Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 25 to 27 of 27
  1. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default

    Conclusion

    The evidence and case facts show the following:

    *Nobody left hand or foot prints in the window well like Lou Smit did when he positioned himself to go through the window.

    *Nobody disturbed the dirt on the window sill as they entered through the window, sliding their backside across the sill.

    *Nobody could possibly exit the basement by boosting themselves up from the suitcase and not disturb the dirt on the window sill.

    *Nobody could possibly navigate that basement without turning on the lights or using a portable light source.

    *The lights were not found to be on the next morning as they would have been if someone left out the window.

    *Neighbors reported seeing a light on in the house, but no person reported seeing the basement lights on.

    *The evidence is backwards. The suitcase couldn't have been used to climb in since it wouldn't have been there. And the flashlight that the intruder would have needed to find his way out was left in the kitchen.

    *The photos of the window well show the wind swirled the leaves and debris into the corners of the well. That same wind could have easily blown debris into the basement through the window that John Ramsey admits he broke months before the crime and never fixed.


    `````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````

    THANK YOU CUTTER

    To read more of Cutter's website please go to:

    http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/index.html
    tgrif@xmission.com
    FFJ C/O Tricia Griffith
    6300 N Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H #214
    Park City UT
    84098




    I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
    Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword

  2. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default THE TRUTH about Judge Carnes' Decision - DNA/Boot/Palm Print

    Rebuttal to Judge Judy Carnes’ Decision
    Wolfe vs. Ramsey

    DNA

    From the judge's decision.

    The defendants also offer other undisputed evidence that they contend clearly establishes that another male was near JonBenet at the time she was murdered. Specifically, defendants note that unidentified male DNA--which does not match that of a;ny Ramsey- -was found under JonBenet's fingernails. 36 (SMF 173-174, 177; PSMF 173, 177. ) In addition, male DNA, again not matching any Ramsey, was found in JonBenet's underwear. ( SMF 175 ; PSMF 175.)

    The Truth

    There is no way possible to determine when the DNA was placed in JonBenet's underpants. For the judge to claim that an "another male was near JonBenet at the time she was murdered" based on the fact there was male DNA in her underpants is an outrages thing for the judge to say. There is no way the DNA can be dated. How did the judge know the DNA was placed in JonBenet's underpants the night of the murder? If Judge Carnes has found a way to date DNA then she needs to let the experts in the field know because so far no one else has figured out how to do this.

    From: www.supportramsey.com

    "…It is the current understanding of the family that the investigation team considers this male DNA sample to be the key piece of evidence and was, without a doubt, left behind by the killer of their child."


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The very same scientist who conducted the DNA testing in the Denver Police Department’s DNA lab contradicts the above statement.

    Rocky Mountain News, May 18, 2004, Charlie Brennan
    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...2893675,00.html
    text version backup

    A claim by John Ramsey's campaign that investigators have the DNA of his daughter's killer goes too far, according to the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.

    "That's one of the possibilities, but that's not the only possibility," said the scientist, who asked that his name not be used. It's impossible to say whether the DNA belonged to an adult or a child, according to the scientist.

    "You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist said. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation."

    "It is only a sample," he said. "You need a match, and that will help you get a name. And then that gives you somebody to talk to. But that person might be alibied-out, or there might be some other explanation for why it's there."

    He also said there is no way to "age" the sample, to determine whether it was left in the underwear at the time of JonBenet's murder or at some other point.

    …Another state forensics expert, who also asked not to be identified, said the significance of the DNA profile must be weighed conservatively, based on where it was found, and in what substance.

    Without knowing if a sample was left by blood, saliva, or some other material, it could be "unknown cellular material sloughed off by somebody's hand," the source said. "You're in an area that is very gray, and it can be very confusing, as to the interpretive value of it."


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once again, the bottom line is, you can’t put the cart before the pony. Before one can say this DNA belongs to the killer of JonBenet Ramsey, there has to be other hard evidence identifying this "killer," a DNA "match" to this person, and evidence placing him in the home at the time of the murder. There is no way to determine when the DNA was deposited on JBR’s underwear. No one can say for certain that it was NOT deposited there during the manufacturing or packing and handling processes or in another innocent, totally unrelated manner.

    To say the DNA belongs to JonBenet’s killer is a blatant leap of faith, if not an out and out misrepresentation of the known facts.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by Cherokee; May 22, 2012, 12:41 am at Tue May 22 0:41:02 UTC 2012.
    tgrif@xmission.com
    FFJ C/O Tricia Griffith
    6300 N Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H #214
    Park City UT
    84098




    I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
    Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword

  3. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default The Truth About Judge Carnes’ Decision - Boot/Palm Print

    HI-TEC BOOT PRINT
    AND UNIDENTIFIED PALM PRINT



    From Judge Carnes’ Decision:

    “Plaintiff, of course, argues that any evidence suggesting an intruder was staged by defendants. Even assuming that all the above evidence could have been staged, however, defendants point to other evidence for which a theory of contrivance by them seems either impossible or highly implausible. First, defendants note the existence of several recently-made unidentified shoeprints containing a "HI-TEC" brand mark were found in the basement imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. (SMF 151-152; PSMF 151-152.) Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes and none of their shoes match the shoeprint marks. (SMF 153; PSMF 153.) Likewise, another similar partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF 155; PSMF 155.) The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the footprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF 154, 155; PSMF 154, 155 n addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palm print that does not match either of defendants' palm prints. (SMF 156; PSMF 156.) The individual to whom it belongs has never been identified. (SMF 156; PSMF 156.)

    Of course, the existence of these shoeprints and palm print is not dispositive, as they could have been made prior to the time of the murder, but they are clearly consistent with an argument that an intruder was in the basement area.”


    The Truth

    From the Rocky Mountain News (Charlie Brennan, August 22, 2002):

    “A palm print on the door leading to that same wine cellar, long unidentified, is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half-sister. She was in Georgia at the time of the murder.”…


    and:

    “…L. Lin Wood, the attorney representing the Ramseys, who now live in Atlanta, doesn't debate the palm print findings…”


    As proof of an intruder, the Ramseys and Mr. Wood have bantered about the “unidentified” palm print. Now, according to Mr. Brennan’s article, Lin Wood doesn’t debate the finding that the palm print belongs to a Ramsey family member. Yet, Wood allows a federal judge to base part of her decision on this case using information that Wood has conceded isn’t connected to the case.

    Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain NewsAugust 22, 2002 BOULDER -

    Investigators have answered two vexing questions in the JonBenet Ramsey case that have long helped support the theory that an intruder killed her, according to sources Ramsey evidence is explained Hand, boot prints determined to be innocent occurrences close to the case. The answers, which have been known to investigators for some time but never publicly revealed, could be seen to weaken the intruder theory.

    The two clues are:

    • A mysterious Hi-Tec boot print in the mold on the floor of the Ramseys' wine cellar near JonBenet's body has been linked by investigators to Burke, her brother, who was 9 at the time. It is believed to have been left there under circumstances unrelated to JonBenet's murder.

    Burke, now 15, has repeatedly been cleared by authorities of any suspicion in the 1996 Christmas night slaying, and that has not changed.

    • A palm print on the door leading to that same wine cellar, long unidentified, is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half-sister. She was in Georgia at the time of the murder.

    "They were certainly some things that had to be answered, one way or the other, and we feel satisfied that they are both answered," said a source close to the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

    L. Lin Wood, the attorney representing the Ramseys, who now live in Atlanta, doesn't debate the palm print findings. But he contends the police have not answered the Hi-Tec print mystery.

    "Burke Ramsey does not and has never owned a pair of quote, unquote, trademarked Hi-Tec sneakers that the Ramseys are aware of," Wood said. "I would think they know what shoes he has owned."


    It's interesting that Mr. Wood would claim the police have not answered the "Hi-Tec print mystery."

    Forums for Justice can only assume Ramsey attorney Lin Wood never dreamed the 2000 Atlanta interviews with law enforcement the Ramseys participated in would be made public.

    From the Atlanta interviews it is obvious that Burke Ramsey told the Grand Jury that he indeed did own a pair of Hi Tec shoes/boots.

    From the Atlanta Interviews. Mr. Levin for the United States. Mr.Wood for the Ramseys. This exchange is with Mr. Levin, Patsy Ramsey, and Lin Wood. Bold has been added.

    23 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Did you try, in
    24 your mind, and perhaps to assist your
    25 investigator, identify sources close to your
    0122
    1 family that might be the origin of the
    2 Hi-Tec shoe impression?
    3 A. I think, you know, I may have
    4 asked Susan if she had ever seen any. I
    5 mean, I didn't, I don't know what a Hi-Tec
    6 boot looks like, per se. I have tried to
    7 kind of, as I am in shoe stores, look around
    8 trying to see what, what's the significance
    9 and special about a Hi-Tec boot, and I
    10 haven't, haven't even seen any yet. But I
    11 may have asked Susan, did you know anybody
    12 that looked like they wore Hi-Tec shoe,
    13 boots, or whatever.
    14 Q. Do you recall a period of time,
    15 prior to 1996, when your son Burke purchased
    16 a pair of hiking boots that had compasses on
    17 the shoelaces? And if it helps to
    18 remember --
    19 A. I can't remember.
    20 Q. Maybe this will help your
    21 recollection. They were shoes that were
    22 purchased while he was shopping with you in
    23 Atlanta.
    24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
    25 as a fact?
    0123
    1 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as
    2 a fact.

    3 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Does that help
    4 refresh your recollection as to whether he
    5 owned a pair of shoes that had compasses on
    6 them?
    7 A. I just can't remember. Bought so
    8 many shoes for him.
    9 Q. And again, I will provide, I'll
    10 say, I'll say this as a fact to you, that,
    11 and maybe this will help refresh your
    12 recollection, he thought that -- the shoes
    13 were special because they had a compass on
    14 them, his only exposure for the most part to
    15 compasses had been in the plane and he kind
    16 of liked the idea of being able to point
    17 them different directions. Do you remember
    18 him doing that with the shoes?
    19 A. I can't remember the shoes. I
    20 remember he had a compass thing like a
    21 watch, but I can't remember about the shoes.
    22 Q. You don't remember him having
    23 shoes that you purchased with compasses on
    24 them?
    25 MR. WOOD: She will tell you that
    0124
    1 one more time. Go ahead and tell him, and
    2 this will be the third time.
    3 THE WITNESS: I can't remember.
    [B]4 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. Does it
    5 jog your memory to know that the shoes with
    6 compasses were made by Hi-Tec?
    7 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
    8 as a fact?
    9 MR. LEVIN: Yes. I am stating
    10 that as a fact.
    11 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know
    12 that.
    13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) I will state this
    14 as a fact. There are two people who have
    15 provided us with information, including your
    16 son, that he owned Hi-Tec shoes prior to the
    17 murder of your daughter.
    18 MR. WOOD: You are stating that
    19 Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec
    20 shoes?
    21 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
    22 MR. WOOD: He used the phrase
    23 Hi-Tec?
    24 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
    25 MR. WOOD: When?
    0125
    1 MR. LEVIN: I can't, I can't give
    2 you the source. I can tell you that I have
    3 that information.{/B]
    4 MR. WOOD: You said Burke told
    5 you.
    6 MR. LEVIN: I can't quote it to
    7 you for reasons I am sure, as an attorney,
    8 you are aware.
    9 MR. WOOD: Just so it is clear,
    10 there is a difference between you saying that
    11 somebody said Burke told them and Burke
    12 telling you because Burke has been
    13 interviewed by you all December of 1996,
    14 January of 1997, June of 1998.
    15 Are you saying that it is within
    16 those interviews?
    17 MR. LEVIN: No.
    18 MR. WOOD: So he didn't tell you,
    19 he told somebody else you are stating as a
    20 fact because I don't think you all have
    21 talked to him other than those occasions,
    22 have you?
    23 MR. KANE: Mr. Wood, we don't
    24 want to get into grand jury information.
    25 Okay?
    0126
    1 MR. WOOD: Okay.
    2 MR. KANE: Fair enough?
    3 MR. LEVIN: I am sorry, I should
    4 have been more direct. I thought you would
    5 understand --

    ``````````````````````````````````````````````````

    To read all of the Atlanta 2000 interviews please go here.
    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=4665

    The mystery of the palm print is solved. It was Melinda Ramsey's palm print on the door leading to the room where JonBenet's body was found.

    The mystery of the Hi-Tec boots/shoes is solved. Burke Ramsey told the Grand Jury that he did indeed own a pair of Hi-Tec boots.

    How Lin Wood can claim the boot print and palm print still point to an intruder is beyond comprehension.
    Last edited by Cherokee; May 22, 2012, 12:40 am at Tue May 22 0:40:22 UTC 2012.
    tgrif@xmission.com
    FFJ C/O Tricia Griffith
    6300 N Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H #214
    Park City UT
    84098




    I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
    Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword



Similar Threads

  1. Prior molestation documented
    By koldkase in forum Evidence Files: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 19, 2009, 5:36 pm, Fri Jun 19 17:36:20 UTC 2009
  2. New 48 Hours Rebuttal Thread
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: January 13, 2005, 3:45 am, Thu Jan 13 3:45:59 UTC 2005
  3. Judge Carnes ruling
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 5, 2003, 7:26 pm, Sat Apr 5 19:26:53 UTC 2003
  4. The Judge's Decision
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 27, 2002, 8:50 pm, Wed Mar 27 20:50:25 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

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