RiverRat
Patsy Ramsey to the Left
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2003
- Messages
- 2,909
- Reaction score
- 43
He seems to now.
Where are the experts?
- Thread starter Nedthan Johns
- Start date
He seems to now.
ttrachel04
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 423
- Reaction score
- 13
i saw an expert on CNNHeadline today. i think she had been on Nancy Grace last night.
RiverRat
Patsy Ramsey to the Left
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2003
- Messages
- 2,909
- Reaction score
- 43
Dan Abrams MSNBC Transcript - July 9, 2008
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9279
Kane: Oh, I think that there is no question that someone who wrote it didnt intend to collect a $118,000 ransom. The other thing that strikes me is, your other guest talking about he would advise the DA Theres so much urban legend out there about what the facts of this case are. An example is what he just said about there being a footprint being at the base of a window. There is no footprint at the base of a window! Theres so many things that have been put out and speculated about in the public domain. And all I am saying is, those people who have researched all the evidence in this case have reached a certain conclusion in the DAs office, now. Other people who have been accessed to all the evidence in this case are not so convinced. Thats not to say that there is a particular person that you could name. Given all the evidence thats still out there, that hasnt been explained I would not say any body has been exonerated in this case.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9279
Kane: Oh, I think that there is no question that someone who wrote it didnt intend to collect a $118,000 ransom. The other thing that strikes me is, your other guest talking about he would advise the DA Theres so much urban legend out there about what the facts of this case are. An example is what he just said about there being a footprint being at the base of a window. There is no footprint at the base of a window! Theres so many things that have been put out and speculated about in the public domain. And all I am saying is, those people who have researched all the evidence in this case have reached a certain conclusion in the DAs office, now. Other people who have been accessed to all the evidence in this case are not so convinced. Thats not to say that there is a particular person that you could name. Given all the evidence thats still out there, that hasnt been explained I would not say any body has been exonerated in this case.
Oh Lordy! There is so much we still do not know about this case! How the hell could Mary Lacy CLEAR ANYBODY!!!
Jeez, I think I need to go smoke something and eat a cake.
Originally published 07:23 p.m., July 10, 2008
Updated 07:23 p.m., July 10, 2008
A high-profile forensic investigator who worked on the JonBenet Ramsey case said Thursday that he doesnt think when it comes to finding the 6-year-old girls killer that much has changed in the Boulder County district attorneys investigation.
District Attorney Mary Lacy on Wednesday announced new DNA evidence in JonBenets 1996 slaying, cleared her parents as suspects and wrote them an apology letter.
But investigator Henry Lee, who has worked on homicides including the O.J. Simpson and John F. Kennedy cases, said John and Patsy Ramsey already were cleared in their daughters death nearly a decade ago when a grand jury failed to find evidence to indict anyone.
As for the DNA, Lee said, evidence in the national database today is the same DNA thats been there for years.
So far they have not had a hit, Lee said.
Investigators exonerated JonBenets family this week after learning that new DNA evidence found on long johns the girl was wearing at the time of her death matched foreign DNA discovered 11 years ago in her underwear.
Until now, some people speculated the DNA in the panties because it never has matched any suspects might have landed there innocently, perhaps through a factory worker who packaged the panties. The corroborating evidence found on the girls long johns recently gives investigators supportive proof that the DNA on the underwear didnt land there innocuously.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/10/forensic-expert-says-ramsey-investigation-still-co/
Updated 07:23 p.m., July 10, 2008
A high-profile forensic investigator who worked on the JonBenet Ramsey case said Thursday that he doesnt think when it comes to finding the 6-year-old girls killer that much has changed in the Boulder County district attorneys investigation.
District Attorney Mary Lacy on Wednesday announced new DNA evidence in JonBenets 1996 slaying, cleared her parents as suspects and wrote them an apology letter.
But investigator Henry Lee, who has worked on homicides including the O.J. Simpson and John F. Kennedy cases, said John and Patsy Ramsey already were cleared in their daughters death nearly a decade ago when a grand jury failed to find evidence to indict anyone.
As for the DNA, Lee said, evidence in the national database today is the same DNA thats been there for years.
So far they have not had a hit, Lee said.
Investigators exonerated JonBenets family this week after learning that new DNA evidence found on long johns the girl was wearing at the time of her death matched foreign DNA discovered 11 years ago in her underwear.
Until now, some people speculated the DNA in the panties because it never has matched any suspects might have landed there innocently, perhaps through a factory worker who packaged the panties. The corroborating evidence found on the girls long johns recently gives investigators supportive proof that the DNA on the underwear didnt land there innocuously.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/10/forensic-expert-says-ramsey-investigation-still-co/
Love_Mama
Rest In Peace
Blogs - Post-Ed Notes
Anger wont clear Ramseys
by David Harsanyi on July 11, 2008
http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2008/07/11/anger-wont-clear-ramseys/
Ive received a ton of responses to Thursdays column which focused on the despicable behavior of Boulder DA Mary Lacy and her dubious clearing and apology to the Ramseys. Around 75 percent of the emails and calls I received were supportive.
In a world crawling with batty conspiracy theorists, I ran across a particularly mind-numbing post by a fringy blowhard named Dr. Sammy. Its a nearly unreadable tirade full of ad hominem attacks and baseless assertions.
The only reason I mention Dr. Sammy is that he, like others who are emotionally invested in seeing the Ramseys cleared, have held up the work of Professor Michael Tracey as the exemplar of fairness and professionalism in the Ramsey case. Yes, the same Michael Tracey brought us the mentally unstable John Mark Karr as the fall guy on his never-ending crusade to exonerate the Ramseys. For more on Tracey, read Alan Prendergast and Michael Roberts in Westword.
I dont know Tracey personally, though I may have met him at some point, and he may be the finest professor in Colorado. What I do know, however, is that his actions during the Karr fiasco disqualify him from being the go-to guy on the topic.
To be frank, the rehashing of the JonBenet case is, for the most part, a worthless endeavor. (One commenter on the DPO claims that I have, like radio talk show host Peter Boyles, been harping on this topic for years. Im not sure what Peter has done; I wasnt here. But in approximately 400+ columns Ive written for the Post since 2004, Ive editorialized on the case twice. Once when Karr was brought in and once on Thursday.)
The focus here is Mary Lacys irresponsible, unprofessional and hypocritical behavior. For anyone who still doubts Lacys breathtaking incompetence, peruse these quotes from a piece by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, who was an investigative reporter on the case. (Yes, I realize Shapiro has his own bias, but the Lacy quotes speak for themselves.)
In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: The DNA could be an artifact. It isnt necessarily the killers. Theres a probability that its the killers. But it could be something else.
And
In fact, during the Karr debacle, Lacy also said that no one is really cleared of a homicide until theres a conviction in court, beyond a reasonable doubt. And I dont think you will get any prosecutor, unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime, to clear someone.
What has changed for Lacy? If she didnt know then that the DNA was the killers, how does she know it now? If DNA was there, finding a trace amount in another spot doesnt change any facts. Nor does it clear the Ramseys.
xxxxxxxoooo
mama
:blowkiss::blowkiss:
Anger wont clear Ramseys
by David Harsanyi on July 11, 2008
http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2008/07/11/anger-wont-clear-ramseys/
Ive received a ton of responses to Thursdays column which focused on the despicable behavior of Boulder DA Mary Lacy and her dubious clearing and apology to the Ramseys. Around 75 percent of the emails and calls I received were supportive.
In a world crawling with batty conspiracy theorists, I ran across a particularly mind-numbing post by a fringy blowhard named Dr. Sammy. Its a nearly unreadable tirade full of ad hominem attacks and baseless assertions.
The only reason I mention Dr. Sammy is that he, like others who are emotionally invested in seeing the Ramseys cleared, have held up the work of Professor Michael Tracey as the exemplar of fairness and professionalism in the Ramsey case. Yes, the same Michael Tracey brought us the mentally unstable John Mark Karr as the fall guy on his never-ending crusade to exonerate the Ramseys. For more on Tracey, read Alan Prendergast and Michael Roberts in Westword.
I dont know Tracey personally, though I may have met him at some point, and he may be the finest professor in Colorado. What I do know, however, is that his actions during the Karr fiasco disqualify him from being the go-to guy on the topic.
To be frank, the rehashing of the JonBenet case is, for the most part, a worthless endeavor. (One commenter on the DPO claims that I have, like radio talk show host Peter Boyles, been harping on this topic for years. Im not sure what Peter has done; I wasnt here. But in approximately 400+ columns Ive written for the Post since 2004, Ive editorialized on the case twice. Once when Karr was brought in and once on Thursday.)
The focus here is Mary Lacys irresponsible, unprofessional and hypocritical behavior. For anyone who still doubts Lacys breathtaking incompetence, peruse these quotes from a piece by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, who was an investigative reporter on the case. (Yes, I realize Shapiro has his own bias, but the Lacy quotes speak for themselves.)
In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: The DNA could be an artifact. It isnt necessarily the killers. Theres a probability that its the killers. But it could be something else.
And
In fact, during the Karr debacle, Lacy also said that no one is really cleared of a homicide until theres a conviction in court, beyond a reasonable doubt. And I dont think you will get any prosecutor, unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime, to clear someone.
What has changed for Lacy? If she didnt know then that the DNA was the killers, how does she know it now? If DNA was there, finding a trace amount in another spot doesnt change any facts. Nor does it clear the Ramseys.
xxxxxxxoooo
mama
:blowkiss::blowkiss:
Love_Mama
Rest In Peace
Updated: July 10, 2008 6:45:38 PM MDT
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi
opinion
There's only one victim in the Ramsey case
By David Harsanyi
Article Last Updated: 07/10/2008 06:45:38 PM MDT
Ramsey case DNA awaits match in federal database
"Touch DNA" a relatively new analysis
12-year-old murder case likely to top DA's legacy
DA clears Ramsey family
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.
Mary Lacy, the district attorney of Boulder, has made it her mission to exonerate the Ramseys since her first day on the job. She has disregarded facts and played the media and the public for a bunch of suckers along the way. She is trying to do it again.
Relying on an advanced method of analyzing forensic evidence, Lacy claims an unidentified man was the likely murderer of JonBenét. Lacy stated the Ramsey family should now "be treated only as victims," and apologized to them in writing.
Lacy, as anyone who has followed this case knows, has little credibility to offer, much less any absolution to hand out at least not until a killer is convicted. And without a confession, that's an exceedingly unlikely scenario.
The Ramseys, let's not forget, brought suspicion upon themselves with bizarre behavior during the investigation of the horrific Christmas night 1996 murder of their daughter.
Suspicious acts are not the equivalent of guilt, but they certainly provide authorities ample reason to be on alert.
Now, according to Lacy, an outside laboratory has found "previously undiscovered genetic material" of a male in three places on JonBenét's clothing. This leads investigators to believe that DNA could not have been left accidentally by an innocent party. It must have been an intruder.
So, once again, the public is supposed to believe a murderer snuck into the house undetected, killed the girl undetected, wrote a ransom note and then snuck out undetected, never to be heard from again.
"It is, therefore, the position of the Boulder district attorney's office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide," Lacy contends.
Now, you may wonder:
How does Lacy know the unidentified male is the one who actually killed JonBenét? How does Lacy know that this person's hands weren't on JonBenét's clothes before or after the murder? How does she know that John Doe wasn't assisting the family in a cover-up of the crime?
And if this nameless individual was indeed the murderer, how does Lacy know that a family member did not assist him in covering up the crime?
She doesn't know.
But Lacy, one of the most incompetent officials working in Colorado law enforcement, has taken us on this ride before. There is neither the space nor the need to discuss Lacy's ham-fisted ineptitude here. She is, after all, an elected official, and Boulder voters get what they deserve.
We must, nonetheless, recall that this is the woman who two years ago conceded she had not a shred of credible evidence tying John Mark Karr to the death of JonBenét Ramsey. Yet, she still hauled this creepy child-sex fetishist back to United States from Thailand (a crime in itself, if you ask me) and let citizens foot the bill.
When Karr was brought back to Colorado, there were immediate calls for the media to ask for forgiveness from the Ramsey family for daring to cast suspicion on them all these years.
But, as is always prudent in this case, a healthy dose of skepticism about the Boulder police department, the DA and everyone involved was entirely justified for the obvious reasons that no one wants to believe the unthinkable. No one wants to believe parents are capable of some dreadful act.
We should also remember there are plenty of other crimes to be solved. Plenty of other children most of whom aren't involved in high-profile cases are in need of justice.
But Lacy is in no position to offer apologies or to dictate how the public should view the Ramseys. Because in this case, there is still only one victim.
Reach columnist David Harsanyi at 303-954-1255 or dharsanyi@
denverpost.com.
xxxxoo
mama
:blowkiss::blowkiss:
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi
opinion
There's only one victim in the Ramsey case
By David Harsanyi
Article Last Updated: 07/10/2008 06:45:38 PM MDT
Ramsey case DNA awaits match in federal database
"Touch DNA" a relatively new analysis
12-year-old murder case likely to top DA's legacy
DA clears Ramsey family
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.
Mary Lacy, the district attorney of Boulder, has made it her mission to exonerate the Ramseys since her first day on the job. She has disregarded facts and played the media and the public for a bunch of suckers along the way. She is trying to do it again.
Relying on an advanced method of analyzing forensic evidence, Lacy claims an unidentified man was the likely murderer of JonBenét. Lacy stated the Ramsey family should now "be treated only as victims," and apologized to them in writing.
Lacy, as anyone who has followed this case knows, has little credibility to offer, much less any absolution to hand out at least not until a killer is convicted. And without a confession, that's an exceedingly unlikely scenario.
The Ramseys, let's not forget, brought suspicion upon themselves with bizarre behavior during the investigation of the horrific Christmas night 1996 murder of their daughter.
Suspicious acts are not the equivalent of guilt, but they certainly provide authorities ample reason to be on alert.
Now, according to Lacy, an outside laboratory has found "previously undiscovered genetic material" of a male in three places on JonBenét's clothing. This leads investigators to believe that DNA could not have been left accidentally by an innocent party. It must have been an intruder.
So, once again, the public is supposed to believe a murderer snuck into the house undetected, killed the girl undetected, wrote a ransom note and then snuck out undetected, never to be heard from again.
"It is, therefore, the position of the Boulder district attorney's office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide," Lacy contends.
Now, you may wonder:
How does Lacy know the unidentified male is the one who actually killed JonBenét? How does Lacy know that this person's hands weren't on JonBenét's clothes before or after the murder? How does she know that John Doe wasn't assisting the family in a cover-up of the crime?
And if this nameless individual was indeed the murderer, how does Lacy know that a family member did not assist him in covering up the crime?
She doesn't know.
But Lacy, one of the most incompetent officials working in Colorado law enforcement, has taken us on this ride before. There is neither the space nor the need to discuss Lacy's ham-fisted ineptitude here. She is, after all, an elected official, and Boulder voters get what they deserve.
We must, nonetheless, recall that this is the woman who two years ago conceded she had not a shred of credible evidence tying John Mark Karr to the death of JonBenét Ramsey. Yet, she still hauled this creepy child-sex fetishist back to United States from Thailand (a crime in itself, if you ask me) and let citizens foot the bill.
When Karr was brought back to Colorado, there were immediate calls for the media to ask for forgiveness from the Ramsey family for daring to cast suspicion on them all these years.
But, as is always prudent in this case, a healthy dose of skepticism about the Boulder police department, the DA and everyone involved was entirely justified for the obvious reasons that no one wants to believe the unthinkable. No one wants to believe parents are capable of some dreadful act.
We should also remember there are plenty of other crimes to be solved. Plenty of other children most of whom aren't involved in high-profile cases are in need of justice.
But Lacy is in no position to offer apologies or to dictate how the public should view the Ramseys. Because in this case, there is still only one victim.
Reach columnist David Harsanyi at 303-954-1255 or dharsanyi@
denverpost.com.
xxxxoo
mama
:blowkiss::blowkiss: