Who ultimately committed this

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Kelly_Robinson, Nov 26, 2010.

  1. Kelly_Robinson

    Kelly_Robinson New Member

    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is one case that I have involved myself in, getting to know the principals involved. To me this is an open and shut case. With respect to Keenan/Lacy and the DNA and the exoneration of the Ramsey's go, we have all seen Mary Lacy at work. Mary Lacy is a total joke and has made a total fool of herself. The DNA that supposely exonerated the Ramsey's was probably left by the dozen's of people who were in and out of that house that day-contaminating the crime scene-who walked anywhere they pleased.

    The ranson note looked like it was written by someone whose only exposure to crime was what they saw in Dirty Harry, Speed and a host of other cop movies. Jeff Shapiro and Steve Thomas have made it publically known that they are confident that Patsy Ramsey lost it and then attempted to cover it up. I have studied this case for 10 years now, speaking to some involved and the only logical conclusion is that John Ramsey is a liar and knows what his wife did and Patsy Ramsey took this lie to the grave, namely, that she lost it and killed her own daughter.

    Mr. Ramsey if you read this, remember, "there can be no FORGIVENESS without confession."
     
  2. Loading...


  3. CathyR

    CathyR New Member

    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  4. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This waters down the DNA evidence and ignores the circumstances completely. The fact is that while JBR was still in that house, not even the coroner handled JBR's underwear on the inside crotch area. Did you know that is where some of the DNA was discovered? Thats the CODIS DNA and your claim it was 'innocently deposited' requires that the innocent deposit land on the inside crotch area of her underwear exactly upon a spot of JBR's blood.

    I mean, do you really think somebody had JBR's underpants off inside the house that day and wasn't noticed? I'm sorry but thats just absurd. There's lots of news reports that explain these were the circumstances. Did you miss all those reports?

    Please feel free to modify your claim to suit another scenario, becase the one you described doesn't work.
     
  5. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey Kelly, it works just fine for me!
     
  6. joeskidbeck

    joeskidbeck Rest in Peace

    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fine for me too, Kelly. BTW, who said the dna in her panties had to happen in the house that day? Someone had to touch them at the coroner's office the next day. Are you saying that you are certain that dna samples were taken before the body was removed from the home? Maybe the outside clothes were tested, but no way they took her clothes off in the home for dna testing. Try again.
     
  7. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I dont doubt that in the least.
     
  8. SunnieRN

    SunnieRN Active Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You mean it waters down the touch DNA that didn't even supply all 13 markers prior to being submitted to CODIS?? Hmmm lets see, will I believe a theory that can be proven by the presence of the 4 individuals that are KNOWN to have been in the house, or touch DNA that is incomplete and has NEVER been linked to anyone? Wow, hard choice, not!!!!!!

    As for JBR's underpants being taken off that day, there was dirty underwear found in her bathroom and she often took it off and dropped soiled underwear.

    Bye the way, JR's sweater fibers were also found inside JB's underwear. And as another matter of fact he was wearing that same sweater at the party, but not the next morning. What a bizarre twist of fate.

    As for changing scenarios and reading reports, maybe you would benefit yourself to re-read actual reports vs media hype. Or maybe this is another 'theory'? Hmmm now that is an interesting idea!
     
  9. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is false. The touch DNA is complete profile, and was processed the same as blood or semen. It does seem you're confused on the DNA evidence.
     
  10. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :clap: :clap: This deserves a standing ovation. Welcome aboard, Kelly!

    Incidentally, you mentioned that you've talked to some of the people involved. Are you at liberty to say who?
     
  11. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :clap:

    LOL!! No kidding! Those would be the choices! That seems to be the part our friend HOTYH doesn't understand.

    Twist of fate, my Irish fanny.

    Damn good advice. HOTYH would be wise to heed it. And in that same spirit, let me offer our friend some friendly advice:

    HOTYH, if I were in your position--and it helps to remember I used to be--I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith into anyone who thought John Mark Karr was a solid lead. Ever heard the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? Mary Lacy was the Girl Who Cried Intruder. And it's going to come back to haunt you, brother.
     
  12. CathyR

    CathyR New Member

    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Correct me if I'm wrong here.

    2 or more blood spots were found on JB's underwear?

    Coroner may have contaminated fingernail DNA while clipping. But it is tested anyway.

    It yields a mixture and then only a couple of markers-not enough to identify anyone.

    The 1st or 2 blood spots is tested and what ????? It yields no results it is contaminated? What I'm lost here?


    I have read the 2nd blood spot was tested and it yielded enough markers to be submitted to CODIS, not all 13 but 10 I think. It was tested years later than the first spot. Am I correct in this fact? Has testing been done on the 2nd spot?


    I can see why the R's felt the need to try and preserve as much evidence as possible. So little biological evidence existed. They did fight the DNA testing in an effort not to prevent it but to preserve as much as possible. Their lawyers took it to the extreme and wanted representatives at the lab to guarantee the tests were done correctly.

    A lot of what people assume is the Ramsey's being "guilty acting" is actually proof of good lawyers and clients who followed their advice.

    Lawyers are paid to "get people out" of a legal mess, innocent or guilty. They use the system to their clients advantage and they don't have to be the ones who live with public opinion their clients are.

    Even in a trial a defense lawyer wants to be able to defend his client WITHOUT calling him to the stand. A judge would instruct a juror that they cannot hold the defendant guilty because he did not testify. Old as Perry Mason known trial tactics, there are even more than one or two available to those who are experiences professionals.The earlier they get in on the action the quicker they can do what they are supposed to do-use the system.


    I find it interesting that Bynum took it upon himself and even volunteered that information later than when he answered the phone he told the cops he was representing the R's.
     
  13. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    A lot of what people assume is the Ramsey's being "guilty acting" is actually proof of good lawyers and clients who followed their advice. - CR



    Hiya CR.

    Yes, but that's the difficulty.

    The Ramsey's had legal directions on how to approach and respond to each question or possible direction of the inquiry. How far could they veer off point, with fuzzy memories and coaching on their responses.


    How to distinguish what is a lie?, hidden in dialogue; they can be easily surmised.
     
  14. CathyR

    CathyR New Member

    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    This hidden in dialogue isn't a science like playing KISS, Led Zepplin, Lynard Skynard, Etc. backwards and hearing the devil speak?

    Is it able to be admissible evidence used against someone in court?

    If it is then post some links.
     
  15. joeskidbeck

    joeskidbeck Rest in Peace

    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Out of all honesty here, if one of my children were found dead in my home and I knew without one doubt that I had NOTHING to do with it. The first thing I am going to do is talk to the police and tell them everything I know. I'm innocent, right? Why would I not talk to them. I know IDIs say it's because LE will turn it around on me and try to make me look guilty. No, they will say and do anything they can to get me to confess, that's the only reason I would have a lawyer present, to stop that kind of thing. Other than that, I would answer every question immediately so that I could be cleared. Honestly, the Ramseys really acted like they did not want to be cleared. Ask yourself why. Why would anyone not want to be cleared? Only because they didn't want LE looking at the right person. What other reason could there be if they are innocent?
     
  16. kcabnroh

    kcabnroh New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What I don't understand is how somone elses blood got into JBR's underwear. That does not make sense to me. There was no other blood found in the house, no blood on the ground. If the "intruder" was wearing gloves, how would they bleed? You could not say they cut a finger or anything like that. The blood in the panties just does not make sense to me.


    Can anyone help me understand this?
     
  17. joeskidbeck

    joeskidbeck Rest in Peace

    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi kcabnoroh! I don't believe there was another person's blood in JB's panties, only her own. They are discussing the dna that was found in JB's blood on her panties. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the only blood found that day was JonBenet's, right?
     
  18. kcabnroh

    kcabnroh New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Okay thanks joeskidbeck, because I was not sure and that just did not make sense in my head because for a long time I thought people were saying that there was mixed DNA left by the "killer" in her underwear. Wasn't sure though
     
  19. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Right. The male DNA was superimposed on JB's blood. Only JB's blood was found. It actually has never been revealed (I don't think) exactly what the source of the DNA is except to say that it was not semen.
     
  20. kcabnroh

    kcabnroh New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks guys! I was wondering because I just recently read Henry Lee's book "Cracking More Cases", and it says on page 189, " the CBI's lab also reported that the bloodstains on JonBenet's undergarments contained the DNA of one or more person, other than JonBenet, though the majority of the blood came from the victim."


    I wasn't sure how correct this was. Thanks for your help!
     
  21. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,187
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    kcabnroh,
    The dna discovered in the bloodstain is degraded and has no evidential value beyond those that support an IDI theory using it as the basis for their theory.

    The likely source for the dna in the bloodstain is touch-dna falling from the longjohns onto the size-12 underwear. This may have ocurred at autopsy, or when JonBenet was being redressed. That is the touch-dna may have a non-controversial origin? Another source for the touch-dna is via the christmas wrapping paper that the redresser would have come in contact with as the size-12's were opened.

    There were no other samples of dna discovered other than on JonBenet's person. e.g. no semen, no sweat, no hair, no urine sample, no fecal sample, no blood sample, no fibers, no fingerprints, no earprints, no footprints. Absolutely zero.

    But there was plenty evidence linking to and matching with the parents clothing!


    .
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice