Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 85 to 96 of 118
  1. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carol View Post
    Thank you for the explanation, Koldkase. I think the man who was released from prison in Colorado is Tim Masters. The woman who he was wrongly accused of murdering was Peggy Hettrick. The murder took place in Fort Collins, Colorado in 1987. I didn't know that touch DNA has never been used in court. Then, why was Tim Masters released from prison based on touch DNA found on the victim that wasn't his? At the end of the program, there was touch DNA of two other males besides the ex-boyfriend found on Peggy Hettrick. They have not been identified. I guess what I'm saying is that reporters like Ms. Spencer just assume that the Ramsays have been cleared because of touch DNA. After watching the 48 Hours story on the Fort Collins case, I would say that Mr. Masters probably should not have been arrested because there was no evidence against him except very circumstantial evidence. But the touch DNA belonging to someone else does not mean he is innocent. It was a 2-hour program and I was rooting for Mr. Masters because he was only 15 years old when the murder occurred and there wasn't really any evidence against him. But when I heard the two scientists who finally cleared him were the same ones that "cleared" the Ramsays, my heart sank a little and I began to wonder if maybe Masters could still be guilty.
    Thanks for filling in the holes (in my brain haha). Take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt, because I don't know this case that well. Any corrections are always appreciated!

    Masters had his conviction overturned by a higher court, based on the defense's argument using the "touch" DNA results, right? I am thinking that the prosecution was accused of not providing the defense with all the evidence, too? Oh, yeah, that was the legal pin used to get the verdict vacated because the lead detective kept bringing large boxes of files into court for the appeal hearings and the defense finally picked up on not having all the documents the detective kept pulling out of that file. So equally compelling, along with the "touch" DNA from THREE OTHER MEN, was the argument that the prosecution withheld evidence. Am I remembering that correctly?

    To the point of your question about the "touch" DNA as evidence at trial: what Master's had was an appeal hearing, not a "trial" per se. This only means the verdict was overturned on technical issues. So Masters could be tried again, as basically he won the right to a NEW trial, as if he'd never been convicted in the first place because the appeal judge concluded the trial was not "fair", and so overturned the conviction.

    At any rate, a word of caution: Masters may not officially be "guilty" in this murder, but until the killer is caught, who knows if he is factually guilty? He was young and he did something stupid that will haunt him forever, if he is innocent. But as with the other "suspect" the defense attempted to use for reasonable doubt until HE ended up ALSO NOT MATCHING THE "TOUCH" DNA--I am speaking of the dentist who lived nearby with a prior conviction for voyeuristic sex crimes, there are some strange circumstances that APPEAR to tie people to crimes in many cases, and they may look very suspicious. Masters did VIEW the body and then made some immature drawings speculating on the crime, based on what he saw, he said. His admitted posthumous interactions with the victim in the field before her body was even called in by LE would give anyone pause. Am I wrong in thinking Masters did not call LE when he found the body, but admitted his odd behavior when the drawings were found in his bedroom? Gosh, I can't remember who alerted LE. Do you?

    Since Masters lived across the street, though, within view of the body, and admitted he saw it and then went for a closer view, it's understandable he came under suspicion. To me, from the TV program, there was reasonable doubt, but I wasn't on the jury and TV programs are notorious for presenting one side of the story. They did that with the Ramseys far more than they presented a balanced report, and by now, don't present the evidence against the Ramseys at all anymore. (Lin Wood made sure that happened.)

    I agree that the ex-boyfriend lied to LE about having physical contact with the victim that night and that is suspicious and reasonable doubt to me, along with the "touch" DNA that proved he lied. He had a "girlfriend" with him when he said he last saw the victim in the parking lot of the bar the night she was murdered, and that woman was his alibi. How many times have we seen a girlfriend lie about an alibi? Since the victim was murdered elsewhere and then dumped in the field, who can say what the truth is with all the "touch" DNA on the victim's body?

    That's the double-edged sword. If it wasn't ALL of the donators of the DNA, then which one? How did the DNA of those NOT involved get on the body/clothes? It's a mystery, and until the research supports an answer (that I doubt is going to be infallible), "touch" DNA is just not going to convict anyone without further corroborating evidence. But it may be reasonable doubt, as has been said of the DNA in the Ramsey case.

    Do you remember what it was the defense fell short of asking for DNA testing on? It was briefly brought up at the end of the program that the defense had not requested DNA testing on something...because I remember thinking that was because one result would go against Masters' defense in a new trial? I know the dentist's DNA didn't match, so he was "cleared", as suspects are now "cleared" on "touch" DNA evidence which may simply be artifact.

    Personally, I find the placement of the body in that field very important evidence. Why not dump it out in the woods? There is a reason, and it could be twisted (to "see it" and/or observe the scene when LE found it), or it could be malicious (to implicate Masters or someone else), or there could another reason. But it had to be someone related to that area. Too much wilderness out there to stop and drag the body across a field with a trailer across the street and a neighborhood within view when the killer could simply dump her quickly somewhere much less likely to be observed. The killer wanted the body found, that's clear.

    "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.

  2. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Scientists didn't exhonerate the Ramseys, Mary Lacy did--BY THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OF NOTHING.
    Well worth repeating ...

    Scientists didn't exhonerate the Ramseys,
    Mary Lacy did --
    BY THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OF NOTHING.

  3. #87
    RiverRat's Avatar
    RiverRat is offline FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Left is Patsy Ramsey)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NoneYa Beessness
    Posts
    7,824

    Default Damn Right!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Well worth repeating ...

    Scientists didn't exhonerate the Ramseys,
    Mary Lacy did --
    BY THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OF NOTHING.
    Don't Be an Enabler, Blow the TouchDNA Dust off your SpoonFed Brains and Be a Believer of Ramsey Guilt....JonBenet was NOT just a photograph....six years old forever....laying all alone with Patsy at her feet....both ignored by far too many for far too long.... Fleet White, Priscilla White, Steve Thomas, they DID NOT risk it all just over some small unreasonable doubts.

    I am so sorry, Baby Girl - you are not forgotten by all.....you are not a joke, not a scummy punk band, and NOT just a money-maker for a Gang of Skanks....to us, you are so much more and somehow, we shall continue our mission and expose the person who hurt you - and the one that killed you....
    "Don't play dumb with me, RR! You're no good at it." The Punisher

    "Although no one is anticipating a prompt resolution to this long and much-detoured case, perhaps - just perhaps - might we see one of those moments “when a chance arrow of history scores a perfect bullseye on a deserving target”? Steve Thomas 2009

    "Justice hasn't had a chance so far. Anyone who doesn't have this as their prime goal, we'll have a falling out with." Fleet White - Time Magazine

    "What happens is that evil comes in," Fleet says. "If you don't have truth, all you have are lies, then what comes in is evil. And evil just does its thing. In the Ramsey case, it just did its thing, and it's eaten up so many people."

  4. #88

    Default

    Dear koldkase, you remember more than I do about Tim Masters' case and I just saw the program for the second time! Yes, he was granted an appeal based on incompetent legal representation and the fact that not all the cops' and prosecutors' evidence was turned over to the defense. For example, the prosecution's chief witness against Masters was a pshychologist who viewed all of Masters' drawings. He concluded that these drawings suggest someone who is capable of Ms. Hettrick's murder. But the prosecution didn't turn over ALL this psychologist's findings. He concluded that, based on the surgical precision of the woman's stab wound, a 15-year-old boy in a dark field at night with a mini flashlight in his mouth couldn not possibly have made that female circumcision. The eye surgeon was brought up at the appeal as a possible suspect, but he had committed suicide by then. His wife provided DNA and it did NOT match any of the touch DNA on the victim's body. But touch DNA from the ex-boyfriend was found inside her panties. Years after the crime, when Masters was finally arrested, he was living in California. Detectives found more of the same type drawings. I'm not saying this makes him guilty. But it really bothered me that teenage boys and men could depict women in such a vile and violent manner, even if only in drawings.

  5. #89

    Default Wecht's comments on the "touch DNA" evidence

    Whitewitch wrote:
    "I'm curious to know, what, if anything, did Wecht have to say about the "DNA" evidence? I don't have time to watch the videos right now so hoping you (KK) can answer my question."

    http://www.wpxi.com/news/16838417/detail.html

    This is a link an interview by a Pittsburgh TV station with Dr. Wecht on "touch DNA" at the time it was first announced that it had "cleared" the Ramseys. I believe the video is still on the site.

  6. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Ah no, not exactly, my garbled twin.

    IF the Bode Lab tech called it a "complete DNA profile," then that is nothing but verbal slight of hand. What the tech might be saying is they were able to match available markers with available markers. But even that is a myth. If the panty DNA is partial, then how can they match a full complement of 13 DNA markers?!

    If the panty DNA only has nine makers out of 13, then there are four missing, and believe me, THAT MAKES A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE. There may be only one marker difference between your DNA and mine. So, theoretically, if a lab has 13 of your markers, but only nine of mine, and all nine of my markers match yours, Bode Labs could say they have a match "with a complete DNA profile" which is yours. However, they are not taking into account the missing four markers which may NOT match.

    Put it another way.

    Maybe it's my partial nine-marker, factory-worker DNA in the panties, but your full 13-marker DNA on the long-johns. You might match all nine of my markers, but not the other four, or three, or two, or even one. Do you see what I'm saying?

