Dr. Wecht interview on this case

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Jun 16, 2009.

  1. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I should bring up here that with the complexities and 12+ years involved in this case, the hosts and Dr. Wecht occasionally get some of the details mixed up.

    But I also get some details mixed up now and again. I have never seen anyone who has spent much time writing or talking about this case who doesn't. Too much info and too much time gone by....

    For example: if John Ramsey is running for office in Charlevoix now, I have missed that. So if he is, then I have my info wrong. I have noticed he still seems to end up in Michigan a lot, according to his flight logs, but he did sell his house there. Also, his driver's license was in Georgia when JR last tried to run for office in Michigan, last year, I believe it was. So either this is an update, or maybe an announcement we missed, or the host of the program got the info wrong somehow.
  2. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Okay, Whitewitch, I listened again, and at 3:35 on the timer of pt. 3 (of Episode 6) you hear Dr. Wecht discuss the "touch" DNA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKTrJUOVOeg&NR=1

    Unfortunately, Dr. Wecht is rather inarticulate on this evidence, as he gets so excited and, obviously, is trying to say what he wants to say quickly, a taped interview being what it is, which is to say, limited as to time allocated, ultimately.

    The upshot is that Dr. Wecht says he has talked to Dr. Henry Lee about this case, and that they concur that the "touch" DNA is not really new DNA at all. (I saw and heard Dr. Lee say this himself, when Lacy's announcement came out.) Dr. Wecht does talk about the panty DNA being from a common source that most new clothing will share: human handling during manufacture.

    Dr. Wecht then all but calls Lacy a Ramsey shill, more or less. He also speaks to Hunter's inadequacy as a DA. Wecht says "...Alex Hunter...was known for being the most liberal district attorney in the United States of America." He says Hunter took 1% of all cases to trial. My favorite comment he makes about Hunter is this: "If you're going to be a district attorney, be a district attorney. It is your role to prosecute." (Guess Hunter missed class the day they taught that at law school.)
  3. Karen

    Karen Member

    Hmmm don't we really need to know whether or not he is or isn't running for office? If he is we need to get our voices out there again. Can Tricia find that out? i wouldn't know what to do. Thank you KK for bringing us these tapes. Although I don't subscribe to Wechts theory of what happened that night I still cannot deny all of the evidence about incest he points to is there. It just IS. I'm just not so sure that is what was going on that night. I also don't believe in the wet bed theory so my opinion about what really happened that night is still a blank in my head, even though I do think Patsy Ramsey is responsible and wrote the note. Anyway, thanks again KK!!
  4. whitewitch1

    whitewitch1 Senior Member

    Thanks much, KK.
    I guess I just don't understand how the DNA on the underwear can be from human handling during manufacture if it matches the DNA on the longjohns.
    I wonder if the video clips you posted were from before the longjohn DNA was discovered.
    I would be willing to bet that they were. If JR was running for office in Charlevoix again, wouldn't it be in the media by now? That's what makes me believe the video is older.
    Anyway, I thank you too, for posting this. It seems like Wecht is the only forensic pathologist who has delved in depth to what the autopsy report really reveals about the sexual assault. There is no reason to not believe him...he has no dog in this fight.
  5. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Good for him! If Wecht can't say that publicly, then I will.

  6. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Kold Kase,

    I've just listened to all of these videos. You have captured all of them acurately and fully. Yes, Dr Wecht is kind of hard to listen to because of his speech mannerisms. However his knowledge is so great. The whole part of his explaining about the chronic nature of the physical sexual abuse to JBR is explicit. Also when mentioning her favorite food that was found in her intestine at autopsy he never mentioned what that favorite food was!! (Interesting)

    He felt that bed wetting was not the cause of what led to her death. ( I have held that position for a long time myself)

    His concluding statement is sad however. "I do not believe that anything will happen. They didn't act before and will not act now." He is speaking about the new DA and crew.

    I find it very sad that the 2 comments after the first video from average folks make plain that they want the Ramseys left alone..."They've suffered enough". Very sad commentary I feel
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2009
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well, Zoomama, the Ramseys have spent the last 12+ years making sure they confused as many people as possible about what they did--NOT looking for that elusive intruder.

