Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 111
  1. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom View Post
    When I served on a murder trial jury, most of us understood that there was no gun found, and no witnesses to the shooting. The evidence was more circumstantial but it was substantial, if you know what I mean. But 2 of the jurors did not want to convict the defendant on the evidence we had. I think shows like CSI and other crime shows like it have totally distorted people's concepts of how a case is solved. If you watch a show such as "The First 48," you see real detective work, and it's not all flash and bang and tire tread databases, or DNA that proves the killer did it. It's just a lot of pounding the pavement, talking to witnesses, teasing out informants, and putting together a good scenario of what happened.
    Absolutely.
    Sometimes, however, it's just a matter of laziness on the part of jurors.
    They don't want to put together pieces of a puzzle.
    They want the case handed to them on a silver platter: case in point, the Casey Anthony trial.

  2. #50

    Default Mary Lacy - Liar or uninformed?

    Mary Lacy has claimed that she was unaware of the new touch DNA findings referenced in Kolar’s book, how can that be?

    Tricia's True Crime Radio, July 22, 2012 with special guest, Carol McKinley
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleu...carol-mckinely
    or to download:
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleu...l-mckinely.mp3

    Here is a transcript of a portion of the show beginning at 21:20
    Carol McKinley: She(Lacy) didn’t know about the DNA on the cord and on the garrote. She told me that that had not been developed when she came out and exonerated them.
    It was Andy Horita, I think he was one of her attorneys in the office, he is a DNA specialist, he’s the one who presented that extra DNA at the task force.
    I asked her about that, why didn’t you talk about this extra DNA, you know, that’s unexplained as well.
    And she said, well we took the panties and we wanted to know about the DNA that was in the crotch and we wanted to know about the DNA on the waistband, but I didn’t know about the other DNA.
    It was Andy, her assistant that brought the new DNA forward. I was a little surprised that she said she didn’t know about it.
    Tricia Griffith: I’m wondering if she’s, in my opinion, conveniently forgotten, because to exonerate somebody when you don’t have everything tested, again, is beyond reprehensible.

    Carol McKinley: I don’t know if they went back with this new touch DNA technique and looked at the murder weapon, I just don’t know…


    Here is what Kolar has to say about Horita:
    Knowing the history of Mary Lacy’s announcements, I should not have been surprised when D. A. Investigator Andy Horita shed further light on the Touch DNA test results during the Cold Case Task Force meeting held in February 2009. I had supervised Horita during my stint as chief investigator at the D.A.’s office, and it was my opinion that he had a promising future ahead of him. He had no experience as a police officer, but he was an extremely intelligent young man. He looked decidedly dejected as he delivered the news about the additional DNA test results.
    Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 412 - 413

    We've seen Horita's name before:
    In October of 2007, we decided to pursue the possibility of submitting additional items from the JonBenet Ramsey homicide to be examined using this methodology. We checked with a number of Colorado sources regarding which private laboratory to use for this work. Based upon multiple recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory. First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of 2007.
    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...t-dna-evidence

    Timeline:
    October, 2007: Decision to pursue the possibility of submitting items for TDNA testing
    Early December, 2007: Two key members of Lacy’s team spend a full day with staff at Bode.
    March 24, 2008: Bode informed Lacy that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns.
    June 27, 2008: Results from additional samples analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation in an effort to eliminate autopsy contamination possibilities are returned.
    July 9, 2008: Mary Lacy issues a letter of exoneration to the Ramseys, “The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation…”
    November 4, 2008: Stan Garnett elected to succeed Lacy in 2009 as DA.
    December 26, 2008: In an interview with the Daily Camera, “Lacy said she’s leaving the office certain of her decisions, her intentions and at least one other thing — that the Ramsey family “didn’t do it.”
    January 13, 2009: Mary Lacy leaves the DA’s office, Stan Garnett takes over.
    February 2, 2009: Stan Garnett gives the case back to the BPD
    Late February 2009: The task force meets and Kolar learns of the DNA information.

    Carol McKinley stated that Lacy claimed she was unaware of the “extra” DNA findings at the time she issued the letter of exoneration, and while I personally don’t believe that’s true, when would she have us believe that the results did became available?
    Would it have been a day later, a week later, a month later, or perhaps not at all prior to her leaving the DA’s office? McKinley should have pressed Lacy on this precise point, but it was not to be.
    In a late December, 2008 interview with Heath Urie of the Daily Camera Lacy spoke only of the DNA that she referenced in the exoneration letter, with no hint that further unsourced, non-matching DNA had been found, on EXTREMELY important items such as the ligature and “garrote.” Her comments in that interview leave little doubt that that if she knew about the additional DNA results, she chose to remain silent about it and was content to deceive everyone rather than jeopardize her exoneration of the Ramseys.
    She would leave office a couple of weeks after the interview.

    In order to believe Lacy didn’t lie to McKinley, one of the following scenarios would have to be true:
    Andy Horita, alone, or with others, received explosive new DNA information during Lacy’s tenure that was not shared with Lacy.
    The new DNA information came to light between January 13, 2009 and the end of February 2009.

    The chief problem that liars face is keeping track of “information” that they have previously disseminated.
    The following interview was essentially at the end of Lacy’s term in office and one which I believe exposes her for the liar she is in light of her interview with McKinley.

    Mary Lacy, Boulder’s term-limited district attorney, will turn over the office next month to a new leader — but the unsolved murder case that earned her worldwide recognition is staying behind for a new set of eyes.
    Lacy, who has been in charge of the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation since it was handed over by Boulder police to the District Attorney’s Office in December 2002, says she believes that even after 12 years of chasing fruitless leads, the case will be solved.
    But while she doesn’t know how or when the big break will come, Lacy said she’s leaving the office certain of her decisions, her intentions and at least one other thing — that the Ramsey family “didn’t do it.”
    Today marks not only the anniversary of the day the little girl’s body was found, but also six years since Lacy first received control of the investigation. As she prepares to leave office, Lacy is reflective about the sensational case to which she’s so closely tied.
    Lacy invited John Ramsey, JonBenet’s father, to her office in July.
    There, she presented him a letter apologizing to him for the years his family spent under intense scrutiny, and exonerating anyone within the Ramsey family of any suspicion in his daughter’s murder.
    “I sat in the conference room with his attorneys and we handed him the letter, and he read it, and he said, ‘Thank you very much, I appreciate this, I know this was hard to do.’”
    When an attorney in the room asked John Ramsey whether he was happy about the letter, Lacy said she was surprised by his reaction.
    “He looked at all of us and he said, ‘You don’t understand, we always knew we didn’t commit this crime, so what difference does it make if somebody else says we didn’t commit the crime?’ The sincerity of that really struck me at the time.”
    Lacy said she knew some people would criticize her for publicly clearing the family — including Patsy Ramsey, who died of cancer in 2006 — but she said she felt compelled to do so.
    “Out-of-control media,” she said, “led to a situation where this family truly was presumed guilty, even though there was never evidence to file charges against them.”
    Lacy has long been a proponent of the theory that an intruder — not someone known to the little girl — was responsible for the murder. Now, 12 years later, Lacy said she’s more convinced than ever that no one within the Ramsey family was involved.
    “Parents do kill their children,” she said. “They do it deliberately, and they do it recklessly or accidentally or reactionary.
    “However, what people don’t understand is the degree of violence in this case. ... That is totally contradictory to parents who have never been seen as anything but loving parents.”
    She said the Ramseys “are not crazy people.”
    “There’s no psychopathy, no motive and no evidence. People form their conclusions based on what they read in the paper, not on the true reality of the circumstances of the case,” she said.
    Scott Robinson, a Denver defense attorney who has followed the case, said Lacy’s decision to exonerate the Ramsey family — right or wrong — was a mostly symbolic act.
    “She obviously felt, based on her actions, that the umbrella of suspicion had been inappropriately and unfairly opened over John and Patsy Ramsey,” Robinson said.
    Technically, the Ramsey case is considered “cold,” Lacy said, even after new technology used in March discovered two new samples of DNA near the waist of JonBenet’s long johns, and that genetic material matched DNA recovered years ago from her underwear.
    Lacy said she believes the DNA evidence was left by the killer
    , and there are any number of reasons why law enforcement hasn’t found a match with samples listed in a national database of convicted felons.
    “The person could be in prison and not due for release soon and hasn’t taken the sample; the person might be dead; the person could have gone to another country that doesn’t collect DNA samples,” she said. “But the most likely explanation is that, for whatever reason, that person’s DNA is not in the data bank.”
    Lacy is hopeful that plans by the FBI to expand the DNA database in January to include not just samples from people convicted of crimes, but of those arrested on suspicion of crimes, will “dramatically” increase the chances of finding a match in the Ramsey case.
    Lacy said the JonBenet Ramsey case might well end up defining her career through the eyes of the public who elected her, but she insists it never became personal for her.
    “I look at it from a standpoint of fundamental fairness,” she said. “The ultimate question that I ask myself is, ‘What is the right thing to do, no matter what impact it has on me?’ Because, I don’t operate on a personal level. I operate as the district attorney and as a prosecutor. I hold myself to a fairly high standard.”
    Lacy said the public perception of the Ramsey case has been shaped over 12 years by the media, not facts, and that does frustrate her.
    “I don’t think the truth has ever really been out there for people to see because it’s an open criminal case,” she said. “The public assumes they know more based on what they see in the media, and that’s the part that’s personally difficult for me.”
    She said she’s not emotionally attached to the Ramsey family.
    “If I found out tomorrow that this has been a big charade, and that John Ramsey was involved in any way with this murder, I wouldn’t hesitate to review it for the death penalty,” she said.
    Throughout the course of the Ramsey investigation, Lacy has made several controversial decisions that drew criticism from pundits who cast her as a villain in the tragic story.
    She was called inept, corrupt and far worse, she said, after deciding in August 2006 to arrest one-time suspect John Mark Karr.
    Larry Pozner, a Denver defense attorney who has been critical of Lacy and the handling of the JonBenet investigation, said that decision alone will likely cast a shadow on Lacy’s legacy.
    “It’s hard to find a law-enforcement agent who was touched by the case and was not harmed by it,” Pozner said. “I believe (Lacy) had every good intention ... but the John Mark Karr episode made us all look a little wacky. It was hard to find anybody who believed he did it other than him. It just damaged the credibility of everybody.”
    Then, following this year’s apology to John Ramsey, University of Colorado law professor Paul Campos wrote in an editorial that Lacy was “reckless,” “incompetent,” and that her actions “tied the hands of her successor.”
    That successor, Stan Garnett, said he respects Lacy’s work and doesn’t question her motives.
    Asked whether critics get under her skin, Lacy replied, “Good heavens, yes.”
    “You get really tired. I’ve gone through periods of time where I felt pretty depressed — depressed that the loudmouths were the ones who were carrying the (message) instead of the people who knew what was going on.”
    Calling conservative cable TV talk-show host Bill O’Reilly and local radio host Dan Caplis “moronic,” Lacy said some critics have crossed the line.
    “The fact that people listen to that and believe any part of it, and don’t look at where it’s coming from and don’t get to try to get to know anything about the person who they’re referring to” is hurtful, she said. “I’m really incapable of corruption or dishonesty. It’s so far outside my character.”
    Bob Grant, a former Adams County prosecutor, agreed.
    “I think among professional investigators and prosecutors, she’ll probably be remembered as someone who acted with diligence,” Grant said. “Thanks to the media coverage ... I think public opinion may be somewhat different.”
    Still, Lacy said she tries her best to shrug off the criticism.
    “I believe in karma. I believe that the universe is better to people who behave the way we should. I also believe the opposite. People who are hurtful and offensive with no basis to do it but to advance their own careers or their own agendas, I don’t think the universe is kind to them.”
    She added that “no really honest district attorney would say they would do anything differently” in a case as high-profile as the Ramsey murder, and said her only regret in the handling of the case is that media attention overshadowed “substantial and dramatic changes for the good that we’ve made in this office.”
    “If I never saw my name in the paper again ... I’d be happy,” she said.

    By Heath Urie, Daily Camera, December 26, 2008
    http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_12953394

  3. #51

    Default

    Well done, cynic.

    I don't even have time to list the number of lies Lacy told in that interview. If anyone didn't know this case and the evidence in it, it was Lacy. By her own admission she later told McKinley she didn't know about the foreign DNA samples on the ligature and wrist bindings which did not match those from the Bloomies and longjohns. She also didn't know that the bracelet on JB's arm was common knowledge to the ENTIRE WORLD, so she arrested Karr based on that bogus set-up of email fantasy perpetrated by Tracey--ever on the hunt for yet one more faux suspect he could parade around in a crocumentary featuring him and/or his side-kick, Lou Smit.

    In her "Egg-faced" press conference after she released Karr she admitted she had no idea the world already knew all the evidence in this case. Too bad SHE didn't, but oh, she blames the public for not knowing what she herself clearly did not know...except WE DID KNOW.

    Then there's the evidence Kolar has now told us HE PRESENTED TO HER IN A POWERPOINT FOR SIX HOURS. That was in 2006: Lacy dismissed every single thing he told her his investigation revealed and what he felt was the next step because, as Kolar wrote in black and white, the Ramseys WERE HER FRIENDS and she didn't want to upset them.

    So what was that BS she said in her last interview about it not being PERSONAL?

    Those are just off the top of my head...LIES, LIES, AND DAYUM LIES, Lacy!

    Incapable of corruption? If she believes that, she needs to look up the word CORRUPTION.

    Maddening, isn't it?

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  4. #52

    Default

    Looking at some rather old files I have, I found this and I guess this is as good a thread as any to place it on.

    If you are unaware of the ancient forum history--case sub-culture, ACandyRose calls it, my advice is to copy this just in case Tricia has me locked in the dungeon and is forced to have it deleted for one or another reason.

    You may want to study it at some point.

    We once had a forum poster here who had been around the usual forums most of us read and belonged to from the beginning of, or relatively early into, the case. Ginja was some kind of legal professional, perhaps a paralegal herself, I'm not sure, but like anyone who truly had inside sources in the case, whatever they were, she was very obscure about her position and any sources she might have had.

    The reason I'm bringing all this up is because I found an old thread I'd saved from another forum at Delphi which I posted on for a few years. I liked her sincerity, but we all know nothing about each other, really, so that was a face value judgment.

    Having said that, the following thread was so shocking, I saved it and have kept it all these years.

    I have no way of knowing if what she said is true, a huge lie, or somewhere in between. She seemed to be steady in her posts over the years, sometimes hinting she had info we didn't, but we've had a lot of scams played on us over time, so what do I know?

    Still, when Ginja cut loose here, it had a ring of truth as she spoke to the issue of the corruption of Team Ramsey, the BDA lawyers and DA investigators in this case, plus the "lost" cell phone and blank records Hunter refused to subpoena. It seems to fit; but I have no way of knowing if she constructed it to fit or if she was in fact telling the truth.

    The question for me was always how would she know all of this? There may be a clue here, but it's very obscure.

    Anyway, some of you who weren't around might appreciate this on some level, and I'm not getting any younger, so I thought I'd share. I'm including the entire of my saved document so you can hopefully get a handle on more than just the words. There are also details that I had never heard before, which I would find intriguing, if true.

    As Ginja herself said, take it or leave it. Discuss it or not. I only wish I knew what to make of it.

    http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mai...1+&find=Search


    From: Ginja (Ginja54) 8/12/2003 1:03 pm
    To: Jayelles (258 of 553)

    1230.258 in reply to 1230.204

    >> Dr. Beuf is required by LAW to report any SUSPICIONS of child abuse of any kind. If he missed it, intentionally or innocently, he makes himself look either incompetent or negligent because he didn't see it and/or didn't report it.
    We also have to take into account Beuf's relationship with the Ramseys. He was a close personal friend of the family's. He was also a member of the Ramseys' church, thus sharing friends and activities as regards Church 'business.'

    We also need to look at the fact that Beuf was called in to treat Patsy the night of 12/26. Query why a pediatrician was the only medical help the Ramseys could get. Didn't Patsy have her own doctors? Or John?

