- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 28,824
- Reaction score
- 43,820
For Immediate Release, July 9, 2008
Contact: Tricia Griffith tgrif@xmission.com
You would think Mary Lacy would have learned something from her John Mark Karr fiasco.
Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy has given the Ramseys a parting gift as she leaves office; she has cleared them of having any connection to the murder of JonBenet, yet she stated on August 28, 2006, “You know, no one is really cleared of a homicide until there's a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don't think you will get any prosecutor ... unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime ... to clear someone."
Mary Lacy just did what she said neither she, nor anyone else, could do ... clear someone in the Ramseys case without a conviction at trial.
Lacy supposedly "cleared" the Ramseys based on new DNA evidence called “Touch DNA.” This process is relatively new and is known by scientists to still have reliability issues.
Lacy claims because partial, unidentified DNA contamination was found on the long-johns which was pulled over underwear JonBenet was wearing when she died that (and only Mary Lacy could make this leap) the Ramseys are innocent.
Forums for Justice.org would like to remind Mary Lacy of what she said two years ago,
"The [Ramsey case] DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s." - Boulder DA Mary Lacy, 8/28/06
If this Touch DNA belongs to the "real killer," why isn't it all over the following items: the ligature, paintbrush handle, nylon cord, tape, the white blanket, JonBenet's shirt, the flashlight, the spoon, and the bowl of pineapple the "real killer" allegedly fed JonBenet before they wrote the ransom note and killed her.
The question Mary Lacy has not answered is this:
DID THE "REAL KILLER" TAKE OFF HER GLOVES WHEN SHE LEFT A COUPLE OF SKIN CELLS ON THE PANTS, THEN PUT THEM BACK SO AS NOT TO LEAVE ANY MORE DNA? If the “real killer” used gloves on everything else in the house, why would they take them off to touch the long-johns?
Patsy Ramsey stated she put the long-johns on JonBenet. Her DNA must be on the long-johns too. So why isn't she mentioned?
Lacy claims the DNA on the long-johns matches partial DNA on the underwear. The logical conclusion is that there was transference of a few skin cells since the long-johns WERE PULLED OVER THE UNDERWEAR.
It has been reported the DNA is not even a full complete sample. Has that changed?
Forums for Justice.org would like to ask Mary Lacy one final question; WHAT ABOUT THE 2 1/2 PAGE RANSOM NOTE. The note has been matched to Patsy Ramsey's handwriting by several well respected handwriting analysts.
Remember Mary Lacy was sure she had the killer in 2006. John Mark Karr was another red herring offered by Mary Lacy. As citizens interested in justice we must question everything Mary Lacy tells us. She can't be trusted as she has proven time and time again.
Tricia Griffith
www.forumsforjustice.org/forums
tgrif@xmission.com
Contact: Tricia Griffith tgrif@xmission.com
THOUSANDS OF MEMBERS OF FORUMS FOR JUSTICE.ORG SPEAK OUT ON THE RAMSEY CASE. www.forumsforjustice.org/forums
HERE WE GO AGAIN. BOULDER D.A. MARY LACY MAKES A FOOL OF HERSELF IN THE RAMSEY CASE.
You would think Mary Lacy would have learned something from her John Mark Karr fiasco.
Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy has given the Ramseys a parting gift as she leaves office; she has cleared them of having any connection to the murder of JonBenet, yet she stated on August 28, 2006, “You know, no one is really cleared of a homicide until there's a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don't think you will get any prosecutor ... unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime ... to clear someone."
Mary Lacy just did what she said neither she, nor anyone else, could do ... clear someone in the Ramseys case without a conviction at trial.
Lacy supposedly "cleared" the Ramseys based on new DNA evidence called “Touch DNA.” This process is relatively new and is known by scientists to still have reliability issues.
Lacy claims because partial, unidentified DNA contamination was found on the long-johns which was pulled over underwear JonBenet was wearing when she died that (and only Mary Lacy could make this leap) the Ramseys are innocent.
Forums for Justice.org would like to remind Mary Lacy of what she said two years ago,
"The [Ramsey case] DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s." - Boulder DA Mary Lacy, 8/28/06
If this Touch DNA belongs to the "real killer," why isn't it all over the following items: the ligature, paintbrush handle, nylon cord, tape, the white blanket, JonBenet's shirt, the flashlight, the spoon, and the bowl of pineapple the "real killer" allegedly fed JonBenet before they wrote the ransom note and killed her.
The question Mary Lacy has not answered is this:
DID THE "REAL KILLER" TAKE OFF HER GLOVES WHEN SHE LEFT A COUPLE OF SKIN CELLS ON THE PANTS, THEN PUT THEM BACK SO AS NOT TO LEAVE ANY MORE DNA? If the “real killer” used gloves on everything else in the house, why would they take them off to touch the long-johns?
Patsy Ramsey stated she put the long-johns on JonBenet. Her DNA must be on the long-johns too. So why isn't she mentioned?
Lacy claims the DNA on the long-johns matches partial DNA on the underwear. The logical conclusion is that there was transference of a few skin cells since the long-johns WERE PULLED OVER THE UNDERWEAR.
It has been reported the DNA is not even a full complete sample. Has that changed?
Forums for Justice.org would like to ask Mary Lacy one final question; WHAT ABOUT THE 2 1/2 PAGE RANSOM NOTE. The note has been matched to Patsy Ramsey's handwriting by several well respected handwriting analysts.
Remember Mary Lacy was sure she had the killer in 2006. John Mark Karr was another red herring offered by Mary Lacy. As citizens interested in justice we must question everything Mary Lacy tells us. She can't be trusted as she has proven time and time again.
Tricia Griffith
www.forumsforjustice.org/forums
tgrif@xmission.com