    Bode Labs jumped through all kinds of hoops to give Lacy the results she wanted, but their findings are still flawed. In addition, the testing samples are so small as to be worthless. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, without INDEPENDENT TESTING from another lab to replicate the results, all we have is a possibly contaminated match with nothing.

    DNA results are not as exact as CSI would have us to believe. There can be stutter and testing error and all sorts of problems. The Bode Lab tech was doing a promo for Bode Labs. That's all. Without independent verification, I don't believe a word out of their mouths because they are going to slant the results to make themselves look good. They want to sell this technology to law enforcement and the public. For them, the Ramsey case was nothing but an infomercial.
    I just read your post, here, Cherokee. Very good. I have a feeling, like you, that this was just a lab (BODE) trying to blow their own horn and giving Mary Lacy what she wanted. They matched some markers, and, BINGO, "look at what we did". They're never going to get a hit on this stuff and they know it. But they don't have to because, barring a confession, they know they're game is never going to be proven for what it is.

    The reason we can be sure of the game being played here, is that they didn't test the murder weapon as has been noted on other threads. If you wanted to check for touch DNA, the rope would have been the place to look. These people make me want to puke.

  7. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    I just read your post, here, Cherokee. Very good. I have a feeling, like you, that this was just a lab (BODE) trying to blow their own horn and giving Mary Lacy what she wanted. They matched some markers, and, BINGO, "look at what we did". They're never going to get a hit on this stuff and they know it. But they don't have to because, barring a confession, they know they're game is never going to be proven for what it is.

    The reason we can be sure of the game being played here, is that they didn't test the murder weapon as has been noted on other threads. If you wanted to check for touch DNA, the rope would have been the place to look. These people make me want to puke.
    You and me both, Learnin.

    And you're right, there will never be a "hit" on the partial DNA. It was nothing but pre-crime-scene contaminant, and anyone with a brain knows it. But hey, if you're Mary Lacy and desperate to clear the Ramseys, anything will do. The key is to not release Bode Laboratories report for verification, insist that no independent testing can be done, say you won't take any questions on the report or your decision to exhonerate, and have the media lie down like a bunch of Saturday night whores and refuse to do their job of asking why the report cannot be questioned. And that's exactly what's happened. My kingdom for an investigative reporter from a major media outlet who has the cajones to REALLY report the facts and ask the tough questions in this case.

    It makes me more than sick. But then, this case has done that for almost 13 years now. It's something I'll always have to live with because the powers that be REFUSE to do the right thing and investigate the corruption surrounding the case and how the Ramseys got away with what happened December 25, 1996.

  8. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    You and me both, Learnin.

    And you're right, there will never be a "hit" on the partial DNA. It was nothing but pre-crime-scene contaminant, and anyone with a brain knows it. But hey, if you're Mary Lacy and desperate to clear the Ramseys, anything will do. The key is to not release Bode Laboratories report for verification, insist that no independent testing can be done, say you won't take any questions on the report or your decision to exhonerate, and have the media lie down like a bunch of Saturday night whores and refuse to do their job of asking why the report cannot be questioned. And that's exactly what's happened. My kingdom for an investigative reporter from a major media outlet who has the cajones to REALLY report the facts and ask the tough questions in this case.

    It makes me more than sick. But then, this case has done that for almost 13 years now. It's something I'll always have to live with because the powers that be REFUSE to do the right thing and investigate the corruption surrounding the case and how the Ramseys got away with what happened December 25, 1996.
    When government corruption becomes so blatant as this, the citizens begin to see that it is not working. Once confidence in government is so undermined, there's a slippery slope waiting to happen.

    "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.

  9. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AHimoe View Post
    Whitewitch wrote:
    "I'm curious to know, what, if anything, did Wecht have to say about the "DNA" evidence? I don't have time to watch the videos right now so hoping you (KK) can answer my question."

    http://www.wpxi.com/news/16838417/detail.html

    This is a link an interview by a Pittsburgh TV station with Dr. Wecht on "touch DNA" at the time it was first announced that it had "cleared" the Ramseys. I believe the video is still on the site.
    In this interview Wecht asks whether every male who had contact with JonBenet's corpse had had his DNA tested. I didn't think it was likely that there could have been many of those because I had this idea that the body was rushed to autopsy. (I also assumed that the coroner himself had removed her clothes, but I don't think I've seen that explicitly stated.)

    So I was surprised to read in the autopsy that the coroner first saw JonBenet's body at the Ramsey home around 8pm on the 26th and didn't perform the autopsy until 8am the next morning. Her corpse spent the night at the morgue, presumably. Do we know how many people had access to it?

  10. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    In this interview Wecht asks whether every male who had contact with JonBenet's corpse had had his DNA tested. I didn't think it was likely that there could have been many of those because I had this idea that the body was rushed to autopsy. (I also assumed that the coroner himself had removed her clothes, but I don't think I've seen that explicitly stated.)

    So I was surprised to read in the autopsy that the coroner first saw JonBenet's body at the Ramsey home around 8pm on the 26th and didn't perform the autopsy until 8am the next morning. Her corpse spent the night at the morgue, presumably. Do we know how many people had access to it?
    No, we don't. All we have is Team Ramsey's word that "everyone" at the morgue who came in contact with the body was tested. Since we know how biased Hunter and Lacy are, not to mention Lou "Mother Goose" Smit and his sidekicks Ollie and San Agustin, I personally don't trust one thing that comes out about the "touch" DNA. Since the Ramseys withheld the alleged "package of Bloomies" for five years, and since that means we don't even know if this was the actual package from which the Bloomies found on the body came, and since Team Ramsey's head spinner Lacy never told us about THAT "evidence" being processed for JB's fingerprints or more DNA matching the controversial "touch" DNA, we'll never know, will we?

    "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. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Here's some information fr. After Dr. Myers short visit, the Medical Examiner Patricia Dunn takes over, with Dr. Myers continuing his examination the next morning, 27 December, 1996

    Bonita Papers:

    Bonita Papers

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=5858

    Alone in the Ramsey residence, JonBenet's battered and lifeless body lay in the living room hallway near one of the many Christmas trees now a macabre reminder of the holiday season. Boulder County Coroner, Dr. John Meyer, was the first to enter the residence after the search warrant was signed by Judge Diane MacDonald in the early evening hours of December 26. Dr. Meyer placed protective booties over his shoes and surgical gloves on his hands to prevent any further contamination of the crime scene. The only investigative duties of Dr. Meyer was to pronounce the death of the Little Miss Colorado and examine the remains to aid in solving this crime. Dr. Meyer observed ligature marks on her neck and petechial hemorrhages to her eyes both signs of death by strangulation. The coroner then left as Patricia Dunn, the Medical Examiner, would continue with the on scene examination of the body. Dr. Meyer and JonBenet would meet again at the coroner's office.

    Members of the investigation team had also returned to the residence for additional evidence gathering. Det. Arndt, the only police official who had been present at the time of the discovery of JonBenet, now assisted Dunn with the inspection of the body for clues to her death. She noted that the white rope on the right wrist was over the sleeve and that the same type of cord was around her neck and encircled with a looser loop. The gold necklace, the gift from her aunt Pam, was found underneath the noose created by the cord. The crotch area of the white long johns had a yellow urine stain. The Medical Examiner rolled JonBenet on to her left side and found a wooden stick that had been lying underneath her. The stick was broken at one end and was attached to the cord around the neck by a knot. As JonBenet was rolled on to her side, they discovered a red, circular abrasion below her right ear along the jaw line. After the medical Examiner finished the cursory on scene examination, paper bags were placed over the petite hands to preserve evidence. The lifeless child was placed in a zippered body bag and driven to the morgue at the Boulder Community Hospital to await the official autopsy.

    While the Medical Examiner was inspecting the body, the investigation team was continuing to process the residence for evidence. Color photographs and videotape of the interior of the residence had already been taken. The team now concentrated on the wine cellar. Two light switches were located for this room one on the inside east wall 5 feet above the floor level, and the other on the west wall 2 feet above the floor level and 2 feet inside the doorway. Polaroid photos were taken before any of the investigators entered the room. Unfortunately, other officers had tromped through the room immediately after discovery of the body in making their own inspection of the crime scene. Even Fleet admitted that he had returned to the room twice. These actions would hamper the gathering of reliable evidence as the investigation progressed.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  12. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    Here's some information fr. After Dr. Myers short visit, the Medical Examiner Patricia Dunn takes over, with Dr. Myers continuing his examination the next morning, 27 December, 1996....
    Bonita Papers:
    Was the cheek mark really red at the time that Dunn looked at it? It was brown and/or purple by the time Meyer did the autopsy. Red would nudge the cheek mark a little bit more toward stun gun territory in my mind. Other attributes argue against that, though. And I note that JonBenet's head was turned to the right which means her right cheek might well have been pressed against an object for some time.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 3, 2014, 5:38 am, Thu Jul 3 5:38:29 UTC 2014
  2. A quick interview with Boulder DA, Stan Garnett, about the Ramsey case!
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 25, 2010, 5:51 pm, Mon Oct 25 17:51:47 UTC 2010
  3. Wecht has doubts
    By Show Me in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 17, 2006, 12:14 pm, Thu Aug 17 12:14:34 UTC 2006
  4. Links to CNN Interview Transcripts: Ramsey Murder Case
    By Dunvegan in forum Transcripts: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 14, 2001, 9:35 pm, Wed Nov 14 21:35:05 UTC 2001

Posting Permissions

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