    Jmho, but Beuf was in over his head with this family. He knew them well...better than many pediatricians know the families of their patients. He was involved with them socially, through church, and medically through the kids.

    He took a walk with John Ramsey and Mike Bynum (and/or Fernie, can't recall at this moment if it was Fernie or Bynum). The point here is...what were they talking about? How Beuf should treat an adult? I don't think so. He was brought into the 'fold' that night to discuss anyone's guess. My guess is that it was at that point he realized he was in trouble. As a "friend", he ignored the obvious signs of trouble in JonBenet. And once that autopsy came out with the facts of prior sexual abuse, he knew he could be held legally responsible as being irresponsible and negligent.

    The man had no choice but to deny.

    And once you start lying, you can't stop. The lies must continue in order to continue the lies. Think about it.



    From: Koldkase2 8/12/2003 2:31 pm
    To: Ginja (Ginja54) (268 of 553)

    1230.268 in reply to 1230.258

    First, to all good posters here: I'm ignoring the :(:(:(:( ant. Just another swamp pest. They are given their orders to disrupt other forums and it's business as usual. The day any of the swamp critters have an original thought or open mind is the day they'll be selling coats in hell. Poor Docg--token BORG.

    Ginja, regarding Dr. Beuf, you said:

    "He took a walk with John Ramsey and Mike Bynum (and/or Fernie, can't recall at this moment if it was Fernie or Bynum). The point here is...what were they talking about? How Beuf should treat an adult? I don't think so. He was brought into the 'fold' that night to discuss anyone's guess. My guess is that it was at that point he realized he was in trouble. As a "friend", he ignored the obvious signs of trouble in JonBenet. And once that autopsy came out with the facts of prior sexual abuse, he knew he could be held legally responsible as being irresponsible and negligent."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Yeah, Ginja, and this particular point about Beuf being strangely called to the Fernie's that day is one that brings up many other quesions.

    Since Beuf was Burke's pediatrician, was he really there for Burke? Was he there to assess Burke's reaction to his sister being murdered while he slept? Was he there to see if Burke was showing signs of "knowing" something? Or was he there to assess Burke's reaction to murdering his sister?

    Since Beuf was also JonBenet's pediatrician and had treated her about 30 times more a year than most children her age for problems involving vaginitis and other RED FLAGS, was he called over because the Rams already knew JonBenet had been molested and wanted to get Dr. Beuf "on board"?

    It was Mike Bynum that was in that little walk in the dark that night, too. I just want you to find me ONE CEO whose child has just been murdered in his own home while he slept by "a foreign faction" who could imagine a few hours later casually walking into the night with no body guards, no police escorts, and only a lawyer and pediatrician for protection.

    The Rams behavior after the murder is meaningful. Even John Douglas gives "post crime" behavior to look for in his profiles. The Ramseys proved again and again and again, all the way up to carelessly not using their "state of the art" security system in Atlanta years later, not even closing their property gates, they were never afraid of anyone harming them again. Not even Burke's safety was a concern, unless you consider Susan Stine some kind of super woman driving the kids to school, prepared for any "foreign faction" that might attack. Burke skateboarded around the 'hood in Atlanta as carefree and unguarded as any child.

    JAR worked at Pasta Jays, a few blocks from the very spot where JonBenet was murdered, only months after the murder. Where was the concern for his safety? His rich dad is feeling "safe" in Atlanta, according to his own statements, but JAR is working for mere peanuts, unguarded, in the very location a child murderer is still "out there." This is a child murderer who VERY SPECIFICALLY TARGETED THE RAMS--if you believe the ransom note, and didn't the Rams believe the ransom note? Wasn't JAR somebody's baby? Who was holding him close?

    Post crime behavior of the Rams has them acting very carelessly with their safety and that of their other children. How can anyone who has lost two children, one to a vicious murderer that remains at large, be so careless with their living children? The only answer I have for this is they know there is no murderer "out there."

    Thanks for reminding us, Ginja, that Beuf was "in the fold" before the night was out on Dec. 26th.




    From: Koldkase2 8/12/2003 3:42 pm
    To: Jayelles (280 of 553)

    1230.280 in reply to 1230.269

    And a very valid point Barbara made. Marilyn Van Derbur was as successful, happy and healthy as any child you can imagine--outwardly. Not one person in her childhood and teen years ever suspected she had a care in the world--except her youth pastor, whose first suspicions were based in nothing more than that she was always at his youth programs like clockwork, though she seemed to have the perfect life, where most kids who were there did have lots of problems.
    Anyone who thinks that families of incest automatically have KNOWN history that is a tip off have no clue about the very nature of incest. These families don't even talk TO EACH OTHER about this. The shame and stigma of incest is enough in itself to ensure cover-up and denial. DENIAL is KEY to an incestor's success in continuing to victimize--and staying out of prison.

    Let me share with you some quotes from Marilyn's book, "Miss American By Day," from her chapter titled "Not All Mothers Protect Their Young":

    In this paragraph on p. 252, Marilyn shares how her mother reacted when, at age 48, she finally had to talk to her, had to say the words, throw open the windows on the truth of her father molesting her:

    "Still not looking up and still crying, I waited to feel her arms around me. I waited for her to comfort me. I waited. Finally, I looked up. Nothing could have prepared me for what happened next. She was sitting straight up in her chair with her arms folded across her chest and she said, coldly, "I don't believe you. It's in your fantasy."

    Marilyn was devastated and drove home. Her older sister, Gwen, who had been also incested by their father, called her. Gwen had gotten a call from Marilyn's mother immediately after Marilyn had left:

    "As I came in the back door, the phone was ringing. It was my sister, Gwen. I burst into sobs again. 'I'm so sorry. I just had to tell her. She said she didn't believe me.' Gwen said, 'I know. She just called me. She told me you were making it up. I told her you weren't. She asked me how I knew that and I told her "because it happened to me, too...."'"

    On pages 252-253, Marilyn received a call a few hours later from her former youth pastor "D.D." He is the one who finally figured out what her secret was when she was 24 and starting to exhibit some destructive behavior in important decisions in her life. He is the person who confronted her first, counseling her through her extensive recovery process into her 50s. He counseled her when she decided to talk to her mother. He knew the day she was going to have "the talk" and so he called her. Here is what he saw that day:

    "About two hours later, D.D. called me. He knew I was going to talk with her but I hadn't called him...."

    "D.D. had energy--positive energy in his voice. 'Bootsie [Marilyn's mother] just called me. She wants me to come over as soon as possible. I am so grateful she has turned to me. I can help her through this. I can help her to help you. I'm leaving now.'

    "Less than an hour later, D.D. called again. 'I just met with Bootsie. I am in shock. She welcomed me graciously. You know how charming she your mother can be. I followed her into your very formal living room where she had placed two straight back chairs facing one another right in the center of the room. Her expression changed completely when we sat facing one another. I had never seen an expression like that on her face. It was cold, businesslike, almost a stare. I was caught completely off guard. I thought she would be crying, asking how she could not have known, searching for ways to help you. She had on two words to say. She had only one question to ask me: "Who knows."'

    "'...I was speechless. I said, "Well, your other daughers."'

    "'"Anyone else?"'

    "'"I guess their husbands."'

    "'"Anyone else?"'

    "'"I don't think so."'

    "'She then ushered me to the door and left. That's all she wanted to know. In all my years of being a minister, I've never seen anything like that. She was a completely different woman. Clincal. Flat. Uncaring. All she really cared about was herself--needing to know who knew so she could begin damage control, I guess. I have never been so surprised by any conversation. I would never have believed it if I hadn't been there.'"

    Marilyn believes that her mother had "known" the truth since she was a little girl, when one night, with her father in her bed, her mother had come to her room, walked within a few feet of her door and then turned and walked away. Marilyn expresses her feelings about her mother's reaction when Marilyn finally confronted her with the truth on pages 253-254:

    "Even though my mother had walked down to my room that one night and then not had the courage to open the door to my bedroom, she could have become my mother that day if she had put her arms around me and cried with me....

