Tom Bennett's Response to 48 Hours

Nehemiah

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
113
Website
Visit site
It may seem like the JonBenet Ramsey case is close to being solved because of a weekend media blitz on the subject, but the man handling the investigation said there's been no breakthrough in the 8-year-old case.

Contrary to what was reported on a "48 Hours" special that aired Saturday night on CBS, DNA evidence found in JonBenet's underwear doesn't necessarily belong to the killer, Boulder County District Attorney's Office investigator Tom Bennett said Monday. The office took over the Ramsey case two years ago and entered the DNA evidence into a national database for the first time earlier this year.

http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/city_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2422_3414578,00.html

"The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It's minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can't just jump to conclusion it's positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

Bennett — a retired police detective with more than 30 years on the job — said nobody from CBS or "48 Hours" contacted him about the special. Instead, private investigators once hired by the girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, offered their theories on the DNA and possible suspects.

"I would simply say this is dated news," Bennett said. "It is not indicative of any breakthrough because it's not a breakthrough."
 
Nehemiah said:
It may seem like the JonBenet Ramsey case is close to being solved because of a weekend media blitz on the subject, but the man handling the investigation said there's been no breakthrough in the 8-year-old case.

Contrary to what was reported on a "48 Hours" special that aired Saturday night on CBS, DNA evidence found in JonBenet's underwear doesn't necessarily belong to the killer, Boulder County District Attorney's Office investigator Tom Bennett said Monday. The office took over the Ramsey case two years ago and entered the DNA evidence into a national database for the first time earlier this year.

http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/city_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2422_3414578,00.html

"The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It's minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can't just jump to conclusion it's positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

Bennett — a retired police detective with more than 30 years on the job — said nobody from CBS or "48 Hours" contacted him about the special. Instead, private investigators once hired by the girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, offered their theories on the DNA and possible suspects.

"I would simply say this is dated news," Bennett said. "It is not indicative of any breakthrough because it's not a breakthrough."

Ha! I knew it. I watched the special, and it was all old/recycled information. Interesting how the DNA is such a small amount, and obviously not semen or blood. That 48 hours episode was really a waste of time.
 
kathrynr448 said:
Ha! I knew it. I watched the special, and it was all old/recycled information. Interesting how the DNA is such a small amount, and obviously not semen or blood. That 48 hours episode was really a waste of time.

It certainly was. Jonbenet's death stunned all of America, and these people know this. I think it was nothing more than an attempt to grab the ratings by the antler. Or so they thought...
 
More from the article:

"Bennett was hired in June 2003 solely to head the Ramsey investigation, but he was promoted to the office's lead investigator in January and now manages three other investigators and two volunteers working on other cases. The Ramsey case still occupies about a third of his work time, he said, but he guesses the next two weeks of his job will be nothing but Ramsey because of the rekindled interest."


Sounds like Bennett has figured out this case will never be solved and is not putting much of an effort into it...Hehe, maybe he had lunch with Steve Thomas! :crazy:
 
Hey guys, he was hired out of retirement in the way of Lou Smit, why aren't ya' saying he's a delusional old man?
 
sissi said:
Hey guys, he was hired out of retirement in the way of Lou Smit, why aren't ya' saying he's a delusional old man?
Smit's age and employment status have nothing to do with his "delusional" atribute. It was his delusional behavour during the investigation, which actually started 72 hours after he was hired when he proclaimed the Ramseys "innocent". In 72 hours he wouldn't even have had time to scratch the surface of a 20,000 page case file.

Smit was a loose canon on deck who was out to get his name in the limelight at the cost of the investigation. He proved that when he resigned and stole case evidence like a petty thief.
 
this case has turned into an emotional food fight for each side. one side is convinced a ramsey did it and another is convinced they are all innocent.

the side is taken and everything that comes to light is filteres from that pov.

that's why the bpd instigated a campaign of misinformation at the behest of the fbi. they wanted to pressure a ramsey confession and, if that didn't work, prejudice people against the ramseys in case their case went to trial.

well, don't let bpd's lies and misinformation guide your thoughts (the notable lies spread by bpd were that snow surrounded the house and the totally bogus burke tape). don't let the ramsey or 48 hour spin guide your thoughts.

assuming the information reported was accurate, i learned some new information that i don't believe was previously released.

let's focus on the dna.

two points were alledged:

1. the foreign dna was only found mixed with jbr's two blood drops. it was found nowhere else in the panties. the dna was found in both blood drops.

