Lacy officially "clears" Ramseys

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Why_Nut, Jul 9, 2008.

  1. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    Well, this is an interesting development.

    Lacy has officially cleared the Ramseys of involvement in JonBenet's murder, based apparently solely on a new finding of DNA consistent with that in the underwear, said DNA having been found on the waistband of the long johns she was wearing over the underwear.

  2. Greenleaf

    Greenleaf FFJ Senior Member

    Dr. Boden

    On Fox News, Dr. Baden just said that if the DNA was on the clothing, it could have come from many difference sources. He also said that there were so many false alarms from the D.A.'S office, that he would not think this is conclusive evidence. (paraphrasing)

  3. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Oh sure, just like that, I'm going to accept Lacy's word without questioning anything - for instance, where were these items of clothing stored all these years? Was the underwear stored with the long johns?

    I don't trust Mary Lacy, and I want to know who has had access to JBR's clothing for the past 12 years. What is the chain of custody since Lacy conveniently put the case to bed?

    One more question. Since Lacy will soon be out of office, how soon afterwards can we expect unholy matrimony between John and Mary?

    IOW, BS.
  4. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Oh, and by the way, I also want to know the details on the DNA. Since they tried to pass the so-called fingernail DNA off as "matching" the underwear DNA, when there were only 2 or 3 clear markers in the fingernail DNA, how many markers did they find on the long john DNA that "matched" the incomplete panty DNA?

    Sorry, I'm just so sick of those blanks thinking we're all stupid. Baden's right.
  5. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    This is so stupid, but so typical of last act of defiance before she leaves office. Personally I don't think she can find her butt with both hands, much less solve or prosecute a her "clearing" anyone doesn't mean anything!
  6. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    I just posted on the KUSA comments section something to that effect. The underwear touched the longjohns. Touch DNA analysis is sensitive enough at this time to pick up a transference between those two items. But if the Boulder investigation is going to be all DNA-gung-ho about the case now, then show me that the same DNA is on the ligature, paintbrush handle, tape, rope in John Andrew's room, the white blanket, JonBenet's shirt, the flashlight, the baseball bat, the broken glass pane, the spoon, and the bowl, and maybe we have something to chew on.
  7. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    Oh, hey, yeah, notice that -- Lacy does not cite the new "touch" DNA as matching in any way that under the nails. So we can consider as official evidence that the DNA under the nails does not for purposes of a criminal trial "match" that of the underwear.
  8. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Discuss or disgust?

    Mary Lacy was determined to clear the Ramseys before she left office, with or without an intruder. When JMK didn't work out, she had to find another way.

    Touch DNA on the longjohns means nothing because it could have been contact transfer from the panties, especially since the longjohns were tight fitting and would have needed to be pulled up over the too-big panties.

    Have they tested the DNA of the male lab techs who undressed JonBenet or took the DNA samples? How about Boulder Coroner John Meyer who did the autopsy? Lab contamination is a big problem that was recently highlighted in a book exposing the problems even within the FBI.

    And then we have Mary Lacy's own word's which are in my signature. She stated the panty DNA could be an artifact and not related to the crime. Why is it suddenly good enough to clear the Ramseys?
  9. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Lacy seems to have learned nothing from the Karr fiasco. Here she is, jumping the gun again in her eagerness to exonerate the Ramseys, shutting her eyes as usual to the rest of the evidence strongly implicating the Ramseys.
    So some 'touch DNA' matching those of the panties was found on the leggings? For example, the stager of the scene who handled both the underwear and the leggings could have transferred it imo.
    Lab contamination is also a possibility. This has happened even in renowned DNA testing labs (like the Penny Scaggs case).
  10. Tril

    Tril Member

    This is HOGWASH!

    Regardless, it appears to be the end of it.

    The Ramseys - may they rot in hell - pulled it off.
  11. coloradokares

    coloradokares Member

    They can say whaterever they want this is not over. Dr.Baden says this proves nothing. Let Lacy have her next screw up and throughly embarass Boulder again. This really stinks!! It does nothing to clear anyone. This was a parting gift from Lacy to Ramseys
  12. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    What a lovely Parting Gift from Lacy! I am not surprised at all though, kind of expected something just like this from the ****-Hugging Prosecutor before she snuck out the backdoor.

    Will John "frame" this letter too?!
  13. coloradokares

    coloradokares Member

    Exactly and all this means is Lacy gets the glory for what is what I want to know she did not clear anyone
  14. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    "The [Ramsey case] DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s." - Boulder DA Mary Lacy, 8/28/06

    "The [Ramsey case] DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s." - Boulder DA Mary Lacy, 8/28/06

    "The [Ramsey case] DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s." - Boulder DA Mary Lacy, 8/28/06

    "The [Ramsey case] DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s." - Boulder DA Mary Lacy, 8/28/06
  15. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    LOL - you know she HAS to hate us that remember!!!
  16. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Hey Tril - perfect time for you to show off your signature......