    Wecht and the hosts of this interview also speak to the injustices done to Steve Thomas. OH how JR hates Steve Thomas! He'd like to DESTROY the man who actually FOUGHT for justice for JonBenet, who sacrificed far more than the Ramseys did or ever will to FIGHT for JUSTICE FOR JONBENET.

    So those deluded Ramsey excusers can feel all the pity they want for the Ramseys. I save mine for all the Ramsey VICTIMS--and there are plenty of those.
  8. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    After listening again and looking more carefully, I believe these interviews were done since Stan Garnett took office, as the host alludes to him. Also, the copyright at the end is 2009.

    As to how the DNA got on the waist of the longjohns and in the underwear, I simply don't think we actually know. This DNA is so tiny, so beyond anything we can actually comprehend in terms of actual size, who knows? We also have no idea how these items of clothing were handled, nor by whom, from the time they were put on the child until they ended up in the Bode Lab. We haven't seen any official documents, nor have we heard testimony UNDER OATH about the chain of evidence.

    Why is it NOT POSSIBLE that Patsy, who admitted pulling the longjohns on a SLEEPING CHILD IN BED, had that DNA on her hands? Since I believe whoever put those size 12-14 Bloomies on JonBenet did so that night after the child was either unconscious or dead (see my avatar as it pretty much explains my logic there), why isn't it possible Patsy/whomever got these microscopic skin cells on her/his hands and transferred them when pulling up the longjohns? Why isn't it possible that person deposited those cells into the Bloomies and on the longjohns, either, from some unknown source? I wouldn't put it past carelessness, simple common contamination through handling, or even planting the evidence. Lacy, IMO, ran a "Team Ramsey" ship, and believe me, if they'll do to their own child what was done to JonBenet, there are no boundaries to what else they'll do.

    They did keep the "package of Bloomies" for five years, after all, knowing FULL WELL that this was CRITICAL evidence in the murder of JonBenet--Patsy admitted that in Altanta in 2000. That's NOT just the Ramseys themselves, either, in on that little OBSTRUCTION OF THE INVESTIGATION. Think of how many people in TEAM RAMSEY knew about that package being hidden from LE before it was finally produced in 2002 for...MARY LACY! At that point, it was USELESS EVIDENCE, because the chain of custody would NEVER hold up in court! (What "innocent" parents of a murdered child would do such a thing?)

    That "touch" DNA means nothing to me. If it was blood or semen, that would be a different story. The fact is it is from SKIN CELLS, and they are scientifically proven to be deposited in mucous and saliva. How they are transferred after that is not at this time scientifically proven or disproven with any reasonable degree of certainty at this time. Any scientist who makes such a claim better have the duplicated research to back it up. I haven't seen it. Remember that this "touch" DNA testing has NEVER been used in a trial in this country yet.

    I know Team Ramsey thinks they won the ballgame with this "touch" DNA hoodoo, but if I may be so bold, I refer you to the tagline at the end of my post. That's my opinion, full stop.
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2009
  9. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Come on, Chero, you wallflower, you! Tell us how you REALLY feel! :floor:
  10. whitewitch1

    whitewitch1 Senior Member

    I don't pretend to understand that much about DNA. No matter how much I read about it, it's still greek to me. I thought, though that the DNA in her underwear was from a liquid source (but how do "they" know that?)
    It just seems to me that if DNA was so easily transferable, it wouldn't be able to be used to convict anyone of murder unless it came from the killers own blood or semen.
    I'm not arguing that the Ramseys had nothing to do with the murder, because I have always believed that they did but I am just trying to be realisitic about this DNA thing.
    How many people would Patsy have touched that night that weren't DNA tested?
    I also don't understand why the DNA in JBs underwear wasn't a complete profile while the "touch DNA" was. Something seems strange about that.
    I wonder, too, about the handling of the evidence.
    Wasn't it said that everyone in LE who handled the evidence and JBs body was tested to be sure the DNA didn't come from one of them? And by this, I mean the "touch DNA" found on the long johns. Well, if that is true, why weren't these same people tested BEFORE when the DNA was discovered in the underwear? And if all of the DNA found actually matched, then why did they suddenly think it was necessary to test these people? Isn't that a little azz backwards?
    Just thinking out loud and hoping I made some sense....
  11. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    As far as we know, the "touch DNA" was not a complete profile either.

