939 users online (173 members and 766 guests)  

Websleuths News

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 35
  1. #1

    Thumbs down Lin Wood on the Today Show, 12/29/03

    The Today Show, 12/29/03

    Ann Curry: It's been seven years since JonBenet Ramsey was found murdered in her family's home in Boulder, Colorado. No one has ever been arrested for the crime, but now a DNA sample in two pieces of blood found on JonBenet are being tested in the hopes the killer will finally be found. Lin Wood represents JonBenet, rather, John and, and Patsy Ramsey. Lin, good morning to you.

    Lin Wood: Good morning, Ann.

    Ann Curry: This is DNA from blood found in JonBenet's underwear. And the question that is now being tested. The question arises, why after seven years is this only now being done? Could it have been done sooner?

    Lin Wood: It could have been done sooner, Ann. Let me give you just a brief historical perspective. Just before JonBenet was brutally murdered by strangulation, she was sexually assaulted with vaginal bleeding. Two spots of blood were found on her underwear. One was tested in 1997 and DNA was found intermingled in her blood that was male DNA not Ramsey. And then two years later the second spot was tested and, again, consistent male DNA was found intermingled in her blood, not the Ramsey DNA. The, the fact of the matter is the Boulder Police Department took that DNA and, and put it on the shelf and didn't pursue it. One year ago when Mary Keenan, the Boulder District Attorney, took the case away from the Boulder Police Department, she made her number one priority to get the DNA into state and national DNA databases so there could be a comparison with other profiles of known violent offenders and violent unsolved crimes. And that was finally done in November of this year.

    Ann Curry: Why is the testing of this DNA though, Lin, so significant, given that there has never been a killer arrested who could pro, possibly provide a match?

    Lin Wood: Well, it's significant because, number one, DNA is going to solve this crime. DNA will ultimately find the killer and identify the killer of JonBenet Ramsey. The DNA sample now taken from the crime scene can be compared with DNA profiles of violent offenders, violent criminals, in databases on the local, state and federal level. That comparison over time will one day result in a hit, a match. And that will identify the killer of JonBenet.

    There is a second reason why it's significant, too, Ann. For many years, the, the Ramsey accusers, the, the critics of the Ramsey family, have said the DNA is insignificant. The sample is not good quality, it's probably contaminated. Those people were wrong. This sample, this evidence, is strong, strong enough to meet the criteria to go into the FBI CODIS databank system. And that's significant because it is strong evidence, if not conclusive evidence, that the killer of this child was an intruder and not a member of the Ramsey family.

    Ann Curry: If that is true, then what would stop the district attorney from clearing the Ramsey family, spec, specifically John Ramsey for this crime?

    Lin Wood: Well, let me tall you, as a practical matter, Ann, I, I think Mary Keenan, the Boulder District Attorney, did clear this family earlier this year. If you'll recall, there was a federal court ruling here in Atlanta in the case that I handled for the Ramseys, a 93 page ordered entered by Federal Judge Julie Carnes, which stated very clearly that the evidence she had reviewed on the question of who had murdered JonBenet indicated that she was murdered by an intruder with little or no evidence of family involvement, other than the fact that they were in the house the night of the murder. Within a month of that ruling, District Attorney Mary Keenan issued a public statement agreeing with the conclusion of Judge Carnes that the weight of the evidence in this case indicated that an intruder killed JonBenet. Now that's as, as a practical matter, that's as good as you're gong to get from a DA, I think, in a case that remains open without having a suspect identified at this point in time. But I believe that the days of--of accusing this family are over. Without any question, they're over, I think, in the minds of the district attorney, and she's in charge of the investigation.

    Ann Curry: You, what is your level opt, of optimism now that this test is being done on these two drops of blood that 2004 we will hear who the killer was, a killer will be identified? And how long does it take for this databank processing to take place?

    Lin Wood: Well, I can tell you that I am extremely optimistic that one day this case will be solved, but that optimism has only existed since last year when Mary Keenan took the case over from the Boulder Police Department. Before that I had little or no hope that they would solve the crime. In terms of how long, can I say 2004 will be the year? No, I cannot. It may take years to get a hit. But DNA solves cases that are years old, what we call cold cases. DNA gets innocent folks out of prison years after they've been falsely imprisoned. It may take time, particularly now because this database has a backlog of some say up to two years of state and local officials getting DNA profiles into the system. But with time, with time, DNA will solve this crime.