    A q is a q - not a freaking 8!
  17. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    New evidence discovered in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case exonerates the Ramsey family or anyone in law enforcement DNA databases, the Boulder District Attorney’s Office announced in a letter released today.

    The letter, sent from Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy to John Ramsey today, offers an apology to the Ramsey family.

    "Significant new evidence has recently been discovered through the application of relatively new methods of DNA analysis," Lacy writes. "This new scientific evidence convinces us that it is appropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime.

    "I wish we could have done so before Mrs. Ramsey died."

    John Ramsey today told Denver's 9News that his daughter's homicide became an "entertainment event" that boosted ratings and attracted viewers.

    "Sadly there's 2,000 children murdered in our country every year," he said. "For some reason, our's became a very public event."

    When reached by phone today, Donald Paugh, the late Patsy Ramsey’s father, said the exoneration was “nothing new to me."

    “I never thought there was anything to accuse (John) of in the first place,†Paugh said. "But they haven't found the real person yet."

    Paugh said the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office hasn’t tried to contact his family about the new DNA information, but, he said, “I’m sure that (John) feels better that they’ve come to their senses."

    “But their mucking around and apologizing to him doesn’t solve the mystery,†Paugh said.

    In the letter, Lacy states that last summer the DA’s office began using a new DNA technology called "touch DNA," which can sample items for genetic material that no other technology can.

    The DA’s office sent a sample from the long johns that JonBenet wore and that "were probably handled by the perpetrator during the course of this crime," to the Bode Technology Group for testing.

    The results indicated a genetic match on the long johns with a sample already obtained from the child’s underwear.

    "Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence," Lacy wrote. "The match ... makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder."

    Lacy wrote that the genetic profile authorities now have is "the profile of the perpetrator of this murder."

    She goes on to offer an apology to John Ramsey and his family.

    "To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry," Lacy wrote. "No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law."

    "I have the greatest respect for the way you and your family have handled this adversity," Lacy wrote.

    Lacy continues to say that the Boulder DA’s office will treat the Ramsey family in the future "as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. Otherwise, we will continue to refrain from publicly discussing the evidence in this case."

    "We hope that we will one day obtain a DNA match from the CODIS data bank that will lead to further evidence and to the solution of this crime," Lacy wrote.

    She concluded that if investigators, one day, are successful in finding a match, "Only then will we begin to understand the psychopathy or motivation for this brutal and senseless crime."

    This afternoon, Lacy issued a statement further discussing the 1996 homicide.

    "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 the news release.

    "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. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case."

    She said the local, national and international publicity the case generated has caused many people to conclude that the Ramseys themselves might be responsible for the crime.

    "The suspicions about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet," Lacy said. "We believe that justice dictates that the Ramseys be treated only as victims of this very serious crime. We will accord them all the rights guaranteed to the victims of violent crimes under the law in Colorado and all the respect and sympathy due from one human being to another ...

    "To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology."

    Lacy concludes her statement by saying she will not comment further on the case.

    Lacy said that any tips related to the investigation be submitted in writing or via e-mail to, or called into the DA’s tip line at 303-441-1636.

    The Boulder police continued to say that the Ramseys were under "an umbrella of suspicion" in the case.

    Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner is "considering what position he is going to take with this new information," spokeswoman Sarah Huntley said. He may issue a statement later today or on Thursday."
  18. Shadow

    Shadow FFJ Senior Content Moderator

  19. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    I anxiously await Beckner's statement.
  20. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    This "new" touch DNA should not and cannot clear anyone for the same reasons the original, incomplete, DNA couldn't. Lacy has once again acted inappropriately in announcing her opinion that the DNA clears the Rams.

    The original DNA could not be dated, and the new findings don't change that fact. Chances are, if Lacy's giving us all the facts, which I very much doubt, both sources of the DNA were probably deposited at the same time. However, there is absolutely no way of knowing when that was. "Touch" DNA means just that - more sophisticated method of collecting DNA from somewhere a person (or animal or plant) has touched, leaving a single cell or a couple of cells. That's why I want to know the specifics - how many alleles were in the touch DNA, and what was the criteria used to determine a match?

    How many years has the RST been telling us the fingernail DNA matched the panty DNA? They lied. There was no way they could call 2 alleles + one iffy allele in the fingernail DNA a match to the incomplete panty DNA.

    Lacy has proven to be untrustworthy. Why should anyone trust her word on this? But, even if she is telling the truth, so bloody what? It doesn't prove one damn thing, and she is wrong exonerating ANYONE on DNA that is itself unreliable.

    Lizard lips has already been on MSNBC. I guess he doesn't know that the opinion of an incompetent district attorney is not the same as exoneration by a jury. It's not over by a long shot.
  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