Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Moab, Aug 29, 2006.
:yay: :yay: :thumbsup:
excellent letter Tril!
yo - KK - WHERE are you reading all this?? I must have missed that thread with ALL these other ones on here!! Poor-fa-vor!! TIA! :wtf:
OK, don't hit me, but you asked:
Anyone can download the arrest warrant for Karr from the DA's website. It is a long process, however. Mame put the warrant up you-know-where, though, so it's easy just to go there and read it. Unless it's a principle thing, then you can download it for yourself.
Me, I don't care. Whatever's easy.
CAUTION EXPLICIT SICKO PERV STUFF CAUTION
Here is another section of a phone call made between Tracey and Karr, in which Karr talks about the overly large undies...which he says HE BROUGHT WITH HIM. Oops. Too bad neither Lacy nor Tracey nor Smit nor Ollie nor San Augustin ever bothered to ACTUALLY READ THE ATLANTA INTERVIEW WITH PATSY RAMSEY:
Yes, it was Lin Wood who first attached the word "saliva" to the degraded DNA. Tom Bennett also stated the DNA might have come from a "sneeze".
Since they purchased control samples and found DNA in new panties right out of the package, I think it's more logical to assume the DNA came from sweat, not saliva. I can't imagine a factory worker sitting there consistantly sneezing on garments as they are being sewn.
Can anyone source the fact that a control package of panties were purchased and found to have DNA in them.
DNA may not help Ramsey inquiry
Samples found on JonBenet's clothing may be from factory
November 19, 2002
By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
Investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey case believe that male DNA recovered from the slain child's underwear may not be critical evidence at all, and instead could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture.
In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties.
If investigators are right about possible production-line contamination - perhaps stemming from something as innocent as a worker's cough - then the genetic markers obtained from JonBenet's underpants are of absolutely no value in potentially excluding any suspects in the unsolved Boulder slaying.
And, investigators know the DNA found in the underwear - white, with red rose buds and the word "Wednesday" inscribed on the elastic waist band - was not left by seminal fluid.
"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.
"You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there," Kane said, "whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them."
Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.
And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."
The autopsy report in JonBenet's slaying indicates her pelvic area was swabbed for potential DNA. There has never been any report that those swabs yielded any foreign genetic material. But any significance that might have must be weighed against the fact that the coroner, Dr. John Meyer, observed that the killer may have wiped JonBenet's body with a cloth.
JonBenet, 6, was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her parents' upscale Boulder home the afternoon of Dec. 26, 1996.
Her body was found about seven hours after her mother called police before dawn to say she had discovered a 2 �-page ransom note demanding $118,000 for the girl's safe return.
John and Patsy Ramsey left Boulder the following summer for Atlanta and reside there. They have denied any involvement in their daughter's death.
In the couple's book about JonBenet's slaying, The Death of Innocence, John Ramsey called attention to the fact that the underwear DNA did not match anyone in the Ramsey family.
"The DNA from the stain found on JonBenet's underwear cannot be identified," he wrote. "The police have these test results, and we can only hope that they are checking all possible suspects against this genetic fingerprint.
"Our belief is that this DNA belongs to the killer."
On Monday, the Ramseys' attorney stopped short of making so firm a declaration.
"It's foreign DNA," said Lin Wood. "It's not the Ramseys' DNA, and I obviously think it's a very, very important piece of evidence."
Wood also pointed out that unidentified DNA was also recovered from beneath JonBenet's fingernails on both hands. But investigators have long said that contamination problems render those samples of little value.
The Ramseys' attorney scoffed at the notion that the underwear DNA might be traceable to the garment's production.
"That sounds like a pretty spectacularly imaginative theory to me," said Wood. Of Kane, he added, "I've never found Michael Kane to be objective."
Wood said the DNA from the underwear was commingled with a spot of blood, making any theory of point-of-manufacture contamination "nonsensical." He also contended there are as many as a half-dozen genetic markers in common, between the DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear and her fingernails.
Kane started a new job Monday as deputy secretary for enforcement in the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue - the same post he held before Boulder District Alex Hunter selected him to guide the Ramsey grand jury probe, which concluded Oct. 13, 1999.
He declined to comment further on the case, citing rules governing the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.
(edited because I did a lousy job of cutting and pasting)
what a good catch from that press conference. And BTW welcome to FFJ. When I heard MKL make that statement I immediately thought about how absurd it was because how could saliva been present anywhere on the body when it had been washed down and there had been the odor of bleach. I think I'm correct in that thought. Now if they meant the 'saliva' was in her panties then it is even more absurd to think about and oh what an image that conjures up. Did he taste her under garments? Oh yuckkkkkkkky!
OH and I have a question for anyone to answer?
When it was said by John Ramsey (I think) that this person JMK had to be telling the truth because he had intimate knowledge of the family's behavior towards each other...JBR to her brother Burke where could he John Mark Karr have gotten that kind of info? I know that specific behavior was not mentioned to us but appearently it was mentioned to Tracey. I am guessing that Tracey told him about it in the first place because he possibly talked to everyone surrending this case including the housekeepers. Is that where it may have come from? :help:
Here is a more recent statement about the control samples: August 17, 2006
Henry Lee, a crime scene analyst who was part of the "dream team" task force assembled by prosecutors after the JonBenet murder, said DNA evidence will confirm whether Karrâ€™s confession is true. DNA was found inside the girlâ€™s underwear, but investigators were unable to match it to anyone in an FBI database.
Lee said detectives found DNA evidence in three out of six more pairs of the same brand of underwear at the department store that carried them, leading to possibility that the DNA was not left on the scene.
We don't have "knickers" over here!
"Knickers" is not a term a boy from Alabama would have used. Ever. It is an English expression for underpants, period. To me, that proves that Tracey was feeding Karr these terms. If they had been in communication for 4 years, Karr perhaps started using the term that he had heard from Tracey.
Oh good grief. Did NO ONE in the BDA office even READ the case file with Patsy's interview in which she said SHE bought the underwear in New York?!
This is just beyond the pale. Any first-year student of the Ramsey case KNOWS Patsy stated she bought the underwear. If Lacy doesn't even know THIS much, no wonder she buys the Ramsey/Smit/Tracey intruder crap!
GET RID OF MARY KEENAN-LACY NOW!
Absolutely right, Heymom! It's obvious Tracey was asking leading questions of Karr, and Karr was beginning to use Tracey's Brit vocabulary to answer them.
bumping this up.
More like her hip at this point.
Well...just to be totally fair...Karr did live overseas for four years...some in Paris, some in countries that might have Brits there saying "knickers." I do agree that Tracey probably did use this word when discussing these topics with Karr, though. How can anyone say that we know exactly what Tracey's influence on Karr was when Lacy failed to include Tracey's emails in total with Karr's? No doubt, she's protecting Tracey's privacy as an informant, since I'd bet money he wrote plenty just as disgusting as Karr, to loosen Karr up and get him to say such things as well.
In court, Karr's defense could easily have used entrapment by Tracey. We won't ever know now, will we? Another reason Lacy might have tanked the case prior to the court hearings Monday, before that got out, as well.
Well...on the upside...I was very impressed with Lacy's grammar and diction. Her sentence structure was to die for....
It was a spectacular piece of buffoonery. Of that there is no doubt.
John Mark Karr was not released because his DNA didn't match. Mary Lacy has told us that this might NOT be a DNA case - that the DNA might be an artefact.
John Mark Karr was released because he had no fewer than 5 alibis who claimed he was with them in Atlanta. Mary Lacy did add that, but I noticed that she kind of threw that in "by the way". IMO, if he hadn't had the alibis, he would have been charged.
Mary Lacy is very pro-Ramsey. She attended Patsy's funeral. She should therefore NOT be in charge of this investigation because she obviously has a conflict of interests.
The Ramseys have NOT been cleared of involvement in JonBenet's murder. Mary Lacy cannot clear them because ... the DNA might not be the killer's.
Separate names with a comma.