Lacy KNEW

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by LIMAMA, Aug 29, 2006.

  1. LIMAMA

    LIMAMA Member

    My Mom said she heard on the tube today that they tested the DNA BEFORE hauling Karr back from Thailand and knew that it wasn't a match, but dragged him back anyway. Any confirmation on this juicy tidbit?
     
  2. Saint Bob

    Saint Bob Member

    The #1 reason I'm glad the whole Karr thing happened...

    Regardless of whether he was the right guy...
    Regardless of whether his DNA matched...

    I'm glad they did what they did.

    Because now millions of people around the whole know what kind of man he is. And now he will NEVER, EVER be allowed around children again.
     
  3. Freebird

    Freebird Active Member


    Unless he is convicted of something he can and will be allowed around children. Besides pedophiles snatch children everday no court order is going to protect a child from a predator on our streets.
     
  4. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    I am in agreement with much of what you say, however, it is unfortunate it was at taxpayer's expense. That being said...

    • I am glad Keenan has that much more egg on her face
    • I am glad Tracey is exposed AGAIN for the ludicrous person he is in naming one innocent person after another
     
  5. RAMP

    RAMP Member

    In answer to the original poster's question (and please correct me if I have parts wrong):

    They got four samples in Thailand, taken surreptitiously, without the suspect's cooperation, or even knowledge - from swabbing a bike he had just ridden, and picking up a cup and napkin he had used, etc.

    The samples did not match the DNA from JB's underwear.

    BUT the DA's office said that, since these samples might have been mixed (someone else might have touched the bike or cup), they couldn't be tested accurately against the DNA from JB. SO, they brought him all the way back to the US and swabbed his cheek.

    And then they found out that, even when the sample is pristine, Karr's DNA doesn't match the very limited profile (only 10 markers) that was obtained from JB's underwear (that might also be "mixed" - it was a small and degraded sample).

    The part that really got to me is this:

    Karr's lawyers and the DA's office had a meeting set for Monday morning. The DA's office got the results early, though - I think it was Saturday night. Did they tell Karr and his lawyers the results?

    NO, they told John Ramsey (because he had "gotten his hopes up" that they had finally found someone on which to pin the murder) and Tracey (because he had been so involved in this whole investgation [and grooming?] of Karr while researching his next money-making JB documentary) because these two grown men basically had to be let down easily and have time to adjust to this new information. A day or more before Karr and his lawyers were told the test results!

    So, well before the accused was given his test results, the Boulder DA's office passed this information on to another suspect (JR) and someone who has made money from accusing innocent people (Tracey)!

    And then, at the already-scheduled Monday meeting, they gave the news to the person it really effected the most, Karr and his attorneys.
     
  6. VP

    VP Member

    As Nancy Grace said today ...

    DNA can be separated - the samples they took in Thailand could have been separated from any other person's dna there might have been. After all, how would they convict based on DNA in gang rape cases if this weren't the case?

    They knew his DNA didn't match, that's why they went to plan "B" - investigating the old fashioned way, asking questions and doing background.

    As for the huge lie that they did not know Karr's name until August 11th - BULL - did the reporter who gave Michael Tracy Karr's email addy not know his name? And even the anonymous websites, if subpoenaed, will hand over information on subscribers.

    It's just another day in "thank God the public are idiots" Boulder land.
     
  7. sandraladeda

    sandraladeda Member

    wow, RAMP, that's appalling, though I guess not surprising. Where did you get this info?
     
  8. RAMP

    RAMP Member

    I watched the news conference. And switched channels whenever they had a voice-over, so I would really hear what Lacy and crew had to say.
     
  9. Maggie

    Maggie Member

    separating DNA

    To separate a mixture of two sets of DNA you would need a clean sample from one of the contributors. Once you remove the markers that match that clean sample, the left-over markers belong to the second contributor.
     
  10. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

    Telling Ramsey and Tracey

    NO, they told John Ramsey (because he had "gotten his hopes up" that they had finally found someone on which to pin the murder) and Tracey (because he had been so involved in this whole investgation [and grooming?] of Karr while researching his next money-making JB documentary) because these two grown men basically had to be let down easily and have time to adjust to this new information. A day or more before Karr and his lawyers were told the test results!

    That is obscene. Just when I thought Mary Lacy and her gang couldn't fall any lower!
     
  11. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    Lurker, why should this surprise you? The BDA has leaked like a sieve to the Ramseys since the first days of the investigation. They handed everything over to the Ramseys and their attorneys who then handed it over to "specially picked" reporters.

    Then pointed their fingers and blamed the BPD!

    They've pointed their fingers and blamed the BPD for just about everything going wrong with this investigation for 10 years. And now they've gone and PROVEN that they're the ones who are the screwups.

    I hope the media notices!
     
  12. LIMAMA

    LIMAMA Member

    Hold On

    As was stated on Nancy Grace tonight, surreptious tests of a suspect's DNA is DONE ALL THE TIME at the investigative stage. It rules out the very fiasco that happened with the arrest in Thailand. For TRIAL purposes, yes, a pristine sample is necessary.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice