Henry Lee: Investigators are still waiting for a DNA hit

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Moab, Jul 11, 2008.

  1. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Forensic expert says Ramsey investigation still ‘cold’<o:p></o:p>
    Henry Lee: Investigators are still waiting for a DNA hit<o:p></o:p>
    By Vanessa Miller (Contact)
    Thursday, July 10, 2008 <o:p></o:p>

    <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
    <!--[endif]-->
    <o:p></o:p>

    A high-profile forensic investigator who worked on the JonBenet Ramsey case said Thursday that he doesn’t think — when it comes to finding the 6-year-old girl’s killer — that much has changed in the Boulder County district attorney’s investigation.<o:p></o:p> District Attorney Mary Lacy on Wednesday announced new DNA evidence in JonBenet’s 1996 slaying, cleared her parents as suspects and wrote them an apology letter.<o:p></o:p>
    But investigator Henry Lee, who has worked on homicides including the O.J. Simpson and John F. Kennedy cases, said John and Patsy Ramsey already were cleared in their daughter’s death nearly a decade ago when a grand jury failed to find evidence to indict anyone.<o:p></o:p>
    As for the DNA, Lee said, evidence in the national database today is the same DNA that’s been there for years.<o:p></o:p>
    “So far they have not had a hit,†Lee said.<o:p></o:p>
    Investigators exonerated JonBenet’s family this week after learning that new DNA evidence found on long johns the girl was wearing at the time of her death matched foreign DNA discovered 11 years ago in her underwear.<o:p></o:p>
    Until now, some people speculated the DNA in the panties — because it never has matched any suspects — might have landed there innocently, perhaps through a factory worker who packaged the panties. The corroborating evidence found on the girl’s long johns recently gives investigators supportive proof that the DNA on the underwear didn’t land there innocuously.<o:p></o:p>
    And, Lacy said in a statement Wednesday, her office believes “this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.â€<o:p></o:p>
    “The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case,†she said in the statement.<o:p></o:p>
    Still, Lee said, there never has been enough evidence to arrest the parents.<o:p></o:p>
    “They already cleared them,†he said.<o:p></o:p>
    Although there’s now more of the original DNA that was found in the underwear, it’s not a new profile — and it’s still unmatched.<o:p></o:p>
    “More than 10 years ago, the DNA already showed that it didn’t match the Ramseys,†Lee said.<o:p></o:p>
    He said the case is a “cold case†like it’s been for more than a decade.<o:p></o:p>
    “But now it’s even colder than before,†Lee said, because the Ramseys have been excluded. “Now there are no potential suspects.â€<o:p></o:p>
    Lee, who originally was called in to help on the case by former District Attorney Alex Hunter, has not been contacted by Lacy’s office to assist. But, Lee said, he wants to know if advancements in the “touch DNA†method of testing might turn up more supportive DNA on other pieces of evidence, such as the rope used in JonBenet’s death.<o:p></o:p>
    “And they still have this note problem,†Lee said of the three-page ransom letter recovered at the scene. “Those issues are just like pieces of a puzzle that cannot fit together at this point.â€<o:p></o:p>
    Lee said if the DNA that’s turned up now on both JonBenet’s panties and long johns shows up on other pieces of evidence, that would be even more powerful. But whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.<o:p></o:p>
    “It’s all subject to interpretation,†he said. “That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.â€<o:p></o:p>
    Still, legal experts and investigators in the Ramsey case have asserted that the new corroborating DNA information is “huge†in building a case against a suspect and narrowing the focus.<o:p></o:p>
    “I think it is very encouraging,†said former Boulder prosecutor Trip DeMth. “I’m very hopeful this might contribute to the solving of the case.â€
    http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/10/forensic-expert-says-ramsey-investigation-still-co/
     
  2. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Eh? What's he talking about? Insufficient evidence to indict is not the same as "being cleared"...... There are umpteen cases where there was insifficient evidence to charge anyone for a long time - despite there being suspects. When the evidence was later found, the relevant suspects were charge.
     
  3. heymom

    heymom Member

    But investigator Henry Lee, who has worked on homicides including the O.J. Simpson and John F. Kennedy cases, said John and Patsy Ramsey already were cleared in their daughter’s death nearly a decade ago when a grand jury failed to find evidence to indict anyone.

    He should have said, "were, in effect, cleared..." Henry Lee either doesn't speak very well, doesn't think very well, or speaks before he thinks. He doesn't write that well either.
     
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Just more BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH.

    I'd like to know if they have a "complete" DNA profile now. And if that "touch DNA" actuallly is reliable? And if not, as Why Nut's research on the web reveals there are questions about the technique being reliable, then HOW did they manage to "match" the nine markers they had?

    And everyone is asking if the DA used this "touch DNA" on the garrote cord and paintbrush, etc. Obviously they either didn't or the results wouldn't be pretty for the Ramseys.
     
  5. AMES

    AMES Member

    I agree! And THAT should have been done before ANYBODY was cleared. Just because there is male touch DNA on her panties and longjohns...doesn't mean that it was the same person that killed her.
     
  6. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    So she bases her exoneration of the Ramseys on belief?

    If, per the FBI, this type of DNA finding cannot be used for exculpatory purposes, then how can Lacy exonerate the Ramseys on that?
    And what about the other evidence against the Ramseys? Does Lacy think it vanishes into thin air?
    There have always been rumors that Lacy does not really know much about the case, and as to that, asking her some tough questions at a press conference and study her reaction to them would offer quite a few insights.

    Lacy should be fed some of her own medicine:
    "So you believe the DNA belongs to the offender, Ms. Lacy?
    How can you rule out John Ramsey as co-perpetrator regarding the fact that the fiber evidence implicates him too? Remember that fibers from his shirt were found in those underpants also. "


    Since Lacy used to talk freely about the DNA possibly being artifact, I suppose no legal barrier would prevent her from informing the public about the fiber evidence issue also.
    Lacy should not be allowed to wriggle out of this.
     
  7. Little

    Little Member

    Read entire story here - Source: http://www.kgwn.tv/story.aspx?ID=487&Cat=2
     
  8. Little

    Little Member

    Stringing Together The Clues of DNA

    This one isn't about Henry Lee but it does mention JonBenet;

    Read entire article here - Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/11/ST2008091103744.html
     
  9. Elle

    Elle Member


    There has been no simple explanation offered to the public to read and understand in laymen's terms all they are trying to make us believe.

    D.A. Lacey delivered nothing but a lot of hogwash. [​IMG]
     
  10. Little

    Little Member

    Another Henry Lee book

    Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:12 AM EST

    Cases that shocked even Dr. Henry Lee
    Forensic experts' collaboration unveils who's who of true crime
    BY BRYNN MANDEL | REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN

    In criminal investigations, the tiniest details can have huge repercussions. A splatter of blood, bug bits that reveal where a vehicle has been, and in the murder case against O.J. Simpson, a glove that was a tight fit, can mean life or death, jail or freedom. Futures are cemented in the shadow of the bench, often because of such scraps of evidence.

    In record producer/songwriter Phil Spector's case, which resulted in a second-degree murder conviction last April in actress Lana Clarkson's death, a broken artificial fingernail temporarily took top focus.

    That case, and controversy the broken nail wrought on the reputation of a well-known forensic expert from Connecticut, are tackled in the latest book by that expert, Henry Lee, and his writing partner, Jerry Labriola of Naugatuck.

    "Shocking Cases from Dr. Henry Lee's Forensic Files" (Prometheus Books, $26) hit stores last week. It is the fourth true-crime collaboration by Lee and Labriola, a retired pediatrician and politician with a forensic background. Their chronicles read like a who's who of true crime: Scott Peterson, O.J. Simpson, JonBenet Ramsey. Almost all the cases employed Lee, who has worked as the state's commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, its chief criminalist and director of the State Police's Forensic Science Laboratory, as an expert witness.

    jump

    Whether working for prosecution or defense, or revisiting a historical crime in a book, Labriola said of Lee: "He's a scientist and I'm a scientist and we call it how we see it. He only presents the scientific evidence as he sees it and interprets it. He lets the chips fall where they may."

    jump

    intrigued public

    Since his retirement 14 years ago, Labriola said the intersection of crime-solving and science has changed dramatically. It brought unprecedented technological advances and an ever-increasing realm of expertise from which to draw — from forensic entomology that uses insets to pinpoint times of death to specialists who analyze knots and ligatures to see what they might reveal.

    He thinks several factors intrigue the public when it comes to true crime.
    Source:
    http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/02/28/lifestyle/family/469331.txt
     
  11. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    In Beckner's deposition he says that there was DNA that did not belong to JonBenet at the crime scene, but it wasn't on her body or clothes. He doesn't say where it was found. Anyone know what he's talking about?

    19 Q [Wood] Obviously you're telling me there was DNA
    20 that was not on JonBen[e]t or on her clothing; is that
    21 correct?

    22 A [Beckner] Correct.

    23 Q Where was that?

    24 A We're getting into areas where I feel like
    25 we can't go.
     
  12. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    Excellent question

    It's been so long that I either just don't remember that or we know what the answer is and I've forgotten that also :)

    I wonder if he's referring to the semen from JAR with the Dr. Seuss book?
     
  13. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    That could very well be what he meant. There was also a hair from Patsy's forearm on JB's white blanket and a palm print belonging to JR's older daughter MR on the wineceller door.
    If it was the semen, it doesn't really add much to the case evidence. While most RDI (including me) think it could be an indication that JAR was molesting JB (using the book to distract her while they lay on the blanket), most IDI (and any defense lawyer) would argue that it isn't unusual to find semen on a blanket from a college boy's dorm room. And they'd be right, except that a Dr. Seuss book isn't something you'd expect to find in a suitcase a college boy takes back and forth to school. It is the BOOK that is a red flag to me. That, found WITH the semen on the blanket, makes it look like a portable "child molestation kit".
     
  14. Elle

    Elle Member

    You know DeeDee, we just didn't hear enough about this Dr. Seuss book being found with the blanket.
    It was brushed over like many other things in the JonBenét case. You have brought up a very interesting point.
     
  15. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    I don't think so because Steve Thomas talks about that semen stain in his book, first published in 2000.

    Beckner's deposition took place in 2001 and the DNA he was talking about was news to Lin Wood (or so he said). Beckner wouldn't talk about the DNA at all except to say that it was at the crime scene but wasn't on JonBenet's body or clothes. There wouldn't be any reason to be so mysterious about JAR's semen on the blanket in the suitcase since it was out in the public record.
     
  16. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    As far as I am aware, there was no semen found anywhere else except JAR's blanket. I suppose there may be some things we are not yet privy to. But I can't imagine something about it would not have come out over the years.
     
  17. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Beckner didn't say it was semen. He just said it was DNA.
     
  18. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    I don't know when the semen was identified as JAR's, but I think it must have been by 1999 because it's in the paperback edition of PMPT.

    Wood and Beckner go round and round about the mysterious DNA X in Beckner's 2001 deposition. They take a break and Wood comes back still asking about it. At times Wood appears to be trying to figure out if the DNA is female. Beckner refuses to say if the source of the DNA has been identified. (From the portion of the transcript quoted below, I think it was.)

    I'm sure Beckner is more than happy to pull Wood's chain, but is Wood really that clueless? It's true Wood never asks Beckner if they're just talking about John Andrew's suitcase semen. Maybe Wood is assuming the suitcase isn't part of Beckner's definition of the crime scene.

    It appears that the result on DNA X didn't come back until 2000.

    "20 Q So somebody would have to send those
    21 markers because there are reports that show the
    22 markers, right?

    23 A Correct.

    24 Q Somebody would have to send that to the
    25 FBI from either CBI or the Boulder Police Department,
    137
    1 right?

    2 A Yes.

    3 Q Do you believe that samples -- clearly
    4 there were some samples sent?

    5 A Yes.

    6 Q Possibly Chris Wolf's?

    7 A Possibly.

    8 Q Possibly a number of other individuals who
    9 had been under the or were under the umbrella of
    10 suspicion?

    11 A Possibly.

    12 Q Can you just give me your best estimate as
    13 to when these materials would have been sent to the
    14 FBI?

    15 A No, I really can't. Because the FBI is so
    16 backed up, I know we waited a long time on some of
    17 the lab tests to be done. And so it would be hard to
    18 pin down when we sent it in without actually checking
    19 the records.

    20 Q Can you ballpark when you started getting
    21 the results back?

    22 A I'm not sure. I believe it was sometime
    23 in 2000.


    24 Q Can you back that up now to months or
    25 several months to try to figure out when --
    138

    1 A I would sure hate to do that under oath
    2 because I'm just not sure enough.

    3 Q I don't want you to just purely speculate.
    4 If you have a reasonable, you know, if you reasonably
    5 can estimate then I would ask you to do that, but I
    6 don't want you to just pull something out of the air.

    7 A I wouldn't be comfortable right now doing
    8 that.

    9 Q Okay. That's fair. Recognizing it was
    10 2000 that you began to get results back, in your
    11 mind's eye, Chief, can you ballpark the number of
    12 results that you got back?

    13 A Well, you have misinterpreted a little bit
    14 of what I said.

    15 Q Okay. Help me out.

    16 A When you say start to get results back,
    17 the FBI has been involved in this case from the
    18 early, the early days.

    19 Q From day one.

    20 A So there has been -- there have been
    21 different results coming back at different times
    22 throughout the year so we didn't just start to get
    23 results back in 2000.

    24 Q Right. But I'm talking about DNAX.

    25 A Well, the result starts and ends on one
    139
    1 day basically. I mean, you get the result back and
    2 there it is.


    3 Q But did it cover a number of individuals,
    4 one report back, is that what we're talking about?

    5 A I don't know that I have ever actually
    6 seen the written report.

    7 Q Well, based on what you know about it.

    8 A I don't know. I really don't know whether
    9 they included others on that report or not. "
     
  19. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    That babble pretty much sums up the case. It's a frustrating dance of stupidity. NO one answers a question with a straight answer. It's like they ALL act like defense attorneys.
     
  20. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Beckner is certainly toying with Wood who appears to be unsure of himself for once.

    Even if Wood was unaware of JAR's semen being found on a blanket in a room nearby, someone on his team would know that. There's a reason these guys get paid hundreds of dollars an hour. That's why when Wood comes back from break and doesn't ask the obvious question, it makes me wonder if Wood knows or suspects that DNA was recovered from some object in the crime scene. The nylon cord?

    Anybody else have some insight? Koldkase?
     
  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