who just lost their daughter (and how brutally) don't have time for such BS.Who wrote this bs anyway for them cause it sure doesn't sounds like FEELINGS to me.



Well we have been pretty isolated -- totally isolated -- for the last five days, but we've sensed from our friends that this tragedy has touched not just ourselves and our friends but many people. And we know that there's many people that are praying for us, that are grieving with us. And we want to thank them, to let them know that we are healing, and that we know in our hearts that JonBenet is safe and with God and that the grieving that we all have to do is for ourselves and for our loss, but we want to thank those people that care about us.But the other -- the other reason is that -- for our grief to resolve itself we now have to find out why this happened. Well, we were fortunate from almost the moment that we found the note to be surrounded by friends, our minister, our family doctor, a personal friend of mine who is also an attorney, and we relied on their guidance almost from that moment on and my friend suggested that it would be foolish not to have knowledgeable counsel to help both us and with the investigation. Not because we're angry, but because we have got to go on. This -- we cannot go on until we know why. There's no answer as to why our daughter died. I -- we don't -- you know, it's just so hard to know, but we are -- our family is a loving family. It's a gentle family. We have lost one child. We know how precious their lives are .

----------------

I'd like to take a moment to just let you know how much we have appreciated the hundreds and hundreds of cards and letters and pictures that children have written and, little angels and books and all kinds of things that wonderful, compassionate, caring people from all over the world, actually, have sent to us. We have read each and every one of those cards and letters and I cannot tell you how much encouragement they have given us. And at some time we have to respond to each and every one of those and ... One of the most heart-lifting things to us that came out of this tragedy was that while we certainly know there are evil people in the world, we have just been overwhelmed by the goodness that has come to us from people that we don't even know. We have received cards from Tenerife. We've received cards from Saskatchewan, Canada, Europe (prompted by Patsy), certainly from all over the United States.
I have corresponded several times with a little girl about our son Burke's age in southern Illinois that was very distressed by this. I received a card from an elderly lady, I think she said she was 85 and she had to wait until she got her Social Security check to buy stamps and send us a letter. And, it's just been wonderful. So we've come out of this perhaps differently than you would expect in believing that there really is a lot of goodness in the world and that that's been an outcome that I think we certainly didn't, wouldn't have anticipated with this kind of a tragedy.


Who cares about all this (?!?!) when there's a dangerous killer on the loose(so they claim)?NOBODY.

 

[Amy Noel]

The Ramseys did not kill their daughter! We may bever know who did, which is very sad and hard to accept, but that is the truth. The case was destroyed from the start. They police and investigators were the most incompotent bunch of clowns ever. However the one piece of undisputable evidence that they do have rules out the Ramseys and points to an unknown male and that is the pubic hair found on JonBenet that was tested. Maybe one day we can hope that they will find him by this DNA, maybe he will be arrested on a unrelated charge and we will finally know! I hope that day comes soon!!! Please let this woman RIP, I wish she had lived to see On July 9, 2008, when the Boulder District Attorney's office announced that as a result of newly developed DNA sampling and testing techniques, the Ramsey family members are no longer considered suspects in the case and sent a letter to John Ramsey the same day, officially apologizing to the Ramsey family. I think if this would have come sooner she might have beaten the cancer.

 

[DeeDee249]

The Ramseys did not kill their daughter! We may bever know who did, which is very sad and hard to accept, but that is the truth. The case was destroyed from the start. They police and investigators were the most incompotent bunch of clowns ever. However the one piece of undisputable evidence that they do have rules out the Ramseys and points to an unknown male and that is the pubic hair found on JonBenet that was tested. Maybe one day we can hope that they will find him by this DNA, maybe he will be arrested on a unrelated charge and we will finally know! I hope that day comes soon!!! Please let this woman RIP, I wish she had lived to see On July 9, 2008, when the Boulder District Attorney's office announced that as a result of newly developed DNA sampling and testing techniques, the Ramsey family members are no longer considered suspects in the case and sent a letter to John Ramsey the same day, officially apologizing to the Ramsey family. I think if this would have come sooner she might have beaten the cancer.

Patsy lived far longer 10 years) than most other women do. But beat it? I think not. Only ONE person "cleared" the Rs. The then-DA Mary Lacy. Any other LE, both then and now, understand that until the killer is identified by name, this is an open case and no one who was present in the home at the time of the murder can be ruled out. BR is ruled out because his age at the time makes him exempt from consideration.
We ALL want the perp to be found. We ALL want to know whose DNA that is because until we do, we cannot say the DNA belongs to the killer. There have been people who have publicly renounced ML's "clearing" of the Rs.
And unless you were there that night and saw who killed her, you cannot state with certainty that they did not do it. You are, of course, entitled to BELIEVE they did not do it, just as someone is entitled to believe they did. This entire forum, and others like, consists of opinions. But you don't know the truth. Neither do I.

 

[Amy Noel]

You are right no one knows the truth except ofcourse JonBenet and her killer. But I would think the DNA evidence makes it pretty clear who its not, we still dont know who it is but as I said hopefully time will tell....
Here is something I found though ...


Letter from District Attorney-Ramsey Family Exonerated
On July 9, 2008, the Boulder District Attorney's office announced that as a result of newly developed DNA sampling and testing techniques, the Ramsey family members are no longer considered suspects in the case.[13][14] In light of the new DNA evidence, Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy gave a letter[15] to John Ramsey the same day, officially apologizing to the Ramsey family:

"This new scientific evidence convinces us...to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime. ... The match of Male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenét was wearing at the time of her murder. ... To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry. No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law. ... We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. ... I am aware that there will be those who will choose to continue to differ with our conclusion. But DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find and we rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. I am very comfortable that our conclusion that this evidence has vindicated your family is based firmly on all of the evidence, ..." [15][16]

​

 

[Amy Noel]

I do understand that the case is still opened, obviously until its solved no one can really be ruled out, but where do you think the DNA came from, I hope no one actually belives it was planted there? It came from someone unknown and was found on a murdered 6 year old, I truely belive as Im sure many would agree that if we find a match we find our killer.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

I do understand that the case is still opened, obviously until its solved no one can really be ruled out, but where do you think the DNA came from, I hope no one actually belives it was planted there? It came from someone unknown and was found on a murdered 6 year old, I truely belive as Im sure many would agree that if we find a match we find our killer.

And I'm sure many would agree that it would really be nice if you would go back and read through the years of threads here as well as familiarize yourself with the archives before putting forth old misinformation, especially now that things might actually be starting to move again.

 

[cynic]

You are right no one knows the truth except of course JonBenet and her killer. But I would think the DNA evidence makes it pretty clear who its not, we still don’t know who it is but as I said hopefully time will tell....
Here is something I found though ...

Letter from District Attorney-Ramsey Family Exonerated
…
District Attorney Mary Lacy gave a letter[15] to John Ramsey the same day, officially apologizing to the Ramsey family:
…
We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. ... I am aware that there will be those who will choose to continue to differ with our conclusion.

This has been addressed many times by many people.

Unfortunately, many people mistakenly give all DNA evidence the same probative value.
Of course, DNA can be incredibly incriminating, however, that is true only if it derived from bodily fluid sources such as blood, or semen, for example.
How should we treat DNA evidence obtained from skin cells?
Because of the “mobility” of this DNA, it is not possible that it should carry the same weight as DNA from bodily fluid. It should be of approximately the same value as hair and fiber, and of lesser significance than fingerprint evidence.

Here is an opinion from a seasoned forensic biologist and DNA expert who clearly outlines that not all DNA has the same relevance.

The DNA vs. Fingerprints Debate
…
This raises the question, which of the two types is the stronger evidence? Answer: Fingerprints - and I say this as a DNA expert.
…
We also consider the nature of the transfer of evidence. If I were to touch a smooth surface such as a wall, I would deposit DNA and leave some fingerprints behind on the wall. This is called ‘direct’ or ‘primary’ transfer. However, if someone was to come along and wipe that wall with a cloth, it would remove my DNA onto the cloth and wipe the fingerprint off. If that person then uses that cloth to wipe the door handle, my DNA can then be transferred on to that door handle. Therefore, my DNA could be recovered from that handle without me ever coming into contact with it. This is referred to as ‘indirect’ or ‘secondary’ transfer. In this example, my DNA is transferred, but my fingerprint is not. This means that if my fingerprint is found on a surface, then I must have touched that surface; whereas, if my DNA is found on a surface, then I may have come into contact with that surface or it got there by secondary transfer.
-Graham Williams
http://www2.hud.ac.uk/sas/comment/gw260609.php

I am familiar with "Touch DNA" and limitations to this technique which includes the following:
No body fluid has been identified for the samples tested. If a DNA profile is identified in a "touch" or "contact" area, the result may be from an individual with no relation to the crime.
http://www.uis.edu/innocenceproject/...teResponse.pdf


Dan Krane speaks to the issue of DNA transfer and touch DNA with respect to a case that he testified as an expert:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU-MmAeH-gs[/ame]

The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case should therefore be viewed in light of all the evidence, and a decision made as to its relevance. It should not dictate the relevance of the non-DNA evidence.

The experts agree:

As the sensitivity of multiplex STR PCR DNA profiling sensitivity increases, with less and less DNA required for the development of a DNA profile, the “forensic context” of DNA recovered at scenes of crime must be closely scrutinized.
…
Therefore, only after a thorough examination of the known facts surrounding a case, and a multidisciplinary forensic investigation, should conclusions be drawn."
-William C. Thompson, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California

…if biological evidence from a 20-year old case was handled by ungloved police officers or evidence custodians (prior to knowledge regarding the sensitivity of modern DNA testing,) then the true perpetrator’s DNA might be masked by contamination from the collecting officer or evidence custodian.
…
This scenario emphasizes the importance of considering DNA evidence as an investigative tool within the context of a case father than the sole absolute proof of guilt or innocence.
Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing, John M. Butler, pages 442-443

Any statement on the strength of the DNA evidence must be considered in the context of the case, DNA evidence should not be considered in isolation as it is affected by many factors like the type of biological material, method and time of deposition and the substrate on which it was deposited.
An Introduction to Forensic Genetics, William Goodwin, Adrian Linacre, Sibte Hadi, page 87

There are many who remain unconvinced by the DNA evidence in the JBR case.