    None of the lab workers who handled the original evidence were tested, and as far as we know, none of the recent lab workers have been tested either. In addition, several well-known DNA labs have been investigated, and cited, recently for major cross-contamination problems. Even Bode Labs, who performed the "touch DNA" procedure, has had contamination issues. There is also the problem of chain of evidence, which in the Ramsey case, has been sketchy at best.

    But then, how could we ever know anything about the accuracy or contamination of the "touch DNA" results? Mary Lacy refused to release ANY paperwork associated with it, and she also did not have another lab confirm the results, which is very suspect.

    IMO, it is possible, and probable, that the hands of the person who re-dressed JonBenet in the oversize panties came in contact with partial DNA contaminant in the crotch of the panties. That contaminant was then transferred from the panties to their hands. (The contaminant came from unknown factory workers and was found by Dr. Henry Lee in other new packages of Bloomies panties.) When the re-dresser pulled the long-johns up over JonBenet's legs, the partial DNA contaminant was transferred from the dresser's hands onto the long-johns. This is assuming the Bode Lab's results are ACCURATE. That may be a wrong assumption. All we have to go on is basically undocumented hearsay from Ramsey friend and apologist, Mary Lacy.

    It is interesting that this partial DNA profile has not been found anywhere else on JonBenet or in the house. If the perp used gloves to handle everything else, including the ligature and blanket wrapping of JonBenet's body, why would they not use them in the re-dressing of JonBenet?

    The world has been bamboozled by Mary Lacy, and the fact that she point blank refused to release the Bode Labratory results, or take any questions about her Ramsey decree, shows she is nothing but a flim-flam artist who doesn't have a DNA leg to stand on.
  12. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    KK! I didn't see your post until after I'd posted mine, and we said exactly the same thing. :highfive:
  13. whitewitch1

    whitewitch1 Senior Member

    Technology lifts undetected genetic material
    By James Baetke, Camera Staff Writer
    Wednesday, July 9, 2008

    JonBenet Ramsey Archive
    Full coverage of the JonBenet Ramsey murder.

    While the DNA technology behind Wednesday’s surprise exoneration of the Ramsey family in connection with their daughter JonBenet’s 1996 death is being hailed as new, cutting-edge science, it’s actually been around for a while, experts say.

    What is new, though, is the ability to do so-called “touch DNA†testing with increasingly small genetic samples.

    Pat Wojtowicz, manager of accreditation for Forensic Quality Services International, said “touch DNA†has been around for years. Virginia-based Bode Technology Group Inc. — the lab that conducted the new Ramsey testing — is among a select group of labs accredited by Wojtowicz’s forensic science consulting firm.

    “Recent technological advances have allowed for higher sensitivity to collect DNA samples, which give analysts a stronger likelihood in building a DNA profile,†Wojtowicz said, explaining the rising popularity of the testing method.

    Using “touch DNA,†scientists are able to “scrape†places where visible stains or the presence of DNA are not apparent, allowing undetected genetic material to be analyzed. In theory, “touch DNA†detects genetic material left behind by a simple touch.

    Last October, Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy sent the long johns JonBenet was wearing when she was killed to Bode Technology for “touch DNA†scraping, prosecutors said. The lab tested the sides of the waist of the long underwear, on the theory that the killer would have handled that area when removing and replacing the garment.

    On March 24, Bode Technology notified Boulder prosecutors that its analysts had located genetic material from an unknown male on both sides of the long johns. This DNA profile, Lacy said in a statement Wednesday, matched DNA previously recovered from the crotch of JonBenet’s underwear.

    “We did get a DNA profile,†said Angela Williamson, Bode’s Director of Forensic Casework. “What we got is DNA that matched the undergarments.â€

    Further testing, to rule out any contamination at the time of autopsy, was concluded late last month.

    The results led Lacy to announce she believed the Ramseys couldn’t have been involved with JonBenet’s death.

    “It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder,†Lacy said in a statement.