    Ann Curry: Meantime, Friday marked the seventh anniversary of JonBenet's death.

    Lin Wood: Yes.

    Ann Curry: How did her parents mark that anniversary, Lin?

    Lin Wood: They were here in Atlanta with their relatives and with close friends. In fact, I had the, the pleasure of having dinner with them Friday evening. They always view this as a time of sadness, but also as a time of, of hope, particularly this year because they know that there are legitimate efforts under way to find the killer of JonBenet.

    Ann Curry: Lin Wood, thank you for joining us this morning.

    Lin Wood: Thank you, Ann.


  2. #2

    Lin Wood on CNN/Solodad O'Brien, 12/29/03

    Lin Wood on CNN/ Solodad O'Brien, 12/29/03


    O'BRIEN: It's been seven years since JonBenet Ramsey was found murdered in her parents home in Boulder, Colorado.

    After all this time, the question remains, who killed the child beauty queen?


    O'BRIEN (voice-over): Tonight her family is hoping new evidence will solve that mystery. For seven year a Colorado killer has remained on the loose, and for seven years, a family has lived under a cloud of suspicion.

    PATSY RAMSEY, MOTHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: I think the only thing that will make them completely change their mind is to hand over the killer, and I can't do that.

    O'BRIEN: Since the day's following the murder, the investigation seemed to focus on three people in the house the night she was killed, mother Patsey, father Jonn, and brother Burke. All along, family members have maintained their innocents. In the years, they moved to Atlanta, Patsy struggled with cancer and Colorado police failed to arrest a suspect.

    Last year a new district attorney took over the Ramsey case and some say for the first time, aggressively pursued DNA evidence. Early in the investigation, DNA tests of blood found on her underwear indicated it was from a male who was not a member of the Ramsey family. At the time, the DNA sample wasn't good enough to compare to a national data bank of known as criminals and unsolved cases, now the Ramseys say a high-quality sample has been found and sent to the FBI for comparison. The hope for authorities, that a killer will be identified, and for the Ramsey's, potentially the end of a seven-year ordeal.

    JONN RAMSEY, FATHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: We want peace for our family, we want closure, our name and our family's name has been destroyed. We'll never regain that, and we have no interest in attempting to do that. We want the killer of our daughter found.


    O'BRIEN: Earlier this year a federal judge dismissed a libel and slander suit against JonBenet Ramsey's parents. The judge said a majority of the evidence she saw suggested an intruder was responsible for JonBenet's death.

    Joins this evening from Atlanta is Lin Wood, the attorney for the Ramseys.

    Nice to see you sir. Thanks for being with us.

    LIN WOOD, RAMSEY, FAMILY ATTORNEY: My pleasure Soledad.

    Explain something to me. Seven years later, suddenly there's this new DNA sample that hadn't been tested.

    How is that possible?

    WOOD: Well, actually, it particular DNA was extracted from a spot of blood found on JonBenet's underwear in 1999, and it was known at that time that the DNA from that spot of blood was high quality, right at the necessary standard to meet the FBI DNA data bank requirements, but the Boulder Police Department did not pursue that DNA. It was only last December of last year when Mary Keenan, the district attorney, took the case away from the Boulder Police Department and brought the investigation under her jurisdiction, that she made pursuing the DNA her number one priority to get that DNA into the FBI data bank, which was finally done this November. So it could have been done long ago.

    O'BRIEN: So the first blood -- spot of blood that was found was tested in 1997. This second sample that we're talking about was tested in 1999, as you say. Where has it been all this time? It's been on a shelf somewhere?

    WOOD: Basically sitting on the shelf of the Boulder Police Department. I don't know where they keep the actual specimen, but the profile was there, it was available from 1999 on, it's a quality specimen, it meets the stringent requirements of the FBI database, and it will eventually solve this crime. When you find the match to this DNA profile, you will find the killer of JonBenet Ramsey.

    O'BRIEN: That's a very big if, sir, as you well know. The tests, as you say, are going to be done at the FBI, they have the sample now, but there can't be a match until there's a suspect, right?

    WOOD: No, not right at all. It's not a big if. The data bank allows this sample to be compared to other DNA profiles, other DNA from convicted violent offenders or from unsolved violent crimes on a regular basis to see if there's a match. There's about a two-year backlog right now in local and state crime labs getting DNA into the FBI data bank, and so I think it's not an if, it's just a matter of when.

    O'BRIEN: As you mentioned, the new DA, Mary Keenan, she's pretty much cleared the Ramseys. Do you think at this point she's put most of the speculation that the parents were somehow involved in this child's murder to rest?

    WOOD: I sure hope so, Soledad. The time of making accusations against this family should have ended a long time ago. They have been victims of an unfair and an unjust investigation. They've been falsely accused for years. The last year, things have turned around for them. I give a lot of credit to federal judge Julie Carnes for the courage she showed in her ruling in March of this year, and the courage shown by Mary Keenan in supporting Judge Carnes' conclusion that the weight of the evidence demonstrated that an intruder killed JonBenet.

    But I got to tell you something, I give most of the courage to my clients. They have endured tragedy, they have endured accusation, and they have survived it with dignity and grace. They are remarkable people, and I look forward to the day when I share with them the joy in finding that the killer of JonBenet has been brought to justice.

    O'BRIEN: Well, I think everyone would like to look forward to that day, when the killer of JonBenet is brought to justice. Lin Wood, thanks for being with us this evening. We appreciate it.

    WOOD: Thank you, Soledad.


  3. #3

    Thumbs down

    The Scamseys are pulling out all their scams on their one sided TV appearances. This is what happens when murder suspects are the ONLY ONES allowed to comment on this case, and they sue anyone who DARES tell the truth.

    For Example:
    on Inside Edition last night, 12/29/03, they once again peddle the lie that there is nothing at the end of the 911 tape (Obviously, they didn't ask "48 Hours Investigates" about that):


    Some investigators have claimed Patsy Ramsey says something significant after the call not knowing she was being recorded. But NBC News
    reports experts could find nothing else on the tape.[/quote]

    "And new investigations point away from John and Patsy Ramseys and toward an unknown intruder, as the Ramseys have said right from the beginning."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    I query as to how Woody seems to be so much into the 'inside' loop, when Keenan has avowed such secrecy in her 'new' investigation with those old tired eyes....errrr, NEW fresh eyes, I'm sorry, looking into this case.

    Only two gain from Woody's actions, himself and the R couple. Poor JonBenet gets lost in it all. It seems to be all about 'them', which is probably what caused JB's death in the first place.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    texas panhandle

    The Whole Story

    It makes me furious to watch all this tv stuff and hear only one side of the stories. The failed to mention all the things the Ramsey family didn't do themselves to help find the murderer right away. They never said anything about the demands that family put into place or all the "special" treatment they wanted. They were NEVER treated like other parents of murdered children right from the moment they found the body. The BPD screwed up a lot of things, but they weren't the only ones to blame in this matter. In fact, their worst mistake was not treating John and Patsy like every other parent of a murdered child. To say nothing of the fact that the body was found hidden IN the home along with a ridiculous ransom note. Finally Joe Tacapino (sp), who was the fill-in host brought out some of the facts that the family did some pretty unorthodox things in the beginning. Lisa Bloom even referred to Mary Keenan as the new incoming DA of Boulder. She has been there a whole year and apparently didn't bother to submit the blood spot for further testing until now. She got a lot of praise on those shows that I don't think she deserves at all. Oh yeah, Mr. Wood also failed to mention the little fact that she did nothing toward moving this investigation forward until he threatened to sue their as*** if they didn't play his game.
    This is only my personal opinion.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    I guess one can assume that the BPD is not going to rebut any of Wood's allegations regarding their "incompetence" in not "submitting the DNA". If Wood can go after any and everyone why would not the BPD issue some sort of statement to counter Wood's throwing them under the bus? Even if the DNA turns out to be matched (highly unlikely, I'm told), is not Wood misconstruing and twisting the facts about the submission of the DNA, just to make the BPD look bad? That is the part that frustrates me so. Why can't he just spit out the facts of the matter and let them be? Is that all "lawyereese"?

    And the part where Wood says that a DA won't come out and publicly "clear" the Rs, but he also says she all but did clear them in her aligning herself with Judge Carnes' ruling...why would she not come forth and say "the Ramseys are cleared and no longer under the umbrella of suspicion"? It's like Wood is attempting to bring them out from under the umbrella without any verbal backup from Keenan. With this new DNA release, it seems to me that Keenan would be upfront saying they are no longer under the umbrella, if what Wood is spinning is indeed the way it is.

    Anyone have any answers to these questions?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    About the only thing worth mentioning is the perfect example of how the news media can be manipulated and really shouldn't be trusted. Sheeesh, what a bunch of dingbats....

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Please note that through the years neither Lin Wood nor Mary Keenan nor her predecessor has ever come straight out to say that Burke did not kill JonBenet. They say that the PARENTS did not kill JonBenet and the "family" should be cleared.

    No one of authority in this case has ever cleared Burke in the killing of JonBenet. They all use smoke and mirror statements to make it appear he has been cleared -- but none have had the guts to come right out and say it, because, IMO, they know it would be a lie attributable to them in print.

    Just my opinion.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Too bad I didn't think of sending Wood a muzzle for Christmas until just now.

    I think one with Jaguar logos would be appropriate.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    How about an oat feedbucket along with/in lieu of, a muzzle? LOL

    This man makes his living from manipulating words. Patsy and John's soulmate?

  11. #11

    Thumbs down The Abrams Report, 12/29/03

    The Abrams Report, 12/29/03

    *I couldn't believe this program. Not one guest knew why John and Patsy were under the umbrella in the first place*


    TACOPINA: ... going to break in there, otherwise we could do this for hours obviously. It's a very emotional and viscerally responding subject.

    But coming up, some say could be a breakthrough in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. New DNA evidence set to be tested after all these years. A DNA expert explains the gruesome new details.

    And DNA evidence proves that there is truth that will set you free, even if you've been locked in prison for nearly two decades.



    L. LIN WOOD, RAMSEY FAMILY ATTORNEY: It is strong evidence, if not conclusive evidence that the killer of this child was an intruder and not a member of the Ramsey family.


    TACOPINA: It's been seven years since 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey was brutally murdered in her parents' home in Colorado. But now there's new information that could shed new light on the case. Two DNA samples from blood found on JonBenet Ramsey's underwear are now being tested by the FBI. Earlier tests indicated that the blood was from a male who was not a member of the Ramsey family, but the samples were then not considered to be of high enough quality to compare against the national DNA data bank. Ramsey family attorney Lin Wood says this new higher quality sample will take the murder investigation to the next level. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    WOOD: DNA is going to solve this crime. DNA will ultimately find the killer and identify the killer of JonBenet Ramsey. The DNA sample now taken from the crime scene can be compared with DNA profiles of violent offenders, violent criminals in databases on the local, state, and federal level. That comparison over time will one day result in a hit, a match, and that will identify the killer of JonBenet. (END VIDEO CLIP)

    TACOPINA: That evidence appears to back up claims by John and Patsy Ramsey that their daughter was killed by an outsider. So could this DNA evidence be the missing link that both the prosecution and the Ramsey family have been waiting for? With us tonight DNA expert and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Dr. Larry Kobilinsky.

    Good afternoon Larry.

    LAWRENCE KOBILINSKY, PHD, DNA EXPERT: Hi. A pleasure to be with you.

    TACOPINA: So what -- why all of a sudden after all these years is this evidence good evidence? Why is it of a higher quality now than it was six years ago?

    KOBILINSKY: Well, actually that's not true. The evidence is the evidence. It's the same evidence that existed seven years ago, but what has changed are the tests to analyze the DNA. In fact, the tests have become more sensitive, more reliable, more rapid, and, in fact, this is the reason that we can now hope that there may be a solution to this case. The national database requires 13 pieces of information, 13 genotypes, if you will, and if you have far less than that -- for example, if you come up with only six -- then you cannot enter it into the database. It becomes incomplete.

    But now using some of the newer technology, you can deliver more information and ultimately check that database. And if there's a hit, they will know immediately. Obviously, we have not heard about a hit, so now the hope is that this result will provide a solution in the future. And what that simply means is if this individual who committed this crime were to commit a crime again in the future and perhaps he'll have to turn his DNA in for testing, at that point he will be linked to this crime as well. TACOPINA: Larry, how accurate is DNA when it comes to tracking down possible suspects?

    Well, OK, Doctor, thanks. We lost you, so we're going to go right to our legal panel who is standing by, thank God. Oh, Larry is back. I understand Larry is back with us. Larry, did you hear that question?

    KOBILINSKY: Yes, I did.

    TACOPINA: OK, let me ask it again.

    KOBILINSKY: The answer...

    TACOPINA: How accurate...


    TACOPINA: ... is DNA evidence in tracking down possible suspects? Is it reliable? Is it fool proof?

    KOBILINSKY: DNA testing is very reliable. You either get the right answer or you get no answer at all. Now, I must say if they're using this special technology called low copy DNA, then it's a matter of interpretation. We have to be very careful because you can get some confusing results at times. TACOPINA: Dr. Larry Kobilinsky, thank you very much. Now, I guess, the question is what does all this DNA mean for the future of the JonBenet Ramsey investigation? Let's get our legal panel back in here, Court TV anchor and former prosecutor Lisa Bloom, criminal defense attorney Gary Casimir, criminal defense attorney Joe Episcopo, and former prosecutor Colin Murray.

    Lisa, what does it all mean? I mean, seven years since JonBenet Ramsey's body was found dead. Do you really think that this investigation is anywhere near over?

    BLOOM: Well, I think the DNA found in drops of blood, if it's linked to a particular person through the database, can be hugely significant. Remember that David Westerfield, the murderer of little Danielle Van Dam, another little 7-year-old girl who was murdered, he was convicted largely based on a single drop of blood that was Danielle Van Dam's that was found on his jacket. Juries love this kind of forensic evidence. It's the silent witness that doesn't lie. If this is linked to someone, this could be critical in solving this crime.

    TACOPINA: Ramsey family attorney Lin Wood had this to say on the -- this morning on the "Today" show about how the Ramsey family has long been suspected of wrongdoing.


    WOOD: The days of accusing this family are over. Without any question they're over...


    TACOPINA: Colin, you just heard that. Are John and Patsy Ramsey's legal troubles potentially over?

    MURRAY: It sure sounds like it. And what I wonder about, Joe, is if the technology was not at a level that there were enough genotypes to place into the national database seven years ago, it seems to me that there was sufficient blood sample that under traditional DNA analysis the Ramseys could have been excluded. Now I don't know whether that forensic analysis was conducted or not. But if it wasn't, it sure seems like the Ramseys went through a lot in this case needlessly.

    TACOPINA: Yes. Let me ask you, Joe, these early test samples -- this is not newly discovered evidence. Apparently this is evidence that was already there. Yet, somehow the Ramseys were still under that, according to the district attorney at the time, the umbrella of suspicion. How did that happen? I mean, what was it about the evidence then that did not cause them to be exonerated?

    EPISCOPO: Well, according to the expert, he indicated that there are now more sensitive testing measures that they can use to develop this strand so that they can make a comparison. But he also indicated that it may require some subjective interpretation, so there is an opening for a defense attorney, when he eventually has to defend someone that's accused, to challenge this evidence because it's not conclusive or fool-proof. Remember, you asked was it fool proof. He did not agree with that term that it was fool proof.

    TACOPINA: Yes and, you know, I just don't think that this is one of these cases that's going to remain unsolved. I mean, 30 percent of homicides in this country remain just unsolved. But Lisa, this is a case that the national spotlight has been on for a long time and even though it has its peaks and valleys, I think you would agree with me that there is some heavy pressure on someone to be charged with this crime.

    BLOOM: Well and great proof of your point, Joe, is the fact that the incoming new district attorney made it a top priority to try to solve this case even though many years have passed. You know, we see cases on Court TV all the time that are 20 years later. A murder is finally solved. Someone ends up speaking to someone years later giving away incriminating information or cold cases reopened and police are able to solve a crime. And certainly when it's the murder of a little girl that's captured the nation's attention, the police are not going to let this rest until they find the killer.

  12. #12

    Thumbs down Abrams continued

    CASIMIR: Joe, I just want to make one comment here. There was another blood sample found, you know, earlier on in the case. It was eliminated as being any member of the family. There is something to be said about the idea that sometimes cops when they have a belief in something, they're going to go full throttle on it and they're going to ignore some other evidence. I mean we're not discussing that here, but obviously that must be -- that's part of the case.

    The Ramseys have been under suspicion for years. Everybody thought they were guilty in one sense or the other and just the prosecution or the government messed up the case. And here you have a situation where blood samples were there before eliminating all family members. That didn't stop the suspicion from going forward and here we have another blood sample that might have been tested that would have eliminated someone even further. So you know, no one is discussing that element of how the investigation works and how hunches -- hunches are a great tool in police investigations, but sometimes they do cause this kind of, you know, mass hysteria.

    TACOPINA: Colin...

    EPISCOPO: And you know not only that there never really was a motive for the parents to kill their daughter. That's the last thing in the world they would want to do...

    CASIMIR: Joe...

    EPISCOPO: ... and it certainly wasn't...

    BLOOM: Well the first suspect if a child is killed is always going to be a family member...

    CASIMIR: Exactly.

    BLOOM: ... going to look first...

    CASIMIR: Exactly.

    BLOOM: ... at the family, but not to the exclusion of looking thoroughly at all the evidence.

    CASIMIR: Joe, they put...


    CASIMIR: ... molestation out there...

    TACOPINA: ... couple that guys with the fact there was some unusual moves made by the Ramseys in those early stages. Let's not forget that. I mean there were some idiosyncrasies in how they handled the early stages of the investigation. There were this whole thing about that ransom note and a lot of things that I guess just didn't seem to be of the orthodox nature. Colin, as a former prosecutor, I mean, one way or another, this is not probably the case you are going to want landing on your desk the day the police come and say, hey, we found it, we've arrested somebody.

    MURRAY: You know, it's a tough case to solve, and I think it's a good thing that a new district attorney is on the case, and that district attorney is committed. I agree with Lisa, though. Cold cases are solved, and the advent of this new DNA analysis may well help solve this case. The problem is the suspect might not be in the national database, and if the suspect is not in the national database, then you're going to have to have some other leads that would bring you to a suspect who could be tested for purposes of comparison.

    TACOPINA: Right. Right.

    Well, DNA is going to stay on our radar screen. Coming up, DNA might prove guilt, but it also proves innocence. A man who had been locked behind bars for almost 20 years is set free thanks to DNA.

    And Dan Abrams ask the experts what's the most important legal story of the year. What you do think? Saddam's capture? Laci Peterson? Kobe Bryant, or is it something else? Stay with us.

    End of segment

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    If the scant DNA was left behind in JonBenet's underwear by the perp, with ALL that was done to her - don't you think there would be that person's DNA all over the place????
    Not just minute and degraded flecks?

    Not only that, I want to know if John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey ever truly had their DNA tested and compared to these scant samples.

    Also - I thought if a sample was DNA tested it destroyed that sample?
    How could they have tested that sample in 1999 and STILL have it to test?

    The undie packer's DNA will never show up in the databases and the Ramseys know it.
    Neither will any of theirs.
    So they are safe, safe, safe here in their latest PR move to get the public to think just what they want them to think. With NO rebuttals from those who REALLY know what this case is about and what evidence their is and WHO it points to. They've all been stripped of their free speech rights by the disgusting and deceptive Lin Wood. Chomping at the bit they are to speak out and set the record straight......Unspin it.
    This post is my opinion.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Brooklyn, NY
    More BS from the Ram$$eys and Lin Wood. Funny, after 7 years, Lin Wood has "declared" that the DNA will solve this case. He fails to mention all the other "evidence" they have been screaming about for the past 7 years. No mention of the palm print, Hi tech boots, the NOTE, the motive.

    But he at least let the public know that he had dinner with them Friday in ATLANTA(?). The "anniversary" and they chose to celebrate it with Lin Wood and their pocketbooks just planning, planning, planning,...... How sensitive of those Ram$eys. Just gotta love 'em

    He and the Ram$eys know damn well that the DNA will never match anything in the database.

    How can someone honestly listen to him and think Keenan is not part of the scam? What timing. Lin threatens a lawsuit........Keenan takes the case

    Lin files a lawsuit..........DNA media blitz.

    At the very least, you would think that the DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR BOULDER, COLORADO would instruct a CIVIL attorney not to throw her name around and speak for her. What other LE agent would allow that? None! He speaks for Keenan non stop and she has not gagged him yet. Yeah, that's real professional. But then again, her predecessor was led around by the nose by the criminal attorneys, so she inherited the civil attorney. Anything to keep those Ramseys happy.

    The days of accusing the Ramseys are over? Think again Lin! There are some of us out there that DO have common sense (in between collecting beer cans and seeking psychiatric help for our "disturbed" mentalities)
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Dr. Henry Lee: "This is not a DNA case."

    Guess Wood knows more than Lee when it comes to DNA.

    Lee falls back on the "pineapple." I'll stick with Lee on that one.
    IMO -

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2011.06.08 Today show
    By tsitra01 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-08-2011, 02:30 PM
  2. 2009.10.02 LKB & JB On Today Show
    By Sdavidson11 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 10-05-2009, 09:57 AM