The DNA evidence could be significant, or, it could be contamination, there’s a debate about that.
Craig Silverman, Former Denver Deputy DA
-February 3, 2009

…whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.
“It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said. “That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”
…
“And they still have this note problem,” Lee said of the three-page ransom letter recovered at the scene. “Those issues are just like pieces of a puzzle that cannot fit together at this point.”
-Henry Lee
Daily Camera, Vanessa Miller, July 10, 2008

Yet for reasons known only to herself (she has refused all requests for interviews) Lacy has concluded that, in her words, there "is no innocent explanation" for the presence of this DNA on the child's clothing, and that therefore the DNA belongs to the child's murderer.
…
To the many questions that have plagued the Ramsey case we can now add another: is Mary Lacy merely incompetent, or is something more disturbing going on?
Paul Campos -Law professor, University of Colorado
http://www.reporternews.com/news/200...n-ramsey-case/

Despite what you may have heard, Patsy and John Ramsey have not been "cleared" of wrongdoing in any genuine sense. They were simply handed a legal pass by a staunch ally who has once again shortchanged the genuine victim in the case: JonBenét.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_9839651

Retired Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant on Thursday criticized Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's decision to issue a letter to John Ramsey clearing every member of his family in the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey, based on newly developed DNA evidence.
"My first reaction is, why? It is unprecedented," said Grant.
…
Grant said he still sees evidence, and "unanswered questions" that would support either inside or outside involvement in JonBenet's murder - but that Lacy's letter to Ramsey merely represents "one person's opinion" and that the new DNA evidence, from what he has learned of it, does not convince him of anything.
"In my mind it doesn't," said Grant. "I know enough about the evidence that existed early on in this case to know that there are many unanswered questions. A lot of those questions would have to be answered before someone could say this DNA is the final straw.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-former...,2592897.story

"I don't think anybody is an idiot for believing in the intruder theory. But I do think those who do probably don't work in law enforcement"
The Murder Business, Mark Fuhrman, page 108

On July 9, 2008, Cyril Wecht addressed the new findings, “The fact that this other DNA was found at this time matches previous DNA that was thought to be a contaminant does not alter the picture.” Of course not. This did not call for the public exoneration the DA rushed to give; it called for investigation. There was no way to know whether it belonged to the killer
The Murder Business, Mark Fuhrman, page 131

City of Boulder's Chief of Police, Mark Beckner and Boulder’s current District Attorney, Stan Garnett both had the opportunity at a press conference to endorse the Ramsey exoneration that ML granted, but did not.
Reporter: Mary Lacy cleared the Ramseys in this case, are they still cleared?
Beckner: Again, in keeping our focus on where we go from here, I don’t want to answer that question for a couple of reasons.
One, we are bringing in people on this task force that are going to have a fresh perspective, they are people who have never worked on this case, who are well known in the law enforcement and the district attorney field who can come in and look at this case, lay out the evidence on the table and tell us what they think, challenge us, ask us questions, give us ideas.
I think, to say anything, I would have to get into the evidence, and I don’t want to do that.
And secondly, I don’t want to set any expectations or biases for people coming into this committee.
If the police chief stands here and says, I think this, or, I think that, they may come in with some bias, we don’t want that, we want them to tell us what they think.
Boulder press conference, Feb 2, 2009

Why did Mary Lacy clear suspects who, rather than being cleared, should have been prosecuted long ago?As Paul Campos asked “is Mary Lacy merely incompetent, or is something more disturbing going on?”
After all, even in the Casey Anthony case, there is unexplained DNA, and yet, not only has she not been exonerated, she is being prosecuted.
The mystery DNA was found on the adhesive side of the tape. An independent DNA expert, Dr. Henrietta Nunno, consulted by WKMG, told Pipitone this DNA evidence does not belong to Casey, Casey’s parents, Caylee, or the FBI lab analyst.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crime...nthony-defense

The following is a list of notable people who have been openly skeptical about the exoneration of the Ramseys and have sought to place the DNA evidence in its proper perspective.

Dr. Henry Lee, Chief Emeritus of the Connecticut State Police, Founder and Professor of the Forensic Science Program at the University of New Haven

Dr. Michael Baden, Former Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York

Dr. Cyril Wecht, Former Medical Examiner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania , former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Bob Grant, Former Adams County District Attorney

Craig Silverman, Former Denver Deputy District Attorney

Paul Campos -Law professor, University of Colorado

Wendy Murphy, Former prosecutor and author.

Mark Fuhrman, Former LAPD detective and author.

Dr. Cyril Wecht

Dr. Michael Baden
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyFpkBGI-6A[/ame]

 

[DeeDee249]

Yeah, he thinks they did it, too.