I have 3 words: JOHN BENNET RAMSEY

I posted this on another thread but thought it deserved a thread of it's own

There are 3 good things that came out of John Mark Karr.

1.) He was removed off the streets and away from children

2.) He was exposed to every person in the world as a dangerous pedophile

3.) He put this case first and center and proved to me that the intruder theory is nonsense.

It's time to call in a special prosecutor in this case. Mary Lacy and the Boulder DA's office is CLEARLY incapable of investigating this crime.

I do feel sorry that Mrs. Lacy is receiving all the negative publicity she is getting. She simply has been ill informed in this case.

The DNA in JonBenet's panties is degraded folks. Most likely it did not get there from the night of the crime.

I find it funny that there were hand writing experts that came out publically on TV and basically ruined their reputation by saying John Karr wrote the ransom note. What does that say about their so called expertise? What does it say about possibly ever catching the perpetrator in this case?

What a hoopla this case has caused. From all angles.

So I wonder when John Bennet Ramsey is moving out of the country?

Good thread, Ned. John Ramsey has a lot to answer for right about now. I'm so glad to see this case be brought right back into the public eye so it can be examined again. Bring on the special prosecutor! JonBenet has laid in her grave with no justice long enough.

I also could not believe the "experts" going on about the handwriting. Say...where's Wudge?

"I find it incredible that Boulder authorities wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars to bring Karr to Colorado, given such a lack of evidence," said Gov. Bill Owens. "Mary Lacy should be held accountable for the most extravagant and expensive DNA test in Colorado history."

Ned: Let's get this case back on track where it belongs. I think when Mary Lacy starts paying back all us tax payers we should use it to bring in new people to investigate this crime.

I say we start with John Ramsey!

"The guy had a lot of potential" as a suspect, Gray said. "(He) seemed to have a lot of knowledge about this that was not out in the public."

This guy is an idiot.

this guy had a lot of potential. Yeah he did as a pedophile. But not as the MURDERER of JonBenet.

"THIS WAS AN INSIDE JOB"-John Bennet Ramsey!

Nedthan Johns said:

I posted this on another thread but thought it deserved a thread of it's own

There are 3 good things that came out of John Mark Karr.

1.) He was removed off the streets and away from children

2.) He was exposed to every person in the world as a dangerous pedophile

3.) He put this case first and center and proved to me that the intruder theory is nonsense.

It's time to call in a special prosecutor in this case. Mary Lacy and the Boulder DA's office is CLEARLY incapable of investigating this crime.

I do feel sorry that Mrs. Lacy is receiving all the negative publicity she is getting. She simply has been ill informed in this case.

The DNA in JonBenet's panties is degraded folks. Most likely it did not get there from the night of the crime.

I find it funny that there were hand writing experts that came out publically on TV and basically ruined their reputation by saying John Karr wrote the ransom note. What does that say about their so called expertise? What does it say about possibly ever catching the perpetrator in this case?

What a hoopla this case has caused. From all angles.

So I wonder when John Bennet Ramsey is moving out of the country?

Click to expand...

Totally agreed, Ned....I pray this case doesn't fade away again, b/c like you, I think the intruder theory has been disproved. It's time to get some by-the-book, unbiased special people on this case who can't be swayed by money and power and get some justice for JonBenet!!!

Hi Ned...

What about 3 letters...D N A?

Why start with another person whose DNA we already know does not match?

There's no proof that DNA came from the killer.

What about the fibers from John Ramsey's shirt being found on JonBenet's pubic area and in her underwear during the autopsy? John Ramsey had no innocent explanation for that when questioned about it in the Atlanta 2000 interviews. That says a lot more to me than some fragmented and degraded DNA that may or may not have come from the person who killed JonBenet.

As you may or may not know having worked in the Biotech industry now for years, I have paid great attention to the DNA in this case.


Don't forget what Henry Lee stated: "This is NOT a DNA case"

This is the ONLY piece of evidence that IMO has kept the Ramsey's from facing charges.

I agree it does NOT belong on JonBenet's panties. But neither did the DNA of a 4 year old child that didn't live anywhere in vicinity of the Leitman case. Still he was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. And he too was a father and didn’t have a criminal background.

Wake up folks. See this case for what it is. There was a cover up here. Why the cover up? Why the crazy ransom note? Why the insatiable need by John Ramsey to ask his pilot to get his plane ready to leave just 30 minutes after finding their daughter murdered?

Don't forget the red fibers from Patsy's sweater found on the garrote and in the paint tote yet she claimed to have never have gone down to that basement?

Nedthan Johns said:

Don't forget the red fibers from Patsy's sweater found on the garrote and in the paint tote yet she claimed to have never have gone down to that basement?

Click to expand...

And the fibers proved to be from her black and red checked jacket stuck to the UNDERSIDE of the duct tape on JBR's mouth.

I wonder what Patsy Ramsey thought of this nut case? She probably was happy because she thought the focus would be off her and John.

Does anyone know if any reporter was able to get a statement from John Ramsey regarding the DNA not matching?

englishleigh said:

And the fibers proved to be from her black and red checked jacket stuck to the UNDERSIDE of the duct tape on JBR's mouth.

Click to expand...

Hi engleigh

I just read in the Thomas book that the tape was laying sticky side up on the blanket once John removed it...those fibers could have come from anywhere in the home, including when Patsy threw herself on the body when it was brought upstairs..

Nedthan Johns said:

As you may or may not know having worked in the Biotech industry now for years, I have paid great attention to the DNA in this case.


Don't forget what Henry Lee stated: "This is NOT a DNA case"

This is the ONLY piece of evidence that IMO has kept the Ramsey's from facing charges.

I agree it does NOT belong on JonBenet's panties. But neither did the DNA of a 4 year old child that didn't live anywhere in vicinity of the Leitman case. Still he was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. And he too was a father and didn’t have a criminal background.

Wake up folks. See this case for what it is. There was a cover up here. Why the cover up? Why the crazy ransom note? Why the insatiable need by John Ramsey to ask his pilot to get his plane ready to leave just 30 minutes after finding their daughter murdered?

Click to expand...

Hi again Ned....I did not know your background, so thanks for that...

IMO Dr. Lee has lost lots of credibility post OJ.........


LKL Fri 8/25

I mean what are the odds that a factory worker sneezed on the exact spot where blood is found on a little girls underwear the night she is killed? The affidavit said the

KING: Dr. Kobilinsky, it's known that Dr. Henry Lee, another frequent guest on this show, found DNA on newly -- the newly purchased girl's underwear, tested right after the packaging. Do you think that fact may leave a misleading impression on the public?

KOBILINSKY: I think so actually, Larry. Let me explain why. When you take a garment, a brand new garment, you un-package it, you open it up, put it down on your laboratory bench and you look for the presence of DNA from its manufacturer.

What you do is you take a scalpel or a razor blade and you scrape the entire garment, the front, the back, the inside, the outside, so you're taking the entire area and then you take all of those scrapings and you isolate DNA. And, apparently Dr. Lee found the presence of some DNA.

That is a very far cry from looking at the panties of JonBenet which had a discreet little droplet of blood and from that droplet they were able to isolate DNA and we now know that it is from a male. It is not related to any member of the Ramsey family and therefore it's likely that it comes from the perpetrator, the intruder.

Tex Mex, Patsy said she was never down in the basement in that jacket, and the tape did not come upstairs. John tore it off JonBenet's mouth and left it on the floor when he carried her up.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't JonBenet covered up when Patsy threw herself on her? And that doesn't explain how the fibers would be TIED in the knot. TIED into it. That did NOT come from a hug.

TexMex said:

Hi again Ned....I did not know your background, so thanks for that...

IMO Dr. Lee has lost lots of credibility post OJ.........


LKL Fri 8/25

I mean what are the odds that a factory worker sneezed on the exact spot where blood is found on a little girls underwear the night she is killed? The affidavit said the

KING: Dr. Kobilinsky, it's known that Dr. Henry Lee, another frequent guest on this show, found DNA on newly -- the newly purchased girl's underwear, tested right after the packaging. Do you think that fact may leave a misleading impression on the public?

KOBILINSKY: I think so actually, Larry. Let me explain why. When you take a garment, a brand new garment, you un-package it, you open it up, put it down on your laboratory bench and you look for the presence of DNA from its manufacturer.

What you do is you take a scalpel or a razor blade and you scrape the entire garment, the front, the back, the inside, the outside, so you're taking the entire area and then you take all of those scrapings and you isolate DNA. And, apparently Dr. Lee found the presence of some DNA.

That is a very far cry from looking at the panties of JonBenet which had a discreet little droplet of blood and from that droplet they were able to isolate DNA and we now know that it is from a male. It is not related to any member of the Ramsey family and therefore it's likely that it comes from the perpetrator, the intruder.

Click to expand...