    "I wanted her to grab the nearest kitchen knife and say, 'We're going to slash and rip up the life-size oil painting of your father. Now.' If she couldn't think clearly enough to say it to me that day, then I wanted her to call me six months later or two years later and say those words. She never did. The full-length oil portrait of my father hung, with pride, in her beautifully decorated pink bedroom until she died. As a society, we believe a mother will always protect her child. We are so wrong.

    "...Mother would not acknowledge what I had endured. She chose the life she had built in her mind. Perfect wife. Perfect mother."




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Edited 8/12/2003 4:22:01 PM ET by KOLDKASE2



    From: Ginja (Ginja54) 8/12/2003 4:35 pm
    To: APRainsong (290 of 553)

    1230.290 in reply to 1230.210

    You said: "Chronic does not mean what you think it means. In medical vernacular, it means 'of long standing.'"
    From a medical dictionary, Rainson:

    chronic: PERSISTING over a long period of time.

    Origin: L. Chronicus, Gr. Chronos = time

    Please note, Rainsong, the ORIGIN of the word "chronic". Also note that you left out of "your" definition the most important word: PERSISTING.

    You come in here, attacking us and telling us we're all wrong and you're the only one right. And to prove your point, you distort definitions, ignore evidence, and make comparisons to cases that have nothing to do with JonBenet's murder.

    You're a Jamesonian robot...a no mind...one who follows blindly. If you were serious about getting to the truth of this crime, you would look at the evidence. Instead, because that evidence is Ramsey-culpable, you ignore it, pulling books and citations on OTHER cases, claiming they're right and the evidence in JonBenet's case is non-existent or fabricated.

    You pull a cite to prove your point that JonBenet's hymen was not worn away, totally disregarding Meyer's reports. You seem to forget that Meyer was the doctor who performed the autopsy! Yet you're convinced he's wrong in what he saw, and decide YOUR cite of a doctor who never autopsied or examined the body is correct.

    Jamesonian all the way!

    You take bits and pieces of evidence and toss it to the wind and make your own "picture" of what's what. You haven't a clue as to how to pull the evidence together into a cohesive whole. If you did, you might see things logically. You've already been dissed for suggesting Beuf would prescribe antibiotics for a cold, which you suggested would have been the infection that made the tissues look like a worn hymen! Give me a break. You haven't got a clue on how to read an autopsy report and you diss anyone who does! Ditto on the medical records.

    You want history, Rainsong? Try this...

    One of the problems JonBenet suffered from was respiratory problems. To the point that Beuf "thought" she might have asthma. Did you understand that? Beuf "thought" she might have asthma. What did he do about it? NOTHING! No testing, no referral to a specialist, NOTHING. Given the "good" doctor didn't bother to recognize and treat possible asthma, is it any wonder he might have seen symptoms of possible sexual molestation and likewise did NOTHING?

    I see a pattern developing here with the good Dr. Beuf.

    He ain't so good.

    Toileting problems? JonBenet was completely potty trained at a very early age. Completely! The family moved to Colorado and Patsy got cancer. JonBenet started wetting the bed again.

    You say that's a probable result of JBR's stress over her mother's sickness. That's not a bad guess. However, you need to look at other problems JonBenet suffered during the same period.

    JonBenet suddenly regresses and begins wetting the bed. She also starts getting respiratory problems, diarhea, stomach pains and vaginal problems (from burning, painful peeing, and discharge).

    You claim the vaginal problems could simply be caused from poor hygiene. They could also be caused from someone molesting this child, inserting his fingers inside her. You can't say one probability is right and diss the other probabilities.

    You probably would think some of the burning and redness, even discharge could be caused by bubble bath. That's possible. Also possible is introducing foreign material into the vagina...material that could easily be transferred by someone's fingers.

    So again, you miss the point by ignoring other possibilities.

    You say she possibly started wetting the bed as a result of her mother's sickness. Alone that's possible. But you've got all these other "signals" or symptoms coming to a head at the same time. Are they ALL the result of a three year old's concern for her mother's cancer? Perhaps because her mother was away from home so much JonBenet got sick herself? Or...

    Could it be that BECAUSE her mother was away so much, someone else had access to this child? Perhaps the vaginal problems were caused by someone else transferring bacteria and whatnot into her vagina while molesting her.

    Trauma one suffers because of sexual abuse/molestation can cause the victim to double over in pain (as JonBenet did), or to suffer from diareah or vaginal discharge, or to even exacerbate respiratory problems. Stress can trigger an asthma attack. It can also trigger other respiratory problems. The respiratory problems can induce mucousal irritations resulting in running noses, watery eyes, and other cold-like symptoms.

    IOW, all of those visits to Beuf were triggered by something, most probably stress. The real question is, what was stressing this three year old? Her mother's illness? or someone abusing her in her mother's absence?

    One easy way to make a quick determination of possible stressors is to look at the probably causes and see if the symptoms stopped when the causes stopped. IOW, after Patsy's cancer was "cured" and she no longer was hospitalized and things at home began to normalize, did JonBenet's bedwetting stop? did her respiratory problems stop? did her frequent visits to Beuf stop?

    The answer is no; therefore, since there was no end to the symptoms, the probable cause of stress due to her mother's illness is not the likely stressor.

    If anyone's working with a closed mind here, Rainsong, it's you.

    Lastly, what a joke to keep jumping on the horse claiming Lin Wood's a civil attorney, not a criminal attorney. He's the Ramseys attorney and he meets his clients needs, regardless of whether those needs are civil or criminal. He wouldn't be making demands on Keenan to take over the criminal investigation and he wouldn't be demanding his clients be cleared of criminal charges if he was simply a civil attorney.





    From: Ginja (Ginja54) 8/13/2003 10:59 am
    To: Koldkase2 (321 of 553)

    1230.321 in reply to 1230.268

    "Thanks for reminding us, Ginja, that Beuf was "in the fold" before the night was out on Dec. 26th."

    The above takes into account Beuf's "public" involvement. According to the so-called non-existent phone records, Beuf was brought into the fold by John long before the cops were called. I'm sharing that info fwiw and posters can do with it what they want, from including it in their discussions to ignoring it completely.


    From: Koldkase2 8/13/2003 4:33 pm
    To: Ginja (Ginja54) (340 of 553)

    1230.340 in reply to 1230.321

    Ginja, you said:

    "'Thanks for reminding us, Ginja, that Beuf was "in the fold" before the night was out on Dec. 26th.'
    "The above takes into account Beuf's 'public' involvement. According to the so-called non-existent phone records, Beuf was brought into the fold by John long before the cops were called. I'm sharing that info fwiw and posters can do with it what they want, from including it in their discussions to ignoring it completely."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I know how hard it was for you to post this, Ginja, and I cannot tell you how much I respect and admire your courage for doing so. But thank you. We have been discussing this for years, literally, and I don't want this to get buried without some further discussion.

    I know you cannot give a source and I respect that you are just putting it out as "take it or leave it." In that spirit, I think we should discuss it. We certainly discuss everything else in the hypothetical, and this is merits that AT LEAST, IMO, if self-sponsored polygraphs merit an entire press conference and much ballyhooed "proof" of innocence--by the Rams themselves, at least.

    So let me repeat the critical part of your post, Ginja:

    "According to the so-called non-existent phone records, Beuf was brought into the fold by John long before the cops were called."

    Just for the sake of discussion, let's say this is true. The questions that arise are staggering.

    I've said recently that I've begun to wonder if the head blow was an accident and then, knowing if she was taken to the hospital the molestation would be found out, she was murdered as the "worst of two evils" in the mind of the killer.

    This would fit that scenario. I actually asked the question once if maybe the Rams called Dr. Beuf that night to find out what to do once she was unconsious. I felt Dr. Beuf would have told them to take her to the emergency room, though. But that would explain why they called him pronto over to the Fernie's under the "guise" of family friend and medicating Patsy.

    "We didn't mean for this to happen," Patsy said, according to PMPT.

    Whatever they said to Dr. Beuf, he could clear his conscience for not reporting the truth by "doctor/patient confidentiality," couldn't he?

    Brings up lots of questions....

    Again, thanks for sharing this Ginja. Hunker down because you KNOW what's coming.... But we got your back. You did the right thing. It's just another topic for discussion, no different than the many other things said by MANY that they wouldn't/couldn't source.