    Although “touch DNA†scraping has been around for some time and is gaining ground, it’s still used seldomly in the U.S., Wojtowicz said.

    The methodology also is not without its critics, said Charles Brenner, a forensic mathematician, speaking from his home in Oakland, Calif.

    “Some controversy surrounds this kind of collection: the sample can be so small, itâ™s hard to be reliable,†Brenner said.

    The Rocky Mountain News contributed to this report.
  14. Karen

    Karen Member

    I'm shamefully bumping my own post 'cuz I wanna know, was it soemthing I said?? It got completely skipped over. If I'm really getting THAT boring I guess I'll just go collect my beercan allotment for the week and leave you all be. HeeHee!!!!
  15. whitewitch1

    whitewitch1 Senior Member

    Another thing that I'd like to know is; if Patsy put the long johns on JB while she was sleeping, wouldn't HER DNA have been all over the waistband? It's tricky putting long johns on a sleeping child so you'd think her DNA would have been in the same location as the foreign DNA, as well as other locations on the waistband. So...wouldn't that make the foreign DNA "co-mingle" with hers?
    I'd also like to know if there was any "touch DNA" of JBs on the waistband in those areas, which could indicate that she put the long johns on herself. The lack of Patsys DNA on the waistband and the presence of JBs would tell one hell of a story and shoot the "she was asleep" BS all to hell, don't you think?
    I wish we were in charge of this case. I know we would test for things that Lacy would never have asked to be tested.
  16. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Garbled minds think alike.... :toast:

    The only thing I'd add is that the Bode Tec scientist who said she processed the "touch" DNA did say, on Nancy Grace, if memory serves, that they did get a complete DNA profile, matching the available markers in the partial profile already found in the underwear. This Bode technician is the one who then not only went on TV multiple times to proclaim this to the world, but took a reporter on a TOUR of "show and tell"--amazingly enough, since confidentiality is CRUCIAL in processing evidence in any criminal case.... Does anyone but me think that she HAD to have LACY'S PERMISSION to do this?

    Whitewitch, I'm no expert, either, but I've studied this long enough now to have figured out a few things, so I'll try to explain what I can, and apologize for what I can't.

    The DNA found in the Bloomies and on the longjohns ALL came from SKIN CELLS. The issue is that these SKIN CELLS are also contained in saliva and mucous, when they are sloughed off from tissue in the mouth and nasal passages, bronchial tubes, vaginal vault, etc., and mingle with the mucous or saliva in those cavities. So when someone wipes his/her nose, sneezes, or coughs, mucous and/or saliva is wiped or sprayed on other surfaces, complete with the skin cells in the "soup." Mucous and saliva don't have DNA, but skin cells do. So that's how the DNA from skin cells can be deposited via mucous or saliva. When the fluid is swabbed and then processed for DNA, those skin cells are where the DNA profile lies, not in the mucous or saliva.

    So that's why even the Bode tec said she is "almost positive" that the DNA on the longjohns came from skin cells. If it's not blood or semen, it's tissue--externally that's skin cells. But she can't say for sure how it got there--through touching with the hand, coughing, or sneezing...? In this case, it's LIKELY that it was from a direct touch that it got there on the waistband, IF it wasn't THROUGH TRANSFERENCE. I have not seen any scientific proof that it could not have been transferred as Chero described.

    Now let me mention a scenario Ramsey PI Ollie Grey mentioned himself during the NGrace show discussing this DNA. He said maybe the DNA was on THE PAINTBRUSH, which was inserted into the child, then was "mingled" with the child's blood when she bled into the panties. I'm sure Olllie meant to make us think that the "intruder" got his SKIN CELLS on that paintbrush and that's how that happened. But in this situation, what if SOMEONE ELSE used that paintbrush in Patsy's painting class, which she is known to have taken, or even picked the brush up out of the floor? What if she loaned it to someone one class? Ever put anything like a pen or pencil into your mouth when thinking about what you're writing? I do that with a paintbrush.

    In that respect, THINK of the many things we all touch in a day that have had others' hands on them. I always cringe now when I take the buggy at the grocery store. Have you seen all the stores that have "clean wipes" near their buggy storage areas for customers now? That's to control the transmission of viruses. Have you ever seen a small child with his/her mouth on the buggy handle of the basket when seated in the child seat? Saliva, mucous...skin cells with DNA.

    How about door handles? Chairs or tables in a restaurant, where I would bet the farm you can find ALL KINDS of DNA from people eating and drinking and then touching things? How about all the purchases we make and bring home in packaging? Who touched it during manufacturing? Who touched it during packaging? Who picked it up in the store? Sneezed nearby?

    It's like Dr. Wecht said: if you want to spend money to do so, take something new from a store and have it processed for "unknown" DNA. You'll find it. We've entered the world of sub-molecular forensic science here, and it's not cut and dried, no matter how desperatedly Team Ramsey want us to believe their spin. I doubt most of them have a CLUE what they're talking about, or they would know this DNA is not proof of ANYTHING except that someone's DNA they can't identify was at the crime scene--ALONG WITH MUCH OTHER DNA THEY CAN'T IDENTIFY.

    Lacy is basing HER belief this is the smoking gun on its LOCATION alone. What she isn't telling you is that the Bode technician ALSO said, during that interesting little run-through of the process with the reporter, SHE DISCARDED OTHER DNA AND ARTIFACT. Nobody is talking about THAT, are they? WHOSE DNA? WHAT ARTIFACT? HELLO? WE'RE TALKING SUB-MOLECULAR PARTICLES OF MATTER!

    Well, that's the best I can explain it, WWitch. I'm not telling you what to believe, as I don't know what to believe, and others do know much more about this than I do. All I DO know is that we haven't heard the whole story, JUST THE TEAM RAMSEY SPIN. When they quit playing hide and seek with the evidence, only giving out the propaganda they WANT us to see, instead of ALL THE FACTS, then I'll believe they're actually searching for the killer, WHOMEVER THAT IS.

    Otherwise, it's just smoke and mirrors, and all I believe is they would do anything, say anything, spin anything, to protect the Ramseys.
  17. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks for re-posting this article, WW. I understand what you're saying, but the following sentence (from that same article) negates any supposed validity of above sentence.

    What people don't realize is that Lacy and Bode Laboratories can bellow all the want that they did further testing to rule out contamination, but when the sample is so small it can't be reliable to begin with, how in the world can ANYONE rule out contamination?!!

    The answer is: you can't. PERIOD.

    The person who wrote this article got their "further testing" info from Lacy and Bode Labs. Of COURSE, they're going to say contamination was ruled out. I want to see that statement FROM AN INDEPENDENT LAB! Then maybe I'll believe it, but the problem of the less than miniscule partial DNA sample still rears it's ugly head. Anyone who knows anything about DNA (and Lacy is counting on the general public to know less than she does, which wouldn't make a pinhead) knows that we are not talking about anything close to a full complement of DNA that is datable to the crime scene.

    The whole DNA thing is a hoax, perpetrated by the Ramseys and their buffoons. The Ramseys got lucky that partial DNA contaminant was found on JonBenet's never-washed, straight-from-the-package panties. If the DNA was from JonBenet's killer, it would have been fresh and whole, not bits and pieces that may have come from one or more sources. (Read the lab reports posted here at FFJ.)

    If someone wants to solve the Ramsey case, all they need to do is look at the RANSOM NOTE supposedly left by JonBenet's killer, which the Ramseys (and their supporters) conveniently never talk about. Once the handwriting was matched to Patsy's (and the bogus DNA was found), the Ramsey immediately tried to distance themselves from the Ransom Note, and they have NEVER talked about it in any interview since. Ask yourselves "why?" It is the one verifiable link to JonBenet's killer, and the Ramsey want nothing to do with it.
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2009
  18. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Hang on, Karen, I did miss your post! Lord, it's hard keeping up with all you needy drunks in the Guttah while maintaining my own near-comatose state.... :glug:
  19. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Ah no, not exactly, my garbled twin. :D

    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.
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2009
  20. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well...John did say (to Lou Smit in '98) that the ransom note looked like Patsy's writing. That was behind closed doors, of course, and but for greedy jams, we wouldn't have that little choice admission.... hehehe

  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