First off, Kobilinsky is not Lee. Second, the presence of DNA was found in other pairs of brand new underwear, so why is the fact that they obtained the DNA from JB's undies from a drop of blood so important? How do you know it wasn't there before she bled on the undies - after all, it was fragmented and degraded and hers wasn't. And how is it being found in the blood making it likely that it came from the killer? If it had come from the killer, wouldn't the DNA be as fresh and as complete as JonBenet's DNA?

Nuisanceposter said:

Tex Mex, Patsy said she was never down in the basement in that jacket, and the tape did not come upstairs. John tore it off JonBenet's mouth and left it on the floor when he carried her up.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't JonBenet covered up when Patsy threw herself on her? And that doesn't explain how the fibers would be TIED in the knot. TIED into it. That did NOT come from a hug.

Click to expand...

Hi NP

The Thomas book said Fleet White brought it upstairs to Det. Arndt
John could have fibers of Patsy on him....Thomas says all fiber evidence was useless in this case from Day One

Nuisanceposter said:

First off, Kobilinsky is not Lee. Second, the presence of DNA was found in other pairs of brand new underwear, so why is the fact that they obtained the DNA from JB's undies from a drop of blood so important? How do you know it wasn't there before she bled on the undies - after all, it was fragmented and degraded and hers wasn't. And how is it being found in the blood making it likely that it came from the killer? If it had come from the killer, wouldn't the DNA be as fresh and as complete as JonBenet's DNA?

Click to expand...

Well...I'm not a forensic pathologist like Dr. K....I'm just sharing his opinion of Dr. Lee's theory on the underwear...

TexMex said:

Hi NP

The Thomas book said Fleet White brought it upstairs to Det. Arndt
John could have fibers of Patsy on him....Thomas says all fiber evidence was useless in this case from Day One

Click to expand...

Brought upstairs to Det. Arndt by FW still doesn't account for how her fibers would be on the tape, nor does it account for why they were found in the paint tray in the basement (remember she said she was never in the basement in that jacket nor was she near the paint try in it either) and it certainly does not account for why the fibers from her jacket would be tied into the knot.

And what about the fibers from John's shirt on JB's pubic area and in her underwear?

Nuisanceposter said:

Tex Mex, Patsy said she was never down in the basement in that jacket, and the tape did not come upstairs. John tore it off JonBenet's mouth and left it on the floor when he carried her up.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't JonBenet covered up when Patsy threw herself on her? And that doesn't explain how the fibers would be TIED in the knot. TIED into it. That did NOT come from a hug.

Click to expand...

IF JR really tore tape off JBR's mouth, why didn't any tape residue show up on her face in the autopsy??? No doubt there was tape in the basement, and JR said he ripped it off her mouth/face but his words are suspect when compared to the autopsy findings---it's doubtful that the was ever actually applied to JBR's face/mouth.

Isn't it interesting that we are told by Henry Lee, CBI and many other "experts" that the panty DNA is not necessarily related to the crime, yet the DA has dismissed the case against Karr because this panty DNA doesn't match his. I'm assuming there wasn't some secret DNA that we haven't been told about.

My understanding-which certainly could be flawed-is that a profile was developed from the panty DNA which consisted of 10 markers; enough to qualify it as acceptable for entry into CODIS. If that is true, then whether the DNA from which the profile was developed was degraded or not, insofar as it contains useful information (though not a complete profile) is a moot point, and you can't say that this DNA is useless simply because it was degraded. If these 10 markers had matched the corresponding markers in Karr's DNA, that would certainly have greatly strengthened the case against him, and probably charges would have been filed. If only one of the markers didn't match-and apparently at least one didn't match-the panty DNA could not have been his. Still, how does that justify dismissing the case against him?

It must have been the case that NONE of the physical evidence-boot prints, partial palm print, hairs, fibers, pubic hair, tape, cord, ransom note, his version of events, etc., linked him to the crime. It must have been the case that the DA didn't dismiss the case against him on the basis of DNA alone. What if the DNA had been a match but his story didn't add up; what then?

Do any of you know whether Mr. Karr was thoroughly interviewed by the DA in order to evaluate his story (cross-examine him and check his "confession" against the evidence and otherwise judge it's factualness)? I would guess that his defense counsel advised him to keep his yap shut, and, if so, there would be no such evaluation to be had. This raises the question: if the real killer, whoever that might be, were to confess publicly and in great detail, say, on national network television, or in letters or e-mails or phone calls to private individuals-such as Karr has done with Tracey-but would not submit to a formal interview with law enforcement (followed his lawyer's advice to keep his yap shut), would he, too, be dismissed as a kook if his DNA didn't match?

If John Ramsey were to so confess, would he, too, be dismissed as a kook?

Food for thought...