    From: Ginja (Ginja54) 8/14/2003 2:23 pm
    To: Koldkase2 (371 of 553)

    1230.371 in reply to 1230.340

    "Again, thanks for sharing this Ginja. Hunker down because you KNOW what's coming.... But we got your back. You did the right thing. It's just another topic for discussion, no different than the many other things said by MANY that they wouldn't/couldn't source."
    You have no idea how much this means to me, KK. As Schiller once stated, only 10% of the evidence has been made public. The BDA's office, together with their friends in the RST, have done everything they can to keep any and all Ramsey-culpable evidence out of the public eye. It's only been through the disgusted eyes of people like Arndt and Thomas that we've had any chance whatsoever to get an inkling of what comprises the other 90%! And we've seen the reaction out of the BDA's office...to do everything possible to discredit not only these officers, but the whole BDA itself! Add to that all the red herrings thrown out by the RST as well as internet interference, and it's no wonder this case remains unsolved and cold on Keenan's desk.

    You've seen me post incessantly on Mike Bynum's interference with the evidence and his link to members of the BDA's staff and Haddon's people.

    John Ramsey made three phone calls the night of his daughter's murder. I've already told you about Beuf.

    Mike Bynum was the first person Ramsey called.

    I believe if we're going to discuss Beuf's involvement in this crime, we need to take it in context. Yes, Ramsey called the doctor that night. But he called his "lawyer" first!

    I think this info is monumental and can change the face of our discussions. It might also lend some understanding as to why I've been so vocal against Mr. Bynum.

    Something certainly did go awry that night. And instead of calling 911, Ramsey called Bynum...talked to him a bit, and then called Beuf.


    From: Ginja (Ginja54) 8/15/2003 1:49 pm
    To: LSW1 (419 of 553)

    1230.419 in reply to 1230.392

    "Are you saying that John Ramsey called Bynum and Dr. Buef before Patsy called 911 on the morning of Dec. 26, 1996????? "

    Yes.

    "Is this a supposed situation or a real truth? If it is true, does the police and DA have proof of this happening?"

    Without getting into the kinds of details that would result in sanctions, being fired, and losing a pension, suffice it to say I believe the source(s) to be most reliable. I'm sure I was given the information before the BDA as it was long before Wood threatened Keenan into taking the case over.

    I'm wondering how much of the official file has been transferred from the BPD to the BDA. I know Wood went to Boulder last fall and met with the BPD and heard, first hand, the original "enhanced" 911 call. Next thing you know, Wood is threatening Keenan and making outrageous allegations that the BPD fabricate evidence. Knowing he's got Keenan in his back pocket, it's a wonder the BPD would release the entire official file to her. So I don't know if she has this info. If she does, she doesn't know it because she always handed "anything Ramsey" to I think it was Bill Nagle. She doesn't deal with Ramsey evidence...just RST fabrications.


    From: Koldkase2 8/15/2003 2:20 pm
    To: Ginja (Ginja54) (421 of 553)

    1230.421 in reply to 1230.419

    OK, Ginja, now I'm worried for you. Careful. You could post a videotape of the murder...pick your perp...and the Boulder DA will never prosecute anyone. But you, maybe...for blowing their coverup.
    And I want to ask you about your statement Wood heard the "enhanced 911 tape." I haven't heard that before. Are you sure you mean the "enhanced" tape or just the original 911 tape. They are two different tapes, you know.

    I ask for clarification because I have heard the "enhanced" tape played on TV years ago--but let's don't go there, just assume for the sake of argument, I'm right about that. The tape I heard had the voices on it. So if Wood heard that tape in Boulder, why would he be on TV screaming the BPD lied?

    So either what I heard was a Geraldo show lie, or Wood did NOT hear the "enhanced" tape, or Wood is lying.

    Got any ideas?
    From: Ginja (Ginja54) 8/15/2003 4:47 pm
    To: Koldkase2 (433 of 553)

    1230.433 in reply to 1230.421

    "And I want to ask you about your statement Wood heard the "enhanced 911 tape." I haven't heard that before. Are you sure you mean the "enhanced" tape or just the original 911 tape. They are two different tapes, you know."
    I'm talking about the tape after it was worked on by Aerospace. It's the tape Hickman handcarried back to Boulder after the engineers worked on it. IOW, it's not a copy of a copy of a copy... .

    The point I was making (I think) is that last fall Lin Wood traveled to Boulder, met with the BPD, listened to the enhanced tape, and heard Burke's voice.

    But he never said anything.

    He returned to Atlanta and wrote a letter to Keenan (sometime in October I think it was), asking her to take the case away from the cops, claiming the BPD were focused on his clients. At no time did he make any mention of the 911 tape. She refused his request to remove the case from the BPD.

    So in December, he tried a new tactic. He threatened her...saying he would sue the BPD and the City of Boulder if the case was not taken out of the BPD's hands. Again, absolutely no mention of the 911 tape. Keenan folded and pulled the case from the BPD around February.

    During this time, Wood makes the circuit, releasing police interview tapes, going on the talk shows and making claims that police fabricated evidence. But he still never mentioned the 911 tape.

    He goes before Carnes with Smit's intruder evidence (which denies Burke's voice is on the 911 tape), wins his case and runs to Keenan with the decision. The Ramseys come to Boulder and meet with Keenan who in turn brings in Smit and Douglas as well as proclaiming to the world she agrees with Carnes that it looks more to be a intruder killed JonBenet than a Ramsey.

    With Keenan now completely in his back pocket, "he" releases an edited, unenhanced version of the 911 tape, telling the world this is proof that police are fabricating evidence.
    Last edited by Cherokee; December 31, 2012, 11:47 pm at Mon Dec 31 23:47:40 UTC 2012. Reason: fix post as requested

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  5. #53

    Default

    Ginja was also GSquared at J-7, and then JW.
    .
    All views expressed in my posts are my opinion and are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as “freedom of speech”.

  6. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otg View Post
    Ginja was also GSquared at J-7, and then JW.
    I wondered about that, but the line was blurry enough that I never knew for sure.

    So she would be the one who...told the world jams cut herself in a frenzy of jealousy over Micheal Tracey's attentions to other case groupies in Boulder one wild, crazy night?

    Please say it ain't so.

    Jams always denied it, of course, and it was a crazy story.

    Oh my, it's so hard to follow the insanity that is this case.

    BUT...Spade seems to have had the same mind Ginja did about Bynum, Hunter, and phone calls taking place before 911. He wrote about it here at FFJ several times...and please don't tell me Spade was G-squared and Ginja, too, or I'll feel really the fool.

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=7621

    A couple of excerpts from Spade in the above thread, "Lawyering JonBenet":

    Quote Originally Posted by Spade View Post
    Mike Bynum called Fleet White about 4 in the afternoon of December 26, 1996 while the Whites and the Ramsey's were at Fernie's house. An hour later, White went to Bynum's office where he was told: "Haddon, Morgan, and Foreman have been hired to 'handle' this ...you are to STAY OUT OF IT."

    This was 3 hours and 45 minutes after Fleet and John found the body. IMO it would be impossible for Bynum to provide enough information to retain Haddon
    UNLESS he started the process before the body was "found".
    Quote Originally Posted by Spade View Post
    The hypothesis that Bryan Morgan and Mike Bynum were able to “fix” an agreement with the Boulder DA’s office within 24 hours of JonBenet’s death is known as Door #3 by law enforcement officers. My personal opinion is that the Door #3 theory is true.
    Last edited by Cherokee; December 31, 2012, 11:47 pm at Mon Dec 31 23:47:13 UTC 2012. Reason: fix post as requested

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  7. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    I wondered about that, but the line was blurry enough that I never knew for sure.

    So she would be the one who...told the world jams cut herself in a frenzy of jealousy over Micheal Tracey's attentions to other case groupies in Boulder one wild, crazy night?

    Please say it ain't so.

    Jams always denied it, of course, and it was a crazy story.

    Oh my, it's so hard to follow the insanity that is this case.

    BUT...Spade seems to have had the same mind Ginja did about Bynum, Hunter, and phone calls taking place before 911. He wrote about it here at FFJ several times...and please don't tell me Spade was G-squared and Ginaj/Dejanu, too, or I'll feel really the fool.

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=7621

    A couple of excerpts from Spade in the above thread, "Lawyering JonBenet":
    Interesting! If we only knew all there is to know. But then, it would probably destroy the last ounce of faith we have left in the system.

  8. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    Interesting! If we only knew all there is to know. But then, it would probably destroy the last ounce of faith we have left in the system.
    Too late. Mine is already destroyed.

    For me, it started with OJ, was dealt a death blow by the Ramsey case, and finished off by the acquittal of Casey Anthony.

    There is no justice in the American "justice system" ... only money and power and bottom-feeding lawyers who want to make a name for themselves.

  9. #57

    Default

    Ginja posted the following:

    >>John Ramsey made three phone calls the night of his daughter's murder. I've already told you about Beuf.

    >>Mike Bynum was the first person Ramsey called.

    >>I believe if we're going to discuss Beuf's involvement in this crime, we need to take it in context. Yes, Ramsey called the doctor that night. But he called his "lawyer" first!

    >>I think this info is monumental and can change the face of our discussions. It might also lend some understanding as to why I've been so vocal against Mr. Bynum.

    >>Something certainly did go awry that night. And instead of calling 911, Ramsey called Bynum...talked to him a bit, and then called Beuf.<<



    KK, do you remember if Ginja said who was John Ramsey's third phone call that night?

    1. Mike Bynum
    2. Dr. Beuf
    3. ?
    Last edited by Cherokee; December 31, 2012, 1:01 pm at Mon Dec 31 13:01:27 UTC 2012. Reason: correction

  10. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Ginja posted the following:

    >>John Ramsey made three phone calls the night of his daughter's murder. I've already told you about Beuf.

    >>Mike Bynum was the first person Ramsey called.

    >>I believe if we're going to discuss Beuf's involvement in this crime, we need to take it in context. Yes, Ramsey called the doctor that night. But he called his "lawyer" first!

    >>I think this info is monumental and can change the face of our discussions. It might also lend some understanding as to why I've been so vocal against Mr. Bynum.

    >>Something certainly did go awry that night. And instead of calling 911, Ramsey called Bynum...talked to him a bit, and then called Beuf.<<



    KK, do you remember if Ginja said who was John Ramsey's third phone call that night?

    1. Mike Bynum
    2. Dr. Beuf
    3. ?
    I never saw her list #3.

    Our two sources for "calls in the night" from the Ramsey house are Ginja and Spade. Both seem credible up to a point, but nobody is always right, and with the intrigues we've seen in this case for 16 years I still have to reserve a reasonable amount of skepticism for any allegations not sourced.

    I'm not saying I think they were wrong or have no basis for their opinions. What I am saying is it's a very logical conclusion, with what we know from Steve Thomas about the cell phone records and Hunter's refusal to issue a subpoena for those records. If either Ginja or Spade had other inside sources who supplied them with more info on this, I truly wish I knew the facts on that, though I understand why I probably never will.

    On the other hand, I recently read the grand jury did get those phone records--and yesterday I re-read so much on this case in old files and threads looking for different stuff, I can't remember where I read that. Was it in Spade's thread? Eek. My brain, my brain!

    The bottom line is this: those cell phone records could be the case-breaker. They may even sit in the BPD evidence room to this day, under the Rapp [prosecuted and closed] case files.

    Which means this case could have been "solved" in a week, had Hunter not been in on the cover-up...if he was.
    Last edited by Cherokee; December 31, 2012, 11:50 pm at Mon Dec 31 23:50:26 UTC 2012. Reason: fix post as requested

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  11. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Too late. Mine is already destroyed.

    For me, it started with OJ, was dealt a death blow by the Ramsey case, and finished off by the acquittal of Casey Anthony.

    There is no justice in the American "justice system" ... only money and power and bottom-feeding lawyers who want to make a name for themselves.
    Well, you got me there. No argument.

  12. #60

    Default Weak DNA, Weak District Attorneys, Totality of the circumstances

    The recent revelations concerning the Grand Jury indictment leaves the DNA evidence as the last “go-to” excuse that Lin Wood, John Ramsey and his ilk have left.

    As a matter of fact, this is the statement released by Lin Wood with respect to the news of the GJ indictment:

    "The DNA tests performed after the time of the Boulder grand jury not only prove the Ramseys to be innocent and the grand jury wrong, they also make D.A. Alex Hunter a hero who wisely avoided the miscarriage of justice," Wood said.


    The Ramsey case is by no means the only case in which there is DNA evidence SEEMINGLY pointing toward an unidentified perpetrator or perpetrators, although to listen to IDI’s, you would think so.

    Cases ARE tried successfully where there exists perplexing forensic evidence that seems to stand in stark contrast to a large body of evidence pointing elsewhere.

    If the totality of the circumstances paints a cohesive portrait of the Ramseys as the responsible agents for the death of JonBenet, there must be an alternative and innocent reason for the existence of the ostensibly contrary DNA.

    Totality of the circumstances:

    Colorado Peace Officer’s Handbook, written by our departmental attorney, Bob Keatley, says that “probable cause” for an arrest exists “When you have sufficient reliable information to believe that under the totality of the circumstances there is a fair probability that the suspect has committed . . . a crime.” To make the decision, the officer relies upon, among other things, personal observations, past experience, a suspect’s presence at the scene, information from other officers, attempts to avoid detection, and incriminating, contradictory, or evasive answers from the suspect.

    We had all of that and a lot more.


    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 197

    They (CASKU) told us that while it might be possible that someone broke into the house that night, it wasn’t very probable. The staging, evidence, and totality of the case pointed in one direction—that this was not the act of an intruder.

    The crime, they said, did not fit an act of sex or revenge or one in which money was the motivation. Taken alone, they said, each piece of evidence might be argued, but together, enough pebbles become a block of evidentiary granite.


    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 241-242

    The totality of the circumstances, and all of the evidence gathered over the course of an investigation, must be evaluated when seeking to identify the perpetrator(s) who had the motive, opportunity, and capability of committing, or covering up this crime. The prosecution has the opportunity to legitimately argue that the numerous unidentified DNA samples collected in this case are explainable, and that their origin has nothing to do whatsoever with the death of JonBenét.

    Foreign Faction: Who really kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 427

    DNA in perspective:

    The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case, (in any case, for that matter,) should be viewed in light of all the evidence, and a decision made as to its relevance. It should not dictate the relevance of the non-DNA evidence.

    The experts agree:

    As the sensitivity of multiplex STR PCR DNA profiling sensitivity increases, with less and less DNA required for the development of a DNA profile, the “forensic context” of DNA recovered at scenes of crime must be closely scrutinized.

    [SNIP]

    Therefore, only after a thorough examination of the known facts surrounding a case, and a multidisciplinary forensic investigation, should conclusions be drawn."
    -William C. Thompson, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California

    Any statement on the strength of the DNA evidence must be considered in the context of the case, DNA evidence should not be considered in isolation as it is affected by many factors like the type of biological material, method and time of deposition and the substrate on which it was deposited.

    An Introduction to Forensic Genetics, William Goodwin, Adrian Linacre, Sibte Hadi, page 87

    The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item.

    [SNIP]

    “The full DNA profile of one individual was recovered from an item that they had not touched while the profile of the person having contact with that item was not observed.

    http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...tamination.pdf

    “DNA is robust and easily transferred ... Its mere presence is not adequate for inferences of guilt.” Accordingly, prosecutors must be aware of limitations and challenges regarding touch DNA to minimize its misuse as evidence. The analytical process, misconceptions and powerfully persuasive evidential impact of touch DNA in criminal prosecutions must be understood and properly utilized..

    http://www.biomedicalforensics.com/A...ence_EBook.pdf


    How important is this “totality of evidence” concept? Consider the following case.

    A gunmen is preparing to murder a couple in their home. He finds the ammo box and retrieves some ammunition. After loading a rifle he tinkers a bit with the scope and heads out. To ensure that he won’t leave DNA, or fingerprints at the scene, he puts on latex gloves and leather gloves over top. Moments prior to shooting his intended victims, he spots a bathrobe and puts it over his clothes to reduce the possibility of blood spatter on his clothing. Two shots are fired, two people are dead.

    In the ensuing investigation, police find the following.

    Matching male DNA:

    On the barrel of the murder weapon.
    On the scope of the murder weapon.
    On one of the spent cartridges found at the crime scene.
    On the insert of a box of ammunition for the murder weapon.
    On the inside of a latex glove found in the garbage outside.*
    On the inside of a leather glove found in the garbage outside.*
    On the collar of a bathrobe.*

    (*Evidence including blood spatter and gunshot residue linked the bathrobe and gloves to the murders.)
    All of the DNA profiles belonging to this “intruder,” were partial, weak profiles.

    Matching fingerprints:

    On the scope of the murder weapon.
    On one of the spent cartridges found at the crime scene.
    On the insert of a box of ammunition for the murder weapon.

    In summary, 7 matching male DNA profiles were found in highly incriminating locations as well as matching fingerprints in 3 locations.

    That is a LOT of physical evidence pointing in one direction.

    (Mary Lacy would have been so happy she would have to have had the smile surgically removed from her face if she had this sort of evidence of an “intruder” in the Ramsey case)

    Whoever was the donor of this DNA is the shooter, right?

    If the donor was not the shooter, they would, at the very least, be involved, right?

    If, for some inconceivable reason, this is DNA that is completely unrelated to the crime, surely it would prevent a successful prosecution of the real perpetrator, right?

    We’ve heard Kolar mention this, Steve Thomas has mentioned it, and undoubtedly we’ve probably all heard it mentioned by other people in other circumstances as well.
    The totality of the evidence must be the arbiter in evaluating the relevance of a particular piece of evidence and the totality of the evidence must be arbiter in the evaluation of a given suspect in the course of a criminal investigation or prosecution.

    With this in mind, consider the DNA evidence that I’ve presented in this example.

    As I’ve indicated, 7 matching instances of DNA found in or on incriminating places or things further corroborated by fingerprint evidence seems overwhelming.

    There is quite a bit that I haven’t revealed. For example there is more DNA, but it’s from a female.

    On the inside of a right-handed latex glove found in the garbage outside.
    On the inside of a left-handed leather glove found in the garbage outside.
    On the pink bathrobe.
    On hair taken from the .264-caliber rifle used to shoot the Johnsons
    The profile from the inside of the gloves was not a partial profile, (as was the case with the male profile,) it was a complete profile.

    Who’s the shooter?

    There are two possibilities as to the meaning of the DNA that I’ve presented.

    There is a male shooter and the DNA pointing to a female is simply irrelevant, DNA for which there must be an innocent explanation.
    There is a female shooter and the DNA pointing to a male is simply irrelevant, DNA for which there must be an innocent explanation.

    DNA that is relevant to this or any case will dovetail into the rest of the evidence and “fit.”

    Case context determines DNA relevancy, DNA does not override case context (which, of course includes other forensic evidence,) and radically alter the clear direction of a case.

    Case context:

    Alan, 46, and Diane Johnson, 52, lived in an attractive home that sat on two acres of land in an affluent suburb in the small community of Bellevue, Idaho. They had been married for 20 years and were devoted to each other and to their two children, Matt and Sarah. The Johnsons were well liked in the community. Alan was the co-owner of a popular landscaping company and Sarah worked for a financial firm.

    In the early morning hours of September 2, 2003, Sarah Johnson ran out of her home, screaming for help. She told neighbors that her parents had just been murdered.

    When police arrived, they found Diane Johnson lying dead under the covers of her bed.

    Prosecutors would say at trial that the shooter placed the end of the rifle on her Diane’s head and pulled the trigger, a gunshot blast that removed most of her head.
    Based on wet bloody footprints and blood spatter, it appeared that Diane’s husband had stepped out of the shower and was then shot once through the chest from a distance of about three feet. Alan fell to the floor and then stood and walked toward the side of the bed where his wife usually slept. He then collapsed and was found lying next to the bed, having, ultimately, bled to death. The shower was running and Alan’s body was still wet when police arrived.

    The police immediately secured the crime scene including sectioning off an entire block around the house. In a trashcan outside of the Johnson’s home investigators found a bloody pink bathrobe and two gloves – a left-handed leather glove and a right-handed latex glove.

    Inside the home detectives found a trail of blood spatter, tissue, and bone fragments that went from the Johnson’s bedroom, into the hall, and across to Sarah Johnson’s bedroom.

    A .264 Winchester Magnum rifle was found in the master bedroom.

    Two butcher knives, wiped completely clean of fingerprints, which were strategically placed at the end of the Johnson’s bed near the bodies of Alan and Diane Johnson.

    A magazine of bullets was also found in Sarah’s bedroom, which was located around 20 feet across the hall from the Johnson's bedroom.

    There was no evidence of forced entry into the home.

    As investigators removed Alan and Diane's bodies from the house, noticed a coldness and distance from Sarah. (She sat on a nearby fence and with apparent indifference watched her parents come out in body bags.)

    When Sarah Johnson first talked to the police she said that she woke up around 6:15 a.m. and heard her parent's shower running. She continued to lie in bed, but then heard two gunshots. She ran to her parent’s bedroom and found that their door was closed. She did not open the door, but rather called for her mother who did not answer. Frightened, she ran out of the house and began screaming for help.

    Her story of what happened would change several times throughout the investigation. Sometimes she said her parent’s door was slightly opened and other times she said her door was closed, but not her parent’s door.

    Based on the forensic evidence found in the hall and in Sarah’s bedroom, both her door and her parent’s door would have to have been opened during the gunshot blast that ended her mother’s life.

    Sarah also admitted that the pink robe was hers, but denied knowing anything about how it ended up in the trash. When first asked about the robe, her first response was to say that she did not kill her parents, which investigators found odd. She said she thought the killer was a maid who had been recently fired by the Johnsons for stealing.
    The owner of the rifle used to kill the Johnsons belonged to Mel Speegle, who was renting a garage apartment in a guesthouse located on the Johnson’s property. He was away over the Labor Day weekend and had not yet returned home on the day of the murders. When questioned, he said that he did not lock up his guns or ammunition, but hid them in his closet under piles of clothes.

    Sarah Johnson was described by neighbors and friends as a sweet girl who enjoyed playing volleyball. But another Sarah had emerged over the summer months, one that seemed infatuated and obsessed with her 19-year-old boyfriend, Bruno Santos Dominguez.

    Sarah and Dominguez had been dating for three months prior to the murder of her parents. The Johnsons did not approve of the relationship because Dominguez was 19 and an undocumented Mexican immigrant. He also had a reputation for being involved in drugs.

    Close friends of Sarah’s said that a few days prior to the Johnson’s murder, Sarah showed them a ring and told them that she and Dominguez were engaged. They also said that Sarah often lied so they did not completely buy into what Sarah was saying about her engagement.

    On August 29, Sarah told her parents that she was spending the night with friends, but instead she spent the night with Dominguez. When her parents found out, her father went to look for her the next day and found her with Bruno at his family’s apartment.

    Sarah and her parents argued and she told them about her engagement. Diane was very upset and said that she was going to go to the authorities and report Dominguez for statutory rape. If nothing else, she hoped to have him deported.

    (Other than to prevent her parents from acting on these threats, there was evidence that the Sarah murdered her parents to get their money so that she and Santos could go away together. Ultimately, Sarah's boyfriend testified for the prosecution, primarily to show he had nothing to do with the murders and that Sarah had talked about hating her dad and spoke of shooting him because of his disapproval of the relationship.)

    They also grounded Sarah for the rest of the Labor Day weekend and took her car keys. During the following days, Sarah, who had a key to Speegle’s apartment, was in and out of the guesthouse for various reasons.

    Both Diane and Sarah called Matt Johnson, who was away at college, on the night before the murders. Matt said his mother cried about Sarah's relationship with Dominguez and expressed how embarrassed she felt by Sarah's actions.

    Uncharacteristically, Sarah seemed to accept her parent's punishment, and told Matt that she knew what they were up to. Matt did not like how the comment sounded and almost called his mother back, but decided not to because it was so late. The next day the Johnsons were dead.

    DNA testing showed that there was blood and tissue belonging to Diane on Sarah’s pink robe, along with DNA that matched Sarah. Gunshot residue was found on the leather glove and Sarah’s DNA was found inside of the latex glove.

    Diane’s DNA was also found in blood that was on the socks Sarah was wearing on the morning her parents were killed.

    On October 29, 2003, Sarah Johnson was arrested and charged as an adult on two counts of first-degree murder to which she pleaded not guilty.

    During the trial there was a lot of testimony about Sarah Johnson’s inappropriate behavior and lack of emotions about the brutal murder of her parents. Neighbors and friends who offered comfort to Sarah on the day her parents were killed said that she was more concerned about seeing her boyfriend. She also did not seem traumatized, which would be expected if a teen went through the experience that she had inside the house when her parents were gunned down.

    She had a manicure the day before the funeral, because she didn't want to chip her nails the next day. She told her manicurist that she wanted to get on with her life.
    At her parent's funeral she talked about wanting to go play volleyball that evening and any sadness that she displayed seemed superficial.

    Witnesses also testified about the troubled relationship between Sarah and her mother, but many also added that it was not that unusual for a girl her age to fight with their mother. However, her half-brother, Matt Johnson, gave some of the most insightful testimony about Sarah, although it also proved to be some of the most damaging.
    He described her as a drama queen and a good actor who had a propensity to lie. During part of his two-hour testimony, he said that the first thing Sarah told him when he arrived to their home after finding out his parent’s had been murdered, was that the police thought that she did it. He told her he thought Dominguez did it, which she vehemently denied. She said that Dominguez loved Alan Johnson like a father. Matt knew this was not true.

    She also told him that at 2 a.m. on the night before the murders, that someone had been to the house. Her parents checked the yard to make sure no one was out there before they went back to bed. She had not provided this information to the police. Regardless Matt did not believe her, but did not challenge what she was saying.

    In the weeks after the murders, Matt testified that he avoided asking his sister about the murders because he was afraid of what she might tell him.

    The testimony of cellmates of Sarah's who testified about some of the damaging comments she made regarding the murders was challenged. One cellmate said that Sarah said the knives were placed on the bed in order to throw off the police and make it look like a gang-related shooting.

    Sarah was fascinated with crime stories, and based upon that exposure from novels and from television; she likely would have understood evidence and how to get rid of it

    A summary of evidence against Sarah Johnson:

    Investigators needed to prove that Sarah wore the robe on the morning of the murders.

    To do that, they had to analyze the shirt she had on that day.

    On the day of the murders, Sarah Johnson was wearing a blue cotton t-shirt with green paint smeared onto it.

    Scientists took samples from the t-shirt and fibers from inside the bathrobe and used a scanning electron microscope to compare the similarities.

    They found paint on both the t-shirt and the bathrobe with the same chemical makeup.

    A shower cap, which may have been used to prevent biological evidence to deposit in her hair, was flushed down the toilet. Plumbers found it several weeks later when it clogged the drain. (Although it was strongly “coincidental,” there was no way to definitively tie it to the murders because, for obvious reasons, there was nothing of forensic value left.)

    There was a bruise on her shoulder, “coincidentally,” the day her parents were shot with a rifle

    In a photograph of Sarah, several linear bruises that were approximately between 2 and 4 inches long are clearly visible near the top of her left shoulder.

    Witnesses who testified in the trial could not confirm that the marks were from a gun, but there was evidence of some sort of struggle near the doorway to the bathroom where Alan Johnson was shot.

    Possibly, as Alan Johnson fell, he grabbed the gun from the shooter's hands" and pulled her into the door jam, which would have been in line with the her left shoulder?

    While on the topic of shoulders, at the time of the shooting, Sarah Johnson's shoulder was 51.5 inches from the ground. A prosecution expert testified early in the trial that, based on Alan Johnson's gunshot wound in his upper left chest, the exit wound on his upper left back and the bullet impact point in the back of the shower, the rifle would have been fired from 51.5 inches above the ground, yet another “coincidence.”

    If an unknown shooter committed this crime, it would appear that he was remarkably similar in physical stature.

    Matching DNA belonging to Sarah Johnson found on the following:

    On the inside of a right-handed latex glove found in the garbage outside.
    On the inside of a left-handed leather glove found in the garbage outside.
    (The matching right-handed leather glove was found in Sarah’s bedroom)
    On the pink bathrobe.
    On hair taken from the .264-caliber rifle used to shoot the Johnsons.
    The profile from the inside of the gloves was not a partial profile, it was a complete profile.

    DNA from the parents found on the following:

    A live shell cartridge, in Sarah’s bedroom with her mother's DNA on it.
    The bottom of the wool socks worn by Sarah the morning of the shootings matched her mother's DNA.
    On the back of the pink robe worn by the shooter there was a treasure trove of biological material, (this included high velocity blood spatter, bone fragments and human tissue.) DNA sampling from the blood spatter determined that it was from both parents.
    On the outside of the brown leather glove, Diane’s DNA was found.

    If it was an “intruder,” the owner of the unknown matching DNA, the following would have to be true:

    There would be a conscious decision to take the life of two people, presumably without motive.

    He would go to the Johnson residence without a weapon.

    He would enter both the guest house and the main residence while leaving no signs of forced entry.

    While in the guest house, the intruder would happen upon the Winchester .264 Magnum rifle and ammunition, take them, and take nothing else.

    He would then enter the main residence, navigate through a dark unfamiliar house, ignore taking any objects of value, take the time to find latex and leather gloves to put on, spend more time to find a robe to slip into to prevent his clothes from getting messed up, decide to find a shower cap to prevent his hair from getting messed up, and then walk into the master bedroom to shoot Diane Johnson in the head at close range and a moment later shoot Alan Johnson exiting a shower in the bathroom.

    Having taken nothing of value, and leaving a potential witness in house (Sarah) completely unharmed; he would then flush the borrowed shower cap down the toilet, place two butcher knives at the foot of the Johnson’s bed, leave his borrowed rifle in the master bedroom, exit the house, dispose of the borrowed robe and gloves in the Johnson's garbage can, and slips away into the darkness.

    Plausible? Hardly. Sarah Johnson had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime.

    Despite unexplained DNA evidence, the prosecutors had the confidence in their case to proceed and thankfully the jurors weren’t swayed by defense smoke and mirrors.
    As this example has illustrated, unexplained physical evidence, whether it is DNA, fingerprints etc., that doesn’t fit into the context of the case can and should be dismissed. The extraordinary sensitivity of DNA testing allows for the discovery of profiles completely unrelated to a crime.

    In the end, it comes down to the issue of whether a DA has the confidence to bring a case to trial that is not a complete slam dunk.

    It seems that it’s sometimes forgotten that a case has to only be proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not ALL doubt.



    DNA evidence in the Ramsey case in proper perspective within the totality of the circumstances:




    DNA evidence grossly elevated to infallible status by Mary Lacy, Lin Wood et al.
    Last edited by Cherokee; February 3, 2013, 12:44 am at Sun Feb 3 0:44:13 UTC 2013. Reason: spacing



Similar Threads

  1. CNN Interviews James Kolar (Oct 26, 2013)
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 28, 2013, 3:56 pm, Mon Oct 28 15:56:28 UTC 2013
  2. Sexual Behavior Problems (SBP) - from James Kolar's book about Ramsey case
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 159
    Last Post: December 24, 2012, 11:24 am, Mon Dec 24 11:24:14 UTC 2012
  3. Where to buy James Kolar's book: "Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet"
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: August 18, 2012, 12:35 pm, Sat Aug 18 12:35:36 UTC 2012
  4. James Kolar's new book! It's what we have been waiting for! Daily Beast article!
    By Moab in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 308
    Last Post: August 14, 2012, 10:11 pm, Tue Aug 14 22:11:18 UTC 2012
  5. Listen to James Kolar talk about new book on Tricia's show tonight! (July 18, 2012)
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: July 19, 2012, 8:43 pm, Thu Jul 19 20:43:59 UTC 2012

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •