Lacy officially "clears" Ramseys

Lacy made it her mission to "clear" the Rs before she left office, no matter what it took. She leaves soon (YAY!) . The Touch DNA has been available for a few years. Why did she decide to use it now? I think we all know the answer to that- so she goes out as having "solved" the case by (recklessly) proclaiming that they now have identified the "killer"'s profile. Does NO ONE there at the Boulder DA's office have even a basic idea of how to prove a killer's ID? The DNA results prove ONLY that skin cells from an unidentified male transferred by undetermined method to JBR's clothing. It does NOT prove that person killed her. Now...finding DNA on the garrote and tape WOULD be an indicator of the donor of the DNA there as being the killer, with the garrote being a stronger indicator, as the tape was found to have been applied on an unconscious or already dead child, and the same person may not have done both.
To take it further, any one or all Rs could have been in the room when she was killed and a FOURTH person undressed/redressed her. (Not saying I believe this, just giving an example of how the skin cells need not have come from the killer). Actually, if a R had made a late-night frantic call to their high-powered lawyer friends, and had "help" that night after she died, some one else could very well have "cleaned up" the crime scene for them. How likely do you think it is that they'd get DNA samples from their lawyer friends and defense attorneys?

 

I have a couple of attorney friends, and I can state without doubt that neither of my friends would ever help me cover for any murder, but especially the murder of a child, and especially the murder of my own child. So, I have a hard time envisioning any of the Ramseys' lawyer friends would put themselves in jeopardy by covering for them in the murder of their child.

JonBenet's DNA and her parents' and brother's DNA could logically be expected to be on JonBenet's body, because she lived with them. So, their DNA would be separated (as much as possible) from foreign DNA. If Patsy dressed JonBenet, who's to say Patsy herself hadn't picked up foreign DNA on her hands and transferred it to JB? Let's do a little hypothesizing - say Patsy did kill JB and both she and John staged the crime scene. Who did John come in contact that night? Who did Patsy come in contact that night? They also made some stops on the way home from the Whites' party, and Patsy delivered gifts. How many surfaces did John and Patsy touch that night; how many people's hands did they touch? How many children did they hug that night? Was there DNA left on the flashlight from someone else who had used it prior to that night? Who's to say foreign DNA transfered from either John and Patsy wasn't left on JB's body duriing the commission and staging of the crime? It's not an impossibility and probably as much of a possibility as the BS they are trying to hand us on the touch DNA.

 

Absolutely correct on the DNA transfer. PR was at a party. She probably shook hands with several people that night. So did JR. And JBR herself may have held her parents' hands and transferred it herself.
As far as what an attorney would or wouldn't do, I have family members who are attorneys and while they (and I ) agree that it isn't likely that an attorney would jeopardize their career and freedom in a scheme like that, but people do awful things, things you'd never expect them to do, and in so doing are acting not in a legal capacity but as a friend with displaced loyalty and also with a strong feeling that they can (and did) get away with it. Friends in high places means more than you'd think. Connected people have gotten away with much worse, and much more high profile crimes than this.
Chappaquiddick, anyone? Joran VanDerSloot? I could go on.
While I think this is reprehensible behavior for an attorney to engage in, I can't rule it out either.

 

I've also thought about the possible involvement of one of their attorneys, DeeDee. Stranger things have happened.


-Tea

 

I'll believe until the day I die that Lockheed Martin has been the real power in this cover up.

 

You're right, DeeDee. Money talks and bullchit walks. After I thought about it further, I remember some of the true crime books I've read that have involved lawyers either murdering someone, themselves, or hiring someone to do it. I do not recall ever reading about a lawyer helping someone cover up a murder, but it could happen. People in high places do often think they can get away with murder, and they will help their well-connected friends get away with murder. The lawyers I know wouldn't put their own necks in a noose for anyone else, regardless of how well-connected they were, not so much because they are morally and ethically above all that, but because they are too smart to jeopardize their careers, reputations, and freedoms that way.

John knew a lot of people, and there was some talk of a phone call to a lawyer friend that night (can't think of his name), but the lawyer was not in Boulder at the time. I don't think he could have gotten to the Ramseys in time to help in the cover up. Also, anyone coming into the house in the hours after the murder surely would have left footprints in the frost and snow around the house. For the same reasons I don't believe an intruder went into the house that night, I also don't believe anyone else did, either. That does not mean, of course, that this lawyer didn't give Ramsey advise over the phone in regard to staging the crime scene.

 

At topix, the poster "TheWhiteWitch" posted something that gave me an "AHA!" moment. It relates to the video demonstration aired on CNN last week of Angela Williamson's demonstration of the process used with "touch" DNA. So to save time, I'm just copying my post from topix here to see what y'all think:

 

Don't think I have read anyone else saying this KK? Can you explain further please. I'm interested.

 

My opinion on this is that it was Mary Lacy after all ordering the tests and she probably said only look for any "foreign" DNA. That is the only thing she was looking for and the tester probably was given the Ramsey familys DNA to check against. So the tester had to eliminate all the "known" DNA because that was her job assignment. That is my guess.

 

The problem with separating the obvious DNA that should be there (that would be the Ramseys) is that another person could have some of the same alleles as the Ramseys. Does everyone remember when the labs found a partial match to Ron Goldman's blood DNA in the Killer OJ's Bronco? They couldn't say without a doubt that it was Goldman's blood, because there wasn't a full complement of markers, and because some of Goldman's markers were actually the same as either Simpson's or Nicole's markers. IOW, the blood mingled, and the markers that were the same between Nicole, Ron, and Simpson would also have mingled.

DNA analysis is tricky business because of all the variables involved. It sounds to me as if Lacy asked the lab to eliminate all DNA that did NOT match the alleged (incomplete, foreign) DNA found in the panties. That would
mean anything that didn't match the Ramseys. In doing so, they might also have eliminated markers belonging to the owner of the foreign DNA.

How desperate Lacy is to try to pass this junk off as real evidence of an intruder. As in building a house, DNA evidence is no better than the foundation you start with. The panty DNA is the foundation, and it is so wobbly, everything built on it is going to collapse. Three HUGE problems for Lacy are 1) the DNA in the panties may not have been DNA at all, but artifact, meaning junk; 2) IF the panty DNA was in fact human DNA, it is incomplete and does not meet CODIS requirements for 13 alleles for identification; and 3) trying to make a case (build a house) on incomplete DNA that may not even be DNA is folly. Just like that house that is built on a foundation of concrete that is a few bags of cement short of what is required will eventually fall down, so will a criminal case that is built on such flimsy DNA "evidence."

We know that Ramsey DNA was all over JB's clothing. Just because they lived in the same house as JB and helped dress and undress her doesn't eliminate them from being her killer. The evidence is right in front of Lacy's nose - Ramsey DNA all over JB. They should never have been eliminated as suspects. At this point, the only judge and jury that will ever hear this case are people like us who dig deeper and ask more questions. Unfortunately, Lacy has made sure none of us will ever be allowed to see all the evidence, including the actual DNA test results.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by koldkase
I'll believe until the day I die that Lockheed Martin has been the real power in this cover up.

Yeah, I'd be interested in that also. While Lockheed certainly had the political connections to help the Ramseys, I don't believe it happened. I had several friends working for Lockheed (including John Ramsey's Lockheed manager) when JBR was killed. They all claimed Lockheed "distanced itself from JR" as soon as possible. I have no reason to disbelieve this. I worked in the defense contractor arena for over 35 years and my experience has been that if an employee (executives and on down) gets in trouble not related to company business "you are on your own." I've seen it happen over-and-over with contractors I worked for.

My theory has always been that the Ramseys called 911 instead of Lockheed's security office because John knew that Lockheed would call the FBI, not Boulder LE. Why? Because John Ramsey was an executive of a major defense contractor subsidary, and he was in possession of an alleged "terrorist note" stating that his daughter had been kidnapped. Had Lockheed called the FBI, they (the FBI) would have been in charge of the case not the Boulder LE. In fact, Boulder LE probably would not have been called in until sometime after the FBI was at the house. And even though the body was found and the note considered "bogus," the local FBI could have run the case until Headquaters pulled them off. I'm sure JR did not want this! The first thing that would have happened was separate questioning that day of the Ramseys and everyone invited to the house. All of the bowing and scraping by the Boulder LE and DA's office would not have happened.

All of this does not mean Lockheed didn't use its influence in "helping" the Ramseys - however I'd be interested in seeing evidence that they did. It would go against how most defense contractors would react.

 

First, I said "I believe". I didn't say I have "evidence" to prove it. If I did, I'd probably be dead anyway.

But I basically said the same thing you finally said, Shadow: I believe LM used "its influence in 'helping' the Ramseys".

I don't believe John Ramsey called LM first. I believe John Ramsey called Access Graphics lawyer, therefore LM lawyer, Bynum first. Remember those phone subpoenas Hunter refused to obtain? Remember the cell phone record with no calls ONLY on the month of Dec., the one that it took a YEAR for the Ramseys to "sign over", but which was never reported as "missing" as the RST tries to use as their favorite excuse, compliments of Patsy in her '98 DA interview?

Read that part of that interview. It's CLASSIC lying. Patsy comes up with this preposterous story about how John "lost" his cell phone and how she bought him one, but then he saw it being charged and so she kept it for herself blahblahblah. CLASSIC "OVER-EXPLAINING" in an interview, embellishment that points to trying to make a story sound "believable".

I respect your knowledge and experience, Shadow, and I truly appreciate everything you tell us here that you can about how these companies and agencies work, etc. I may be wrong totally. Sure. But can you explain to me how ANY DA in this country can make a credible argument AGAINST getting the phone records for a home and family whose child has been found murdered in the basement? I WISH someone could give me a reasonable explanation for this I can believe.

Think about it: how would any of us feel if our child went to someone's house to spend the night, and then next day was found murdered in the basement...AND THE DA DIDN'T EVEN GET THE PHONE RECORDS OF THE HOME OR FAMILY WHERE THE CHILD WAS MURDERED?

I can't imagine it. Even today, KNOWING it happened, I STILL can't believe it. It's one reason I don't believe for ONE MINUTE that Mary Lacy is trying to solve this case with her "touch" DNA test: the Ramsey phone records may be sitting in the BPD evidence room as I type, and has she gotten a subpoena for those? Remember the prosecution of that PI who illegally obtained all kinds of phone and credit card records of the Ramseys, for the tabs? Remember Thomas wrote in his book those records were taken straight to evidence and the detectives investigating the murder were told they couldn't even look at them, NO SUBPOENA, OFF LIMITS?

Where did those records go? My guess is they were destroyed as soon as that case was resolved. But has anyone...oh...like THE DA INVESTIGATING THIS MURDER...bothered to even investigate?

And here's why I will NEVER believe Lou Smit or Lacy or ANYONE is actually trying to "find the intruder": even if you believe the Ramseys are 100% INNOCENT, think of the possibilities of what those phone records might have revealed? IF John lost his phone, MAYBE THE KILLER FOUND IT AND THAT LED HIM TO THIS FAMILY. Maybe the killer CALLED THEM from it. MAYBE the killer called someone else from it! Maybe maybe maybe. The DA can chase PERV Karr all the way from Thailand, but she can't SUBPOENA PHONE RECORDS FROM THE RAMSEY FAMILY whose child's murder is still unsolved?

Give me a break. Now WHO OH WHO might have gotten Hunter to OBSTRUCT THE COLLECTION OF SUCH CRITICAL EVIDENCE in a child murder? SO QUICKLY? Those records might have solved the case in a week. Why would Hunter DO that? It does NOT make any sense to me.

Unless you consider that some very powerful influence came to bear quickly and persuasively. I don't think Haddon could convince Hunter to help a child killer get away with it. I don't know, of course, but it just seems a stretch to imagine Hunter saying, Yeah, I'll make sure your clients' phone records aren't seen by LE for as long as I can stall, because I always want to help child killers when I can. So why would Hunter do that?

Remember Spade? He wouldn't give "his sources", of course, and he was a sticky person to deal with in temperament in you got on his wrong side, but he gave us a lot of very important info like the "Bonita Papers", and I don't remember him ever giving us info that wasn't spot on. But when he posted that the phone record block came from Washington...D.C., I balked when he wouldn't source that. But then I thought about it.

Of course, Shadow, you know from your own work that LM is an international defense contractor, and AG was their company. So "AG" phone records might be argued to be a "security" risk. Now...I believe the egregious investigative blocks Hunter put up in this case were rooted in Hunter being coerced in some way to do so. Can't prove it, but I do believe it.

And that's because there is just nothing else that makes sense. WHO could possibly have that kind of influence in this case, and WHY would they care? LM, of course.

Did I say that I don't think they had anything to do with the murder, nor do I believe John called them that morning? I do believe that John called Bynum and that Bynum was key in reaching Hunter and bringing in Haddon.

Now, I guess Haddon, who had connections all the way to Bill Clinton, President at the time, could have called in some favors. Or maybe they handled it all locally. The RST always tries to claim "tampering with phone records" was impossible. Well, they had a year, and since we have Anthony Pellicano's recent case to refer to, we know telephone company employees and records certainly can be bought, as well as illegal wire taps from main phone conjunctions, etc. In a high profile murder case, though, what "phone company" employee would take such a risk...unless they knew they'd never be called on it? That would take power. That would be someone higher in the company, maybe at the top, trading favors for business or government markers? Seems like a work of fiction, I know...but then we have the "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" model of government manipulation and propaganda to bring it all into reality, don't we? (My grandson says I've become 'politically cynical'. He's 12. And right.)

Thomas said that a year after the murder, "given permission" by the Ramseys to have THE RECORD OF THAT ONE MONTH, the cell phone company employee who finally handed Thomas that "blank" record for ONLY the month of December, 1996, told Thomas he wondered when they'd come for those records. Think about that. The EMPLOYEE was waiting for it. Innocent observation? Could be, sure. But if a phone company EMPLOYEE who probably made less than $30K a year KNEW the records should have been EVIDENCE COLLECTED UNDER SUBPOENA, WHY DIDN'T HUNTER? And WHY didn't Hunter DEMAND ACCESS TO MONTHS PRIOR TO AND AFTER THAT DEC.? That could have indicated IF the phone had been lost and/or found. WHAT INVESTIGATION WOULDN'T WANT THAT INFO? But again, IT WAS NOT THEN AND NEVER HAS IT BEEN PART OF THE INVESTIGATION. All the "leads" the RST claims to have followed and want followed, but A CRITICAL ONE LIKE THIS, THEY IGNORE? That says it ALL to me.

Anyhow...you may be right, Shadow, I certainly can't prove anything. But if Haddon is that powerful all by himself, he must be the Devil's Very Own. :devil:

 

HEY, KAREN!! IT'S ME!! :wave:

What I wonder is IF THEY FOUND ANY OTHER "FOREIGN" DNA? That would indicate that stray cells aren't uncommon in this case. Unless they're looking for that "faction"...and we KNOW they are.... :yes:

 

Just so you know I'm not ignoring you in answering this question, Elle, see my response which I did direct to Shadow because he's worked for defense contractors, etc.

 

JR obviously did not call Lockheed or AG security. Otherwise the FBI would have been on the scene before Boulder LE. Did he call a lawyer at AG? Probably.

Everything you just posted is reasonable, KK, but only if Lockheed had something to gain by helping JR. And it would have had to be something very big. From what I was told by my Lockheed friends and my experience with defense contractors for years, I still believe Lockheed "cut-him-free." I have seen it over-and-over - no one is indispensable, particularly where scandal can have negative impacts on billions of dollars in government contracts. Some individual from Lockheed may very well have intervened for JR, but, IMHO, not with the blessing of Lockheed.

I would like to point out that there were people outside the Lockheed world in Boulder that had powerful political connections. In my opinion, the chances are much more likely they exerted their political influence (all the way to Clinton) for JR rather than a defense contractor, who are noted for treating executives no different than peons when personal problems arise.

PS: And BTW my FBI sources back then never gave me any indication that LM was involved. They did, however, talk about Haddon's political "clout." They laughed and made wagers on who from the DA's office would go to work for Haddon when they left the DA's office.

 

Thought I'd bring this here for the discussion of "touch" DNA. I found it reading at Sycamore, where it was posted in a discussion of this. Williamson doesn't explain too much, as the interviewer cut her off too soon, so it is less info than I saw on the CNN videotaped segment with the reporter who went to the lab himself and went through the "process" with her more in depth at the Bode Technology lab, but you can see the "scraping" process she used:

http://www.truveo.com/Touch-DNA-Clears-Ramseys/id/2924114168

Let me mention here that the discussion on this has a poster, "Elvis", trying to "instruct" the posters there about this technology. Haven't gotten through all of it, but Elvis has made a huge mistake right off the bat: he/she has assumed facts not in evidence, particularly that the "Bloomies" were "sealed" with a heat press before shipping to the U.S. We have pictures, thanks to Jayelles, of "Bloomies" in their packaging and I see no "heat" sealing. They're rolled and then enclosed in a zip top package that is not "heat sealed", or at least, that's how I see it. "Elvis" claims this "heat seal" would have destroyed any DNA left from a sneeze, so it's IMPOSSIBLE for that to be the source of the DNA. Again, coming to a conclusion using facts not in evidence doesn't make the conclusion A FACT.

 

I agree with you, Shadow, about the possibilities. Like I said, I may be way off on this.

But I do believe LM had something at stake, even if it doesn't seem signficant to us: John Ramsey was a CEO working for them. If nothing else, it's not good publicity. Powerful companies don't like scandal. While that night, no one could possibly have anticipated the magnitude of publicity this case would receive, it wasn't but a short time until it was BIG NEWS. And John Ramseys business affiliation was always part of it, since the "foreign faction" certainly named that as their motivation.

Did your FBI buddies ever tell you why the FBI stood down immediately when the kidnapping of a child was their jurisdiction all the way up to the point when the body was found?

 

I think that's the protocol. There's a Columbo episode which has this scenario in it. Woman murders husband and fakes a kidnapping. FBI take on the case and Columbo is involved only on the sidelines. FBI agent is pompous git. Body is found, Columbo tells FBI pompous git to take a hike as it's now his case.

I love Columbo Wish he was on the Ramsey case.... (what do you mean he's not real?????)

 

KK- ”But I do believe LM had something at stake, even if it doesn't seem significant to us: John Ramsey was a CEO working for them. If nothing else, it's not good publicity. Powerful companies don't like scandal. While that night, no one could possibly have anticipated the magnitude of publicity this case would receive, it wasn't but a short time until it was BIG NEWS. And John Ramseys business affiliation was always part of it, since the "foreign faction" certainly named that as their motivation.”

All I can tell you, KK, is what I know. I’ve worked full time for Computer Sciences Corp and Northrop Grumman, and part time for several other defense contractors as a consultant since the 1960s. Defense contractors are noted for quickly getting rid of (firing, retiring, leave of absence, etc.) executives that are even remotely suspected of involvement in what is, or could be, a scandal. I’ve seen it at most of the contractors I worked for. In most cases it had to do with sex, family abuse, sexual harassment, tax evasion, breaking the law, etc. Anyone who has spent time in the government contractor arena knows that most contractors (including Lockheed) would take the short term Big News heat of a CEO’s personal scandal rather than risk getting caught in a major company scandal by using their influence for a “fallen from grace” CEO. That, and the fact that none of my FBI contacts ever suggested Lockheed did anything wrong is where I’m coming from.

Your theory, however, has its points…

KK- ”Did your FBI buddies ever tell you why the FBI stood down immediately when the kidnapping of a child was their jurisdiction all the way up to the point when the body was found?”

The Boulder LE had already taken charge of the case before the FBI was called. All I was told was that they were debating taking over the case for a short time (which would have caused hard feelings with local LE). They dropped the idea of having a confrontation with local LE when they analyzed the “kidnapping note.” It was obviously bogus.

 

I wish they had stepped in Shadow, putting the FBI in charge. The case would have been solved faster instead of the high class treatment the Boulder police gave them that day. No, John Ramsey knew they would have been skating on thin ice had the FBI been in charge. He knew the Boulder Police were easy to maneuvre when they were allowed to go to the Fernies instead of the police station that fateful night.