2. it was asserted in terms of "it is my understanding" that all the dna in this case matched. if true, that means that means that the dna in jbr's blood (and nowhere else in the panties), the dna under her nails and dnax (which i understand was found a few feet from the body) all match.

3. a full male dna profile has been derived from the second blood drop.

what can be drawn from this "newly released" information about old evidence - again, assuming it is true?

well, the implications are very clear. the foreign dna was mixed with jbr's blood before, or essentially at the same time it came into contact with the panties.

the idea that some male guy in asia coughed or sneezed all over these panties has now been 100% debunked. the odds of a cough yielding two specs of dna on a par of panties that, many days into the future, would have be the exact same spots where jbr's two drops of blood would make contact pushes well beyond the limits of *unreasonable*.

folks, this *IS* evidence of an intruder *IF* true.

the dna under the nails supports thois idea 100%. it has been asserted that the dna under the nails was contamination. well, that's been 100% debunked if the dna under the nails matches the dna in her blood stains.

the idea that some guy in asia who made this pair of underwear and left his dna on it flew over to boulder and was killed and processed just prior to jbr being processed... well... i hope nobody alledges such foolishness.

through in matching dnax and it makes the impossible even more so.

another argument i've heard design to presume guilt and "explain away" this difficult evidence is that the foreign dna was in jbr's panties and she dug into her crotch with both hands, thereby transfering the dna to her nails.

this is show to be false given this new information. first off, that scenario is extremely unlikely anyway. second, that underwear was put on jbr during the commission of the crime. the folks who believe the ramseys did this believe jbr was knocked out when the panties were put on. knocked out folks don't scratch.

second, even if this was plausible, it is shown impossible by the fact that the dna was linited to the location of the blood drops only. in order for the scratch to occur, jbr would've spread the dna to a larger area than the size of two drops.

the conclusion, if true, this evidence basically excuplates the ramseys. i know some won't likewhat the EVIDENCE SAYS, but that's it.

the only other alternative is that a ramsey walks around with foreign male dna in a syringe just in case an accident offed their daughter and they needed to deflect attention away from finishing her off.

while possible (what isn't?), that isn't reasonable.

again, this presumes the accuracy of what was reported. to my knowledge, it hasn't been disputed, which leads on to add weight to its credibility. the lack of dispute isn't proof positive, though.
 
I agree MY TAKE!
However if you want to see it disputed, click around a few threads.
You suggest the truth, we all come from a pov and nothing can change that.
My take is this, either 48 hours considers the entire US stupid and easily snowed, or they presented a side of the investigation that was hidden and needed to be exposed. It was nothing new for us, but for a nation of the media informed it was a huge 180 from what they have been fed over the years.
 
My Take said:
1. the foreign dna was only found mixed with jbr's two blood drops. it was found nowhere else in the panties. the dna was found in both blood drops.

2. it was asserted in terms of "it is my understanding" that all the dna in this case matched. if true, that means that means that the dna in jbr's blood (and nowhere else in the panties), the dna under her nails and dnax (which i understand was found a few feet from the body) all match.

3. a full male dna profile has been derived from the second blood drop.
Sorry, but you've been misinformed on all three points.

1) The DNA was not "mixed" with the blood, and nobody knows what other areas of the panties were (or were not) tested. They did test new panties right out of the package and found them to contain male DNA from the point of manufacturer or point of sale.

2) Nobody knows if the DNA found in different places matches itself. If it does, that points to "sample contamination" since it's doubtful there would be multiple-source contamination in the same group of samples.

3)None of the DNA samples has yielded a complete male DNA profile. They were lucky to get 10 markers out of the 13 normally used for indentification.
 
aRnd2it said:
Sorry, but you've been misinformed on all three points.

1) The DNA was not "mixed" with the blood, and nobody knows what other areas of the panties were (or were not) tested. They did test new panties right out of the package and found them to contain male DNA from the point of manufacturer or point of sale.

2) Nobody knows if the DNA found in different places matches itself. If it does, that points to "sample contamination" since it's doubtful there would be multiple-source contamination in the same group of samples.

3)None of the DNA samples has yielded a complete male DNA profile. They were lucky to get 10 markers out of the 13 normally used for indentification.
my understanding is that the foreign dna was found in jbr's blood drops. that is "mixed." otherwise, it would be completely seperate.

if you people don't even know if any dna resides outside of jbr's blood then any argument of pre or post contamination is exactly worthless. until ble *proves* the existence of such foreign dna outside the blood then *there is no evidence outside of the blood drops" and any belief there is is 100% misplaced.

i find it hard to believe preliminary tests for dna were not conducted all over the underwear - the test isn't complicated. then again...

***we are talking bould pd here*** -lol-

sample contamination is excluded. you didn't pay attention. IF what was said in the 48 hours show is accurate THEN this foreign dna was found in both blood drops, under more than one fingernail (i think under the nails of two hands, not just one) and several feet of the body.

this is consistent with 1. the assilant leaving dna during the sexual assault, 2. jbr fighting her attacker at some point and 3. her attacker leaving another source of dna at the scene for some reason.

this kind of dna evidence is yielded at crime scenes all the time.

it is NEVER reasonably assumed it is contamination WITH NO EVIDENCE to support contamination. in this case, contamination is all but impossible given the wide variety of samples in multiple locations.

you, my friend, are doing nothing more than PROOF TEXTING YOUR PRIOR ASSUMPTION OF GUILT, and nothing more.

lastly, you don't pay attention. they now have a FULL DNA PROFILE taken from the SECOND BLOOD DROP that was not tested by boulder pd.

that was part of the "new evidence" mantra 48 hours chanted ahead of the show.

a lack of attention to details will yield faulty conclusions
 
Jayelles said:
9 + 1 to be precise - it wasn't even 10 good markers.
they now have a full dna profile taken from the second blood drop that the boulder pd didn't even bother to send for testing.

you guys need to keep up to date instead of repeating the same old mantras...
 
My Take said:
they now have a full dna profile taken from the second blood drop that the boulder pd didn't even bother to send for testing.

you guys need to keep up to date instead of repeating the same old mantras...
No full profile. That is media garbage. Are you saying that suddenly we've to believe the media? Tom bennett put the record straight - No new evidence. No breakthroughs.
 
Fire up the grill!


BrotherMoon, pleeeeeease behave, you just got back!



Jubie
 
My Take said:
my understanding is that the foreign dna was found in jbr's blood drops. that is "mixed." otherwise, it would be completely seperate.
You don't understand the DNA process. The DNA would have gotten "mixed" with the blood when they collected it with a wet swab or when water was added during the testing process. The DNA could have been "next to" or even "underneath" the blood droplet.

My Take said:
lastly, you don't pay attention. they now have a FULL DNA PROFILE taken from the SECOND BLOOD DROP that was not tested by boulder pd.
YOU don't pay attention! I quoted you a press release right off the Ramsey Support web page that says they DO NOT have a complete DNA profile. Go read it, then stop claiming wrong information is correct!
 
<<two points were alledged:


1. Wouldn't they have only swabbed "stains" on the panties? You have to remember that DNA is a molecule. They did not examine the entirety of the panties at the molecular level, therefore, you can't assume that the DNA X was only in the blood stains. You don't know where else or (how extensively) on the panties they looked for it.

2. As far as the mixing, do you know how many millions of molecules of DNA could fit on the end of a pin, much less a wet cotton swab? The person taking the sample generated a DNA mixture. You can't assume the two sources of DNA were deposited at the same time.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
86
Guests online
742
Total visitors
828

Forum statistics

Threads
589,926
Messages
17,927,738
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top