Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 6
» Latest member: John Andrew
» Forum threads: 1,685
» Forum posts: 5,380

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 37 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 37 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Geraldine Vodicka
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
10-26-2020, 04:12 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 42
Perry Freeman
Forum: BORG theories and BORG people of note
Last Post: jameson245
09-26-2020, 10:41 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 287
Murdered in home
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
09-26-2020, 12:09 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 129
OTHER missing children
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
09-26-2020, 11:46 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 101
Rosie Tapia
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
09-26-2020, 11:33 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 620
Kirsten Hatfield
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
09-26-2020, 11:28 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 1,518
Jessica Lunsford
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
09-26-2020, 11:09 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 1,610
Christine McGowen - murde...
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
09-26-2020, 10:52 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 75
Larry Eugene Mann - Elisa...
Forum: other crimes - repeat offenders - not Ramsey related
Last Post: jameson245
09-26-2020, 10:26 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 124
Do intruders kill just 1 ...
Forum: Intruder evidence
Last Post: jameson245
09-25-2020, 12:12 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 272

 
  on henry Lee - CBS
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-24-2019, 10:43 PM - Forum: DNA Charlie Brennan - Replies (1)

The news that Boulder Police had unearthed a possible explanation for the unknown male DNA found in JonBenet’s panties was leaked to Charlie Brennan who subsequently wrote about it in the Rocky Mountain News on November 19, 2002 under the following headline:

DNA MAY NOT HELP RAMSEY INQUIRY - SAMPLES FOUND ON JONBENET'S CLOTHING MAY BE FROM FACTORY

Investigators in the JonBenet Ramseycase 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.
 
Brennan then quoted an ‘anonymous investigator’ as saying: 
(An) 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.''
 
So that was it from Boulder Police as far as the panties DNA was concerned. The DNA found on the panties was from an Asian factory worker. It had nothing to do with the sexual assault on JonBenet that immediately preceded her murder, nothing at all. There was no unknown male in the house that night. Boulder Police could thus maintain the view that know that the family is guilty because they have dealt with and disposed of that pesky non-family DNA present at the crime scene as simply a red herring. As reported in the Associated Press, Denver November 20 by Katherine Vogt:
A theory made public this week suggests that DNA evidence found inJonBenet Ramsey's underwear after her slaying may have come from the clothing manufacturing process — not her killer
 
In the same article grand jury prosecutor Michael Kane was quoted as saying:
"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," former prosecutor Michael Kane told the News. 
"You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there: whether it was in themanufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retailstore who took it out to look at them," said Kane, who ran a 13-month grand juryinvestigation that yielded no indictments. 

As has always been the norm with Boulder Police, they didn’t ever show anyone outside their own department the actual lab results. They interpreted and evaluated them for us and we have been expected to trust that they have have done all this correctly and appropriately. 

We know that it was the ever-obliging Dr Henry Lee who got these results, so welcomed by the Boulder Police. As Lee stated to Catherine Crier in 2004:
Transcript of Crier Live w/ Dr. Henry Lee, August 25, 2004: 

Dr. Lee: Right. We did some a test um, new garment. A lot of time the new garment, a panty, just come out of package, you found foreign DNA. Because today we use a very sensitive method of STI, that’s the third generation of DNA testing now. You multiply the DNA millions of copies then you test that multiplied copies.

 
Information confirmed by Barry Scheck to Wolf Blitzer in 2006:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/21/sitroom.03.html

“I know Dr. Henry Lee went out and bought underwear of the same kind and took it out of the plastic wrapper and took a cutting and extracted DNA and got some profiles from it.”

 
A case follower, Carol Martin of Walnut Creek, California was intrigued enough to seek more information about Henry Lee's results and whether they supported the police claim that the unknown male DNA in the panties might have nothing to do with the crime. After a 48 Hours program where the DNA from unopened packages had been discussed, she reported in a letter to the editor of Westword that was published in the July 12 2006 edition, that she had written to 48 Hours about it and had received replies from both Erin Moriarty and the producer of 48 Hours:

I e-mailed 48 Hours because I had problems with statements like "the evidence shows blah-blah" without the show telling us what that evidence might be. The producer and Erin Moriarty both wrote me back. The most interesting thing the producer said was that while traces of DNA have been found in unopened packages of underwear, the foreign DNA in JonBenét's was ten to twelve times that amount. That was news to me. 
 
This was all very interesting. But why should we believe what Carol Martin said and how does it impact on Henry Lee’s findings anyway?

Fast forward to 2016 and thanks to the producers the CBS documentary screened September 19, 2016 - The Case of JonBenet Ramsey Episode 2 part 1 with Jim Clemente and Laura Richards - we get to see some of Lee's raw data of DNA collected from fresh-from-the-package panties.

Right at the beginning of the show Henry Lee states his opinion about the panty DNA:

KOLAR: But what would account for the blood in her underwear? 

LEE: Underwear was only spot, could be from any other transfer. It’s really no sexual assault here. 

To prove his theory Lee offers to re-test some fresh-from-the-package panties. Clemente and Richards are shown going to Lee's lab in Connecticut where Richards produces some packages of panties she has bought from local stores. Lee shines a UV light over the panties to locate areas where there might be traces of biological fluid and when he finds such areas he swabs them and hands the swab to a technician for DNA testing. As he does so he makes a few statements:

LEE: The principle of this is to find out a new panty, whether or not we can find foreign DNA.

LEE: What we do, we make a microscopic examination, look at any indication and body fluid. So this has just come out of the package, nobody touched this package? 
 
RICHARDS: No. 
 
LEE: Try to see any material, can you see that? 
LEE: Can you see that two dot? That even could be a blood stain, too. DNA found on the panty, not necessarily the suspect deposited. 

LEE: Because this is a new panty, we know nobody wear it. So we just collect a sample. If we have DNA, then that DNA has to be during the manufacture process.

 
Two weeks later Clemente and Richards return to the lab to see the results. Here is Henry Lee sitting in front of an electropherogram of a DNA sample he had analysed after obtaining it from one of the items that he had tested as a demonstration for the show. 
[Image: *24.20%20copy.jpg]

Henry Lee's comments of the test results for the fresh-from-the-package panties DNA went as follows: 

LEE:  . . .  the panties, did not match any of us because we did not touch. New, never worn before but had DNA on them. 

CLEMENTE: The new panties— 
LEE: The new panties—just random package—remember we opened it up? 
CLEMENTE: Yes. 
LEE: We all wear the gloves, so nobody touched the panty, and the panty had DNA. 
CLEMENTE: Right. 
LEE: Which indicative that DNA was left on during the manufacture process, when a worker handled the panty. And more likely a female because we found an X chromosome.
LEE: DNA recovered from the case sample probably should be ignored.  


But looking closely at Lee's experimental results on DNA obtained from unused panties it is clear that his comments that the unknown male DNA profile identified by Denver Police from JonBenet's panties should be ignored is based on a very flawed interpretation of both his own and Denver Police's results. For one thing, it appears that while Denver Police obtained 10 DNA 'markers' from JonBenet's panties, Lee obtained zero clear 'markers' from unused panties. All that showed up on Lee's unused panties was the sex determining marker amelogeninX 

Print this item

  no charges
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-24-2019, 10:39 PM - Forum: Nancy Krebs - Replies (1)

Police & courts — February 21
February 21, 2003
BOULDER 
Judge: No criminal libel charges 
Boulder Chief District Judge Roxanne Bailin ruled Thursday that no criminal libel
charges would be filed against the Daily Camera, other media or individuals in
connection with a story about a California woman's theory of the 1996 JonBenet
Ramsey death. 

Fleet and Priscilla White, former friends of the slain girl's parents, insisted the judge
order the prosecution of criminal libel charges after a special prosecutor's report filed
earlier this month declined to pursue the case. 

Bob Harward, special prosecutor with the El Paso County District Attorney's Office,
which was appointed to investigate the couple's allegations, summarized in a 13-page
report that he would be unable to pursue a case because of constitutional problems
with the criminal libel statute and a lack of foundation to support a prosecution. 

Priscilla White represented herself and husband at the hearing but did not present any
arguments. She declined comment after the hearing. 

Bailin sided with Harward on Thursday, saying no charges would be filed. 
"At this point this case is completed. The court won't be taking any further action." 
The statute of limitations to file criminal libel charges expires Tuesday, three years
after the Camera published its initial story.

Print this item

  press release
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-24-2019, 10:20 PM - Forum: Nancy Krebs - No Replies

http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/comm/pressrelease/RAMSEY/pr000515.html
News Release
May 15, 2000

Contact: Jana Petersen, Media Relations, (303) 441-3090

City's Home Page http://www.ci.boulder.co.us



Boulder Police end investigation into California woman's report

Boulder Police and prosecutors have concluded an investigation that began in February when a 37-year-old California woman reported her belief that JonBenet Ramsey was murdered as part of a child sex ring. The investigation found no additional evidence to support this theory.

In February, the woman contacted the Boulder Daily Camera with allegations of a child sex abuse conspiracy involving her own family members, the Ramsey family and close friends of the Ramseys. The woman also claimed that some of her own family members were at a party attended by JonBenet Ramsey and her parents on December 25, 1996, just prior to JonBenet's death. The woman believed JonBenet was likely killed at the party by adults who sexually and physically abused her.
Boulder Police spent about 11 weeks investigating the allegations, which included conducting 22 interviews, reviewing medical and psychological records, reviewing photographs and recordings, consulting with a forensic psychiatrist, and comparing the allegations against physical evidence and current knowledge of the case. As a result, Boulder Police and prosecutors working on the case have concluded that other than the woman's statements, there is no evidence to support this theory of JonBenet's murder.
"The Boulder Police have spent a significant amount of time investigating the claims made by this woman and her attorney," Prosecutor Mike Kane said. "There is simply no credible evidence to link anything she alleges to the death of JonBenet. The expenditure of additional police and prosecutorial resources is unwarranted."
Boulder Police have made no judgments or conclusions about abuse the woman may have suffered in prior years in California. It is well established that she was a victim of sexual abuse in 1979-80, for which a suspect was arrested and convicted. However, the current investigation did not find any connection between the abuse she suffered and the death of JonBenet Ramsey.
Boulder Police have forwarded information to the FBI in reference to some of the woman's allegations regarding the operation of a child sex ring. Police also advised her to contact California authorities with any information she has regarding crimes that may have occurred in California.
This is the second time Boulder Police have investigated the possibility of JonBenet's death being connected to a "sex ring" or pornographic operation involving numerous people. On each occasion, no credible evidence was found to support such speculation.
"We needed to take the time to complete a thorough investigation," Police Chief Mark Beckner said. "Unfortunately, the allegations have led to speculation that Fleet and Priscilla White, former close friends of the Ramseys and hosts of the 1996 Christmas party, were somehow involved in the sexual abuse and death of JonBenet. We have no evidence whatsoever to support this and have never had evidence to support such an allegation. Nor do we have any evidence that John and Patsy Ramsey were part of or participated in a child sex ring operation."
Because she is a sexual assault victim, Boulder Police are not releasing the name of the California woman.

Print this item

  Charlie questioned value of DNA tests
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-24-2019, 10:06 PM - Forum: DNA Charlie Brennan - Replies (2)

DNA in doubt: New analysis challenges DA's exoneration of Ramseys
Presence of 3rd person's genetic markers never before revealed
By Charlie Brennan and Kevin Vaughan
Daily Camera • 9NEWS
10/27/2016 06:37:51 PM MDT 
The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case doesn't support a pivotal and controversial development in Colorado's most vexing unsolved murder — a former Boulder prosecutor's decision to clear the girl's family from all suspicion in her death, a joint Daily Camera/9NEWS investigation has found.
Forensic experts who examined the results of DNA tests obtained exclusively by the two news organizations disputed former District Attorney Mary Lacy's conclusion that a DNA profile found in one place on JonBenet's underpants and two locations on her long johns was necessarily the killer's — which Lacy had asserted in clearing JonBenet's family of suspicion.
In fact, those experts said the evidence showed that the DNA samples recovered from the long johns came from at least two people in addition to JonBenet — something Lacy's office was told, according to documents obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS, but that she made no mention of in clearing the Ramseys.
The presence of a third person's genetic markers has never before been publicly revealed.
Additionally, the independent experts raised the possibility that the original DNA sample recovered from JonBenet's underwear — long used to identify or exclude potential suspects — could be a composite and not that of a single individual.
About this story
Charlie Brennan of the Daily Camera and Kevin Vaughan of 9NEWS exclusively obtained laboratory test results and reports from the JonBenet Ramsey case on which then-Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy based her decision to exonerate members of the Ramsey family. The reporters sought a review of that evidence by independent experts. This is the result of their investigation.
"It's a rather obvious point, but I mean, if you're looking for someone that doesn't exist, because actually it's several people, it's a problem," said Troy Eid, a former U.S. Attorney for Colorado.
The documents obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS included results from the actual DNA testing process on the long johns and summary reports sent to Lacy's office in the months leading up her July 9, 2008, letter exonerating the Ramseys.
The experts who examined the laboratory results at the request of the Camera and 9NEWS reached similar conclusions on multiple points:
• Two of the three samples that led Lacy to declare publicly that no one in the Ramsey family could be responsible for the murder actually appear to include genetic material from at least three people: JonBenet, the person whose DNA profile originally was located in JonBenet's underwear during testing in the late 1990s and early 2000s, plus at least one additional as-yet-unidentified person or persons. Consequently, its meaning is far from clear. 
• The DNA profile referred to as Unknown Male 1 — first identified during testing on the panties — may not be the DNA of a single person at all, but, rather, a composite of genetic material from multiple individuals. As a result, it may be worthless as evidence. 
• The presence of that DNA on JonBenet's underwear and long johns, be it from one or multiple people, may very well be innocent; the profiles were developed from minute samples that could have been the result of inconsequential contact with other people, or transferred from another piece of clothing. If true, it would contradict the assertions that DNA will be key to finding JonBenet's killer.
This represents the first time independent experts have reviewed the DNA evidence on which Lacy based her widely questioned exoneration of the family.
And the findings could cut both ways.
"It's certainly possible that an intruder was responsible for the murder, but I don't think that the DNA evidence proves it," said William C. Thompson, a professor in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California-Irvine and an internationally respected authority on DNA evidence and its applications in the criminal justice system.
Similarly, the findings don't implicate or exonerate anyone in the family.
Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood, who has not reviewed the documents or the work of the experts consulted by the Camera and 9NEWS, said, however, "I have absolute and total confidence in the integrity of former District Attorney Mary Lacy, and I am also aware of internet comments by former Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner where he, within the last several months, affirmed that the Ramsey case was a DNA case.
"So I know what Chief Beckner has said publicly in recent months, I know what ... former District Attorney Mary Lacy has said, and until someone impugns her integrity, or contradicts former Chief Beckner's statement, I continue to believe, as I have said before, that this is a DNA case and that the best chance for solving the case will be a hit and match on the DNA in the future. I hope that day comes." 
'The silver bullet misfired'
Lacy was long known as a believer in the Ramseys' innocence, something others noticed as early as June 1998, when Boulder police detectives put on a detailed two-day presentation of the evidence and sought either charges against John and Patsy Ramsey or a grand jury investigation.
"My impression of her response to that was that she was among the very, very skeptical," said former Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant, who attended the police presentation in his role as adviser to then-Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter.
The experts consulted by the Camera and 9NEWS suggested that Lacy may have been guilty of "confirmation bias," a phenomenon in which investigators become so blinded by their own theories that they give extra credence to evidence that supports them, and ignore evidence that does not.
The lab that performed the DNA testing, for example, told Lacy in March 2008 that it was "likely" the two samples found on JonBenet's long johns came from "more than two people" and "should not be considered a single-source profile," according to the documents obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS.
But in exonerating the Ramseys with a three-page letter made public July 9, 2008, Lacy failed to disclose any of that, writing that "the previously identified profile from the crotch of the underwear worn by JonBenet at the time of the murder matched the DNA recovered from the long johns."
The word "match" actually never appears in the reports from Bode Technology, which conducted the testing in March through June of 2008.
Similarly, the Camera and 9NEWS have learned that investigators in Lacy's office suggested no additional testing was needed once they learned male DNA had been located on the long johns that she later labeled as a "match" to the DNA found in JonBenet's panties.
Correspondence from an investigator on Lacy's staff indicated that "my bosses" were "very excited" and "pleased" about the purported match, "and don't see the need for additional testing (unless you strongly recommend otherwise)."
The twin realities pointed to by the experts — that the genetic profile may not be from a single individual and that DNA on the girl's clothing may have landed there innocently — turn on its head Lacy's assertion that investigators had identified the killer's genetic fingerprint and that it was the key critical to solving the case.
Thompson, the UC-Irvine professor, noted that many people have come to see DNA evidence as a foolproof "silver bullet" to solving many crimes.
"Here, the silver bullet misfired," said Thompson, one of the experts who reviewed the evidence at the news organizations' request.
Bill Owens JonBenet Ramsey Interview
'Something I can't explain'
Former Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, who called for a review of the Ramsey case in October 1999 to determine whether it merited the attention of a statewide grand jury — his panel of advisers told him it did not— said Lacy's exoneration made no sense to him at the time and is even more troubling now.
"This is an important development. This is new information," Owens said.
"She knew, based on your investigation, that this DNA wasn't necessarily from one person and that it, in fact, was potentially accumulated DNA," Owens said. "She knew it at the time, and why she used this evidence to clear the Ramsey family ... is something I can't explain. And she should explain."
Lacy did not respond to repeated requests for comment on this story, sent to her by email, U.S. mail and left at her home.
Donald R. Von Hagen, a spokesman for Virginia-based Bode Cellmark Forensics, as the lab is now known, said in an email that the company's report "stands on its own" and that he would not have further comment.
The murder of JonBenet exploded into the national consciousness within days of the discovery of her body on Dec. 26, 1996, in the sprawling home she shared with her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, and older brother, Burke, on 15th Street in Boulder. The 6-year-old's skull was fractured by a blow to the head, and her killer cinched a garrote around her neck, placed duct tape over her mouth and bound her wrists.
Everyone from seasoned investigators to amateur sleuths to talk show hosts quickly settled on one of two theories: That JonBenet was slain by someone in her family, either accidentally or in a fit of rage, and that the killer then tried to make it look like a botched kidnapping; or, that she was the victim of a cunning intruder who intended to spirit the child out of the house, but ended up committing murder instead.
John Ramsey, the girl's father, declined a request for an interview.
"I think we have said all that can be said and I need to get back to my job!" Ramsey wrote in an email.
Troy Eid JonBenet Ramsey Interview 
'We don't actually have to live with it'
The implications of the conclusions reached by the experts consulted by the Camera and 9NEWS could, if considered by investigators still working the state's most famous cold case, dramatically impact the future direction of their work. At the time the Bode results were returned, Lacy's office had control of the Ramsey investigation, and Boulder police did not reclaim responsibility for the probe until Lacy left office the following year.
On one hand, it could lead detectives to consider anew the possibility that someone in JonBenet's family was responsible for her death. And it could also lead them to take a new look at dozens of potential suspects who were ruled out because their DNA didn't match the profile known as Unknown Male 1.
Eid, who served as Owens' chief counsel and was on the governor's statewide panel that reviewed the case in 1999, said in a recent interview he had suspected in 2008 that Lacy's exoneration was, at the very least, misleading.
"But now, it really looks wrong in the scheme of things," Eid said. "And it's not one of these instances where you think, in hindsight, she made a tough call, but we've got to live with it. No, we actually don't have to live with it anymore. Right?"
Lacy's successor as Boulder's district attorney, Stan Garnett, remembers exactly where he was when he learned of Lacy's decision to exonerate the Ramseys: sitting at LaGuardia Airport in New York waiting for a flight home when news of Lacy's letter crawled across a television screen. Although he called Lacy "an honorable person" and an "honest district attorney," he also said he was — and is — puzzled by her decision.
The job of a district attorney is to file charges in cases where the evidence warrants it, Garnett said.
"Our role is not to issue random exonerations of people in cases, and it's very confusing when that happens," Garnett added.
Although Garnett said he is not bound by Lacy's decision, it has lasting ramifications for countless people beyond John Ramsey and Burke Ramsey, now 29. Patsy Ramsey succumbed to ovarian cancer in June 2006.
Boulder police investigators continue to use the problematic DNA profile known as Unknown Male 1 to clear others who might potentially have been involved in the killing. A case investigator said dozens of suspects have been cleared that way.
Boulder police Chief Greg Testa declined this week to comment on the DNA evidence. But in a video statement released to all media on Sept. 1, Testa said detectives in the department had submitted more than 200 DNA samples in the case for analysis.
Phillip Danielson JonBenet Ramsey Interview
'This could easily be a composite profile'
At the crux of the evidence is the DNA profile referred to as Unknown Male 1.
That profile was first developed in late 1998 and early 1999 from tests on JonBenet's panties — but analysts couldn't at that time identify sufficient genetic markers. Sending it to the FBI's Combined DNA Index System— the national genetic database commonly known as CODIS — requires at least 10 markers.
 Further lab work in 2003 yielded an additional marker, and the profile, featuring the required minimum of 10 genetic markers, was entered into CODIS that December.
"People believed back in those days almost all mixtures are two-person mixtures — that was like gospel truth," said Phillip Danielson, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Denver and science adviser to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center.
In the ensuing years, as the "kits" used to detect DNA became ever more sensitive, scientists came to realize that many mixtures contained genetic markers from more than two people.
"You know," Danielson said, "looking at the profiles in this case, it seems pretty clear that their idea of this 'unknown male' — this could easily be a composite profile. Meaning that we have multiple contributors. But because of the low sensitivity of the kit, they interpreted those multiple contributors as being just one extra person."
However, Lacy — and others — concluded that profile must belong to JonBenet's killer.
Against that backdrop, an investigator in Lacy's office submitted JonBenet's panties, long johns, nightgown and other items for further testing at Bode's lab in Lorton, Va., in late 2007 and early 2008.
The Bode scientists could not replicate the profile found in JonBenet's panties, which bothered Danielson as he examined the materials obtained by the two news organizations.
"Reproducibility and repeatability is a hallmark of science," Danielson said. "To me, as a scientist, that does raise concern. If there was this unknown male DNA on the underwear, you would expect that Bode would have been able to reproduce that. Now, are there any possible explanations why they would not be? Sure."
The sample could have been degraded, though Danielson said that's not likely given the way evidence is handled and stored. Another possibility is that the original tests consumed all of the foreign genetic material in the panties. It's also possible that variations in the way the original tests were done could account for the failure to find the same profile in the panties during the 2008 tests.
'Should not be considered a single source profile'
When analysts at Bode tested the long johns, they focused on four distinct areas: the inside and outside of both the upper left and upper right sides of the garment. The tests on the two spots on the inside of the long johns yielded too little DNA to be useful.
But on the outside of the long johns, Bode analysts found much more DNA.
According to a March 24, 2008, report from Bode, a copy of which was obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS, the sample from the right side, labeled as 2S07-101-05A, included DNA containing "a mixture of at least two individuals including the victim and at least one male contributor." They got the same results on the left side, which was labeled 2S07-101-05B.
But in notes included with the report, it's clear the Bode analysts concluded that those two samples contained genetic material from at least three people. After assuming that JonBenet was one of those people, the analysts were left with the "remaining DNA contribution."
"Based on the results," according to the report, "it is likely more than two people contributed to the mixtures observed in 2S07-101-05A and 2S07-101-05B therefore, the remaining DNA contribution should not be considered a single source profile."
Christopher McKee, a former public defender in both Atlanta and Washington, D.C., and now director of the Schaden Experiential Learning & Public Service Programs at the University of Colorado Law School, concurred.
"My own personal review of the material and looking at the allele information at the various loci is that it looks and appears to me to be at least three individuals," McKee said. McKee also teaches an advanced course on Forensic Science in the Courts at the CU Law School, teaches on the subject around the country and has been recognized by courts and nationally as an expert on the topic.
Danielson also said, "There are too many alleles to be accounted for by only JonBenet and this alleged Unknown Male No. 1 profile."
An allele is a specific genetic marker.
Lacy's investigator asked Bode's analysts to compare the DNA from the two spots on the outside of the long johns with the Unknown Male 1 profile.
Bode's analysts concluded that Unknown Male 1 "could not be excluded as a possible contributor to the mixture DNA profile" obtained from the outside of the long johns on the right side, according to a June 20, 2008, report obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS. On the left side, the Unknown Male 1 profile "cannot be included or excluded from the mixture DNA profile."
In other words, the link between the two spots on the long johns and the DNA in the underwear is tenuous at best, according to analysts at the lab Lacy used for the testing.

'There is no innocent explanation'

But a little more than two weeks later, Lacy wrote the letter clearing members of the Ramsey family of suspicion. However, she included none of the caveats spelled out in the Bode
reports and used language suggesting the lab work was ironclad.
"The Bode Technology laboratory was able to develop a profile from DNA recovered from the two sides of the long johns," Lacy wrote. "The previously identified profile from the crotch of the underwear worn by JonBenet at the time of the murder matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.
"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 those two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder."
The experts consulted by the news organizations disagreed, to varying degrees, on both assertions — that the Unknown Male 1 profile "matched" the DNA found on the outside of the long johns, and that there was "no innocent explanation" for the presence of that DNA on JonBenet's clothing.
"You have to understand a match is an analyst's judgment that the two samples fall into the 'included' category," Thompson said. "A match doesn't mean that the material examined is necessarily identical — just that there's a sufficient consistency to think that it might have come from the same source."
Thompson said his analysis found "a strong level of consistency" between the two long johns samples and the Unknown Male 1 profile.
"But," he said, "there are also some genetic characteristics that could not be accounted for by either JonBenet Ramsey or Unknown Male 1, thus suggesting there could be DNA from other people."
Danielson and another expert consulted by the Camera and 9NEWS offered similar opinions.
"To simply state that there's no innocent way that this DNA could have arrived at separate sites on JonBenet's underwear ... there's simply no scientific justification to make such a statement," Danielson said. "It's just simply not true."
Danielson offered a hypothetical: Say JonBenet had physical contact with other kids she was recently playing with, or had contact at a party on Christmas night, or say she touched anything bearing others' DNA; she could have then transferred that genetic material to her own clothes simply while getting dressed.
McKee, based on his review of the evidence, called Lacy's actions based on the lab reports "a cautionary tale."
"I don't think her letter at all reflects an appreciation or understanding for what that said in the report," McKee said. "You know, as I read the (Lacy) letter, it seems to suggest that there's just one single profile that was found here."

Chris McKee JonBenet Ramsey Interview

'False logic of declaring this as exonerating'
Michael Kane, who served as lead counsel to the Ramsey grand jury, is now senior legal counsel to the Judiciary Committee in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. He expressed little surprise that Lacy's decision had been thrown into serious doubt.
"Until you ID who that (unknown sample) is, you can't make that kind of statement (that Lacy made)," Kane said in an email. "There may be circumstances where male DNA is discovered on or in the body of a victim of a sexual assault where you can say with a degree of certainty that had to have been from the perpetrator and from that, draw the conclusion that someone who doesn't meet that profile is excluded.
"But in a case like this, where the DNA is not from sperm, is only on the clothing and not her body, until you know whose it is, you can't say how it got there. And until you can say how it got there, you can't connect it to the crime and conclude it excludes anyone else as the perpetrator. And that's the false logic of declaring this as exonerating. It seems to me to be pretty self-evident."
As for potentially innocent explanations to the presence of DNA on the clothes JonBenet was wearing when she died, all three experts said they are numerous.
"There have been some very intriguing studies where they had people hold hands for a very short period of time and then touch a knife handle," Danielson said.
In some cases, subsequent tests found DNA from both people on the knife. In others, DNA from only the person who actually touched the knife. And in still others, no DNA was found from the person who actually touched the knife, yet DNA from the other person was found.
Thompson recently testified in a case involving sex toys. Analysts located DNA on the sex toys, Thompson said, in "quantities comparable" to that found on JonBenet's long johns — but it turned out to have no link to the crime.
"The DNA came from a person who had carried the wrapped items from the crime scene to a truck to take to the crime lab," Thompson said. "So somebody who had never touched the items, but had touched the exterior of the wrappers of the items, that person's DNA was apparently transferred onto the wrappers. Then when the wrapped items got back to the crime lab and were unwrapped, the analyst apparently touched the wrappers and then touched the items, transferring it onto the items — in a way that made it indistinguishable from DNA that would have been deposited there during that crime.
"So if that can happen in this sexual assault case that I worked on, it's easy to imagine similar scenarios that could have gotten the DNA found on JonBenet Ramsey's clothing to where it was found. And I think the fact that DNA can be transferred so easily in small quantities is a weakness of the technology at this time."
William Thompson JonBenet Ramsey Interview
'Can't get my arms around that one'
Lacy established herself as a supporter of the intruder theory in the Ramsey case when she was still Mary Keenan, a chief deputy specializing in sexual assault cases under the man she would soon succeed, then-District Attorney Alex Hunter.

In June 1998, JonBenet's parents were questioned at length for the second time— Patsy Ramsey by Denver district attorney's investigator Tom Haney and Boulder prosecutor Trip DeMuth, and John Ramsey by retired El Paso County homicide detective Lou Smit and Kane, the attorney who directed the grand jury investigation.
Lacy wasn't directly involved in the interrogations. But Haney recalls that after she saw videotape of the interview with Patsy Ramsey, Lacy chided him for being hard on JonBenet's mother.
Haney said Lacy volunteering such an opinion seemed odd to him at the time. And, he said in a recent interview, "It still does."
Lacy took other steps that left many to believe she ruled out the Ramseys as suspects long before she issued her letter in 2008.
Lacy succeeded Hunter as Boulder County's elected district attorney in 2001. It was in that role that, in 2003, she made her first public proclamation on her belief in the Ramseys' innocence.
A federal judge in Atlanta — in dismissing a libel case filed against the Ramseysby a journalist they named as a potential suspect in their 2000 book "The Death of Innocence" — ruled that exhibits in the case led her to believe an intruder was more likely to have killed JonBenet than Patsy Ramsey.
Although Lacy had not been a party to that suit, she nevertheless volunteered a public statement in support of the federal judge's ruling, saying, "I agree with the conclusion that the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with a theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so."
After Patsy Ramsey succumbed to ovarian cancer in 2006following a 13-year battle, she was buried alongside JonBenet in St. James Episcopal Cemetery in Marietta, Ga. Lacy attended her funeral.
Former Boulder police detective Steve Thomas, who had investigated the case in its first years, said that stunned him.
"I know of no other case in which a sitting district attorney or prosecutor attended the funeral of a person whom she knew a grand jury had voted to criminally indict, and traveled across the country to do so, as Mary Lacy did in the case of Patsy Ramsey," he wrote in an email.
"I can't get my arms around that one. I can assure you that many in law enforcement were also distressed by it."
Thomas quit the investigation in August 1998 over multiple frustrations, including Hunter's reluctance at that time to take the case to a grand jury. He later wrote a book about the case and was sued by the Ramseys. That suit resulted in an undisclosed settlement.

Bob Grant JonBenet Ramsey Interview

'Culmination of what she wanted'
Lacy also presided over what is widely seen as one of the greatest debacles in a case marred by numerous missteps: the high-profile 2006 arrest of John Mark Karr, a suspect unearthed by University of Colorado journalism professor Michael Tracey, followed almost immediately by an about-face.
Karr was arrested in Thailand and brought back to Boulder with a sea of photographers recording virtually every moment of his transport — only to be abruptly cut loose a few days after arriving in Coloradowhen his DNA was found not to match the Unknown Male 1 sample.
Numerous experts have cautioned about the importance of maintaining objectivity, both that of the scientists examining forensic samples, and those who are evaluating the results. They also underscored the importance of severely limiting what is termed contextual information, which is supplied to a laboratory along with items to be tested.
In the case of testing done by Bode Technology for Lacy's office, the Bode staff was provided not only a PowerPoint presentation on the case, but a six-page Nov. 7, 2007, letter providing background so extensive that it even made mention that John Ramsey was president of Access Graphics, a Lockheed Martin subsidiary that had just cleared $1 billion in sales at the time of JonBenet's murder.
"Just as they need to make sure that evidence is not physically contaminated, you want to make sure that they're not cognitively contaminated, so that they're not aware and influenced by irrelevant contextual information that biases how they perceive and interpret the information, the judgments they make," said Itiel Dror, senior cognitive neuroscience researcher at University College London. He has presented training at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the California Department of Justice and elsewhere on objectivity in forensic examination.
"The investigators, the lawyers and everybody else need to stay emotionally disconnected from the case as much as humanly possible, so they keep as objective as possible and not fall into a lot of cognitive problems, wishful thinking, self-fulfilling prophecy," Dror said.
Grant, the former Adams County district attorney, was skeptical about the Karr arrest at the time as he watched it unfold from a distance.
"Just listening to him, and seeing the televised interviews, it just struck me as improbable that he had anything to do with it," Grant said.
Lacy, he said, "was one of the folks that was more skeptical of the someone-in-the-house theory from the beginning. When she agreed — I thought, hastily — to bring Mr. Karr back on the flimsiest of non-evidence, it kind of cemented for me that she was looking for some way to bolster the intruder theory."
And alluding to the exoneration letter of July 2008, Grant said, "That was the culmination of what she wanted to do all along."
 

ADDENDUM TO WHAT CAME OUT EARLIER IN THE DAY
DNA in doubt: New analysis challenges DA’s exoneration of Ramseys
By Charlie Brennan and Kevin Vaughan
Daily Camera • 9NEWS
October 27, 2016 at 7:10 pm

Not a DNA case ‘pure and simple’
The ramifications for the case in the wake of Lacy’s letter were considerable, and continue to reverberate to this day.
The day Lacy issued the letter, John Ramsey hailed the news in an exclusive interview with 9NEWS.
“The most significant thing to me was the fact that we now have pretty irrefutable DNA evidence, according to the DA’s office,” Ramsey said. “And that’s the most significant thing to me. And certainly we are grateful that they acknowledged that we, you know based on that, certainly could not have been involved. But the most important thing was we now have very, very solid evidence.”
It was first reported by the Camera in January 2013 that the grand jury that heard the Ramsey case from September 1998 to October 1999  had signed indictments against both John and Patsy Ramsey, charging both with child abuse resulting in death.
Hunter declined to file those indictments with the court and prosecute the case at trial. While the standard for filing of charges is that of probable cause, the hurdle for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and Hunter didn’t believe the evidence was strong enough for him to do so.
A lawsuit filed against Garnett in September 2013 led to the  unsealing the following month of the 1999 indictments, confirming the child abuse charges as well as charges against both parents for accessory to first-degree murder.
But still, the subsequent Lacy exoneration held sway for many, coming, as it did, nearly 10 years later, from the very same office that had secured those indictments.
As recently as September, Wood, the lawyer for the Ramsey family, cited the DNA-based exoneration in a tweet in the wake of national television broadcasts that had raised anew the question of whether someone in JonBenet’s family was involved in her murder.
“In 2008, Boulder DA publicly exonerated them and apologized.  DNA evidence conclusive. End of story,” Wood tweeted.
And the same day, Wood tweeted, ” This is a DNA case plain and simple.”
That contention is flatly refuted by the independent experts consulted by the Camera and 9NEWS.
“No, it is not,” Danielson said. “It’s clearly not. We have a questioned profile that is very low level in terms of the amount of DNA. The quantity of DNA is very small, the profile is extremely complex. The one thing this case is not, it is not a ‘DNA case pure and simple.'”
McKee, at the University of Colorado, agreed.
“I don’t think any case is just a DNA case. And laboratories across the country operate, and their analysts are trained, not to talk in terms like that,” said McKee, emphasizing that genetic evidence should be considered an investigative thread that is part of a larger fabric to be considered in its entirety.
“I think it would be a big mistake to say that, you know, DNA is the only thing that you’re going to look at,” McKee said. “And certainly, in this case, I don’t think it is the only thing to look at.”
They were echoed by Thompson, the UC-Irvine professor.
“I would say that the DNA evidence is not conclusive,” Thompson said. “I would say that the DNA evidence is indeterminate, leaving us uncertain as to what really happened in this case, and who really killed this little girl.”
Thompson added, “I mean, wasn’t there other evidence in this case as well? I heard something about a ransom note, and handwriting analysis, and so on.”
Wood, in an interview, said his tweets were based on Lacy’s official statements, and on comments by former Boulder police Chief Beckner, made in a Reddit conversation on Feb. 24, 2015.
“My statements are 100 percent supported by the public statements of the Boulder district attorney and the former Boulder police chief,” Wood said. “They’re almost verbatim.”
But those waiting for nearly 13 years for a match in the CODIS database to the Unknown Male 1 profile could wait forever for something that is never going to happen, Danielson said.
Although the unknown male sample had been entered into CODIS, it has never been matched to any of the other DNA profiles in the system. According to the FBI, as of August that included 12,517,059 offender profiles, 2,462,335 arrestee profiles and 726,709 forensic profiles of unknown individuals, such as the one submitted from the Ramsey case.
One possible answer to the question of why a match has never occurred is that the profile is a composite containing genetic material from multiple people.
“As I looked at this case, the more I looked, I was just like, ‘Oh, OK, that would explain why no database hits,'” Danielson said.
 
A call for new testing
 The JonBenet Ramsey investigation remains under the control of the Boulder Police Department, which has been in command of the case since Garnett passed it back to the department’s detectives when he became DA in 2009.
Revelations about the questioned value of the DNA evidence as it now stands is stirring calls for renewed action on the case.
Owens hesitated to be telling others what should happen now, but said he was unsurprised to have his longtime suspicions that the DNA cited by Lacy could, in fact, be innocently explained — and may even be insignificant to the investigation — confirmed.
“And it would be very good to hear from Mary Lacy or from others involved, in terms of what this new evidence should show them in terms of where we should go,” Owens said.
Eid, his former chief counsel who was part of the governor’s October 1999 case review, hopes it will prod new action in the investigation, possibly employing the latest in DNA technology, which has evolved by quantum leaps since Lacy’s letter was issued.
No new DNA testing in the Ramsey case has been conducted since 2008.
“And there ought to be a process to reevaluate this in light of what you have brought forward. That’s my view,” Eid said. “And you shouldn’t feel locked in because some person who is no longer an elected official made a decision and said something. How many people have said things about this case that turned out to not be very relevant, or very accurate?”
One important step in the evolution of DNA testing, which was available in 2008 but has matured considerably since then, is known as Y-STR testing, which looks exclusively at male-inherited Y chromosome DNA.
Testing in this manner on key pieces of evidence, such as JonBenet’s underwear, long johns and perhaps the cord on the garotte used to strangle her or other items associated with the crime scene, would not pick up any of JonBenet’s genetic markers. That would enable analysts to focus with greater accuracy on only male contributors to the mixed samples.
“If you are able to ignore, completely, the female contribution, and can focus just on the male, you are able to then get much more robust results,” McKee said. “I don’t really see a reason why it hasn’t been done, or why you couldn’t do it.”
Danielson agreed, saying, “With the Y-STR testing, you eliminate all of the female DNA. So you can amplify male DNA, even if the male DNA is a fraction of 1 percent of the DNA of the females’ on the samples. So that’s, if I were going to do any additional testing, that’s the additional testing that I would do. It would help to at least answer some of the questions.”
Grant, the former Adams County district attorney and one-time adviser to Boulder prosecutors, also pointed out that if Lacy truly had faith in the profile on which she based her exoneration, she could have done far more than simply write a letter.
“A prosecutor can file a John Doe warrant identifying the suspect by that DNA profile,” Grant said. “If then-District Attorney Lacy was convinced that that suspect, that DNA profile, was the killer, and she was going to exonerate somebody else, then that’s what she should have done.
“The fact that she didn’t do that tells me something — tells me something about how strong she thinks the DNA evidence may or may not be.”
Garnett expressed faith in the work of the Boulder Police Department, and also said his own office remains committed to doing whatever can be done to solve a case that he sees as still severely compromised by mistakes made in the past.
“I’m not going to talk publicly about what we’re doing or what we would do,” Garnett said. “But what I can tell you is that DNA evidence and the theory behind DNA work is changing almost daily, and I have excellent people on staff who review those issues and handle that, and we will make sure that any appropriate testing that can be done to update the theories of the evidence is done.”
Garnett said Lacy’s 2008 decision was “legally insignificant” and “has no meaning,” largely due to the fact that the evidence she cited in her letter was never subjected to the rigorous scrutiny and cross-examination that all evidence in any case goes through in a courtroom.
“None of that happened with the bits and pieces of evidence that was the basis of the exoneration,” Garnett said. “And so it’s just not significant.”
Eid observed that “it’s incredible the number of cases that get solved later. And also as DNA testing gets better, it sometimes removes doubt and sometimes adds doubt.”
Eid remains convinced that, “It’s not too late for justice.”

Print this item

  timeline by samarkandy
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-24-2019, 09:57 PM - Forum: good primer, perhaps - No Replies

1996
Thursday Dec. 26:
5.30 am Patsy Ramseysays she finds a 2 1/2-page ransom note on a staircase demanding $118,000 for JonBenet. 
John Ramsey tells detective that only John Andrew, Nedra and Linda Hoffmann Pugh had keys. (Patsy must have told them about Joe and Betty Barnhill having a key) 
1.10 pm John Ramsey brings his daughter's body up from basement room.
An FBI profiler tells Boulder Police “to look at the family’
Pete Hofstrom from DA’s office arrives at house
Afternoon Melinda, John Andrew and Stewart Long arrive at Ramsey house
Afternoon family goes to stay at Barbara and John Fernie’s house. 
Afternoon Det Arndt interviews Ramseys at John and Barbara Fernie’s house 
2pm Eller organizes next meeting and designates Detective Michael Everett as lead detective, compiles list of Ramsey employees and business associates, also relatives, housekeepers, acquaintances, babysitters
Sometime during the day Trip DeMuth discovers BPD was not going to collect any forensic evidence. He forced them to collect it.

7 pm Dets Fred Patterson and Greg Idler interview Linda Hoffmann Pugh

Mike Bynam, close friend and corporate attorney, arrives at Fernies 
Evening Pam, Polly and husband and Don and Nedra arrive at Fernies
Evening Fleet White and John collect Jeff Ramsey, Rod Westmoreland from airport and bring to Fernies
8 pm execution of FIRST search warrant begins
8:30 pm coroner came to house, stayed about 20 minutes. Patricia Dunn coroner’s assistant stayed with body until it was taken away at around 10 pm 

Friday Dec. 27:

8:15 am autopsy begins, Dets Linda Arndt and TomTrujillo of Boulder Police present, also chief trial deputy Trip DeMuth and Det John Pickering from the DA’s office. Patricia Dunn shot 113 photos for coroner, Trujillo shot photos for police.
10 am Patterson and Idler interview Fleet White at police headquarters for about 2 hours
10 am Det Larry Mason interviews Pam Griffin and daughter Kristine at police headquarters. Was asked if she’d ever seen inappropriate behavior, anything abusive. Was asked about pageants
execution of SECOND search warrant – got more clothes, likely murder weapons ie flashlight, etc
Bill Wise is quoted in the Rocky Mountain News as saying it was unusual for the body of a kidnapping victim to be found at the home.
Eller compiles list of suspects, assigns 30 officers to the case.
DA requested four of Sherriff Epp’s detectives to work on case. Among them was Det Steve Ainsworth who only worked for BPD that weekend. Then later, in March, was lent to the DA’s office to work on Hunter’s investigative team for the defence 
Police interview Linda Hoffmann Pugh for a second time at her home and taped it
The day Bill and Janet said they went to doctor’s office and first heard about crime in and article in the newspaper that was there
Mike Bynam goes to Fernie’s house to see John and Patsy and tells John they need a lawyer and offers to represent them
Afternoon Fleet White goes to Fernie’s house where Mike Bynum is with John and Patsy .  
Afternoon Pam Griffin is called to Fernies by Polly. She said Fleet White was there not letting anyone get near Patsy
2:20 pm autopsy completed and Eller briefed on findings

Early afternoon Det John Eller holds press conference where he seems depressed, tired and obviously reluctant to face them. Speaks softly and didn’t say much. “We have no reason to believe it was a kidnapping or not at this time”

3:00 pm Fleet leaves to go to BPD headquarters 
4:00 pm Fleet returns to Fernies, according to Bynam behaving completely differently 

John also comments that Fleet White’s demeanour changed after this visit to police HQ – he became upset and confused 
5:00 pm Fleet White goes to Mike Bynam’s office to talk about situation. It appears that David Williams, a private investigator was there. 
Coroner’s ruling that JonBenet died of asphyxiation caused by strangulation is publicly revealed.
Police indicate to journalist Charlie Brennan that they believe the parents are responsible and to journalist Julie Hayden that they are concentrating on the parents
Later that evening Dets Mason and Arndt interview Ramseys at John and Barbara Fernie’s house 
 
Saturday Dec. 28:
Det Steve Thomas begins to work on the case. He had been a friend of police chief John Eller for 6 years. 
Jane Stobie ex-Access Graphics employee called Boulder police to say she had important information for them. Police did not return her call

John, John Andrew, Burke go to police station and give non-testimonial evidence (blood, hair, handwriting samples),Patsy too distraught to do so 

Information leaked that coroner has found evidence of sexual attack
Shortly after noon, without consulting John or Patsy, Bynum told Arndt that Ramseys would not give any more testimonial evidence without a criminal attorney present, and they would no longer share privileged information with police. 
Bynum calls Bryan Morgan of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman. Bryan Morgan goes to see John and Patsy at the Fernies. Ramseys retain Morgan as their attorney
Pam Paugh was allowed to enter Ramsey home and collect some belongings. During the visit a police officer said to Pam “Your sister and brother-in-law killed this child”
News stories make it clear that Ramseys are principal suspects                                                                                                                    
5:40 pm at the Justice Center Patsy gave her FIRST handwriting sample 
Evening Ramseys meet with Bryan Morgan and Patrick Burke

Sunday Dec. 29:

Bynum confirmed that Detectives Arndt and Kim Stewart could speak to John Andrew and Melinda and John’s brother Jeff.
Detective Kim Stewart interviewed Melinda Ramsey for 2.5 hours
Memorial service held at St John’s in Boulder. Detectives Mason, Thomas, Gosage, Arndt attended
Arndt faxed 2 pages of questions to Bryan Morgan for the Ramseys
6:00 pm to 8:00 pm Detectives Ron Gosage andSteve Thomas interviewed John Andrew Ramsey
Ramseys flew to Atlanta for funeral
Head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, Holly Smith inspects JonBenet’s room and notes that all panties in bedroom dresser are fecal smudged
Execution of THIRD search warrant– JR’s computer records seized 

[b]Monday 
Dec. 30:[/b]

Sherriff John Epp’s detectives reported that some of Eller’s officers were just sitting around when they should have been canvassing the Ramseys’ neighbourhood. 
A few hours later Dets Jane Harmer and Arndt go to John Fernie’s office to meet with Fernie and White. Fernie Is worried that police suspect John Andrew. 
Det Arndt interviewed Fleet White. White said an intruder must have gotten in. That someone wanted to hurt that family and hurt daughter.
Whites and Fernies flew to Atlanta for funeral
Bloodstains obtained from panties were submitted to Colorado Bureau of Investigationfor DNA testing. Also submitted were samples from John, Patsy, Burke, John Andrew, Melinda, Jeff Ramsey, Linda Hoffman Pugh, Mervin Pugh, and John Fernie
CBI Director Carl Whiteside said they had one piece of evidence they were working on declining to say what it was. 
Ramseys announce that Bryan Morgan had been hired to represent John, and Patrick Burke for Patsy, (both from firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman) 
Eller placed Det Sgt Tom Wickman in charge of crime scene investigation
Revealed by police that ransom amount was $118,000. Also that there was no sign of forced entry
 
Tuesday Dec. 31: 
JonBenet’s funeral in Atlanta burial in Marietta, Ga. 
Boulder police ask Marietta police to go to funeral home and take tracings and measurements of JonBenet’s hands 
Westmoreland, close friend of CNN president organises for Ramseys do interview on cable news network
Dets Thomas and Gosage interviewed Joe Barnhill Snr who was said to have a key to the Ramsey house. They found out he had a boarder, Glenn Meyer, who lived in their basement
Dets Thomas and Gosage  immediately interviewed Glenn Meyer as per instructions from Eller
Det Carey Weinheimer met with Denise Wolf of Access Graphics to get names of people who might have a grievance against John
Dets Patterson and Weinheimer interviewed Jeff Merrick former employee of Access Graphics, still following up the old kidnapping theory
Not all Access Graphics ex-employees were immediately interviewed because some were away interstate 
Ramseys hire their own investigators
After the funeral Fleet flips and becomes violently angry that Ramseys have hired their own investigators (and are ‘not co-operating’ with police). Big argument with John about that and also about them going to appear on CNN television show even though he was initially all for it. 
Eller announces to detectives they will now focus on the Ramsey family and their friends. 

Print this item

  Dylan Howard book
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-24-2019, 09:39 PM - Forum: 2019 - No Replies

   
Overview

[b]Resolving for the Murder of a Child Beauty Queen and a Botched Investigation[/b]

The killing of six-year-old beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey—found in the basement of her family home in Boulder, Colorado, with a smashed skull and a garrote placed around her neck—remains one of America’s most shameful unsolved crimes. A flawed investigation, fraught with police and prosecutorial misconduct and widespread evidence tampering, means that the little girl’s killer remains at large after more than two decades.
 
Now, as told in Killing JonBenét Ramsey an unflinching new investigation into the crime will seek to finally secure justice for JonBenét. Investigative journalist Dylan Howard has assembled a crack team of internationally renowned criminal investigators, experts, and lawyers with the express aim of finding her killer.
 
They have sifted through scores of new tips and leads, pored over never-before-seen crime scene evidence, searched through hundreds of pages of coroners’ reports, police statements, and private journals, and conducted many exclusive new interviews. They have petitioned courts and law enforcement agencies, gathered archival material, and utilized new scientific advances.
 
This is not a retelling of JonBenét’s story; it is an active investigation of her murder. Combining the compulsive draw of a Hollywood movie blockbuster, the addictive thrill of the police procedural, and the heartwrenching tragedy of the real-life murder of a beautiful toddler and the consequences for her family, Killing JonBenét Ramsey seeks to put right one of the modern age’s most monstrous wrongs.

Print this item

  ALL CORD - - bought evidence
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-21-2019, 03:27 PM - Forum: cord ligature - wrist - No Replies

The Boulder police went to the Boulder Army Store and bought 45 packages of 3/18 inch white nylon cord

BPD  #023ST
CBI  526
FBI - - K 022-066


No one ever said the cord matched.

Print this item

  McGuckins Hardware
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-21-2019, 03:23 PM - Forum: Duck Tape - No Replies

Documentation in green X files - - police bought SIX rolls of black duct tape from McGuckins.

That much can be proven

FBI evidence #K003 1-6  same as  BPD 055RPG

No reason to believe any match was made to those rolls.

Print this item

  12/30/1996-1/9/1997
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-13-2019, 10:55 AM - Forum: lab reports - Replies (31)


.pdf   19961230-CBIrpt.pdf (Size: 175.64 KB / Downloads: 1)

Print this item

Thumbs Down Patsy's jacket fibers
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-12-2019, 10:00 PM - Forum: Fiber and Hair Evidence - Replies (1)

10-04-2002 48 Hours Investigates - "Searching for a Killer"

Erin Moriarty: (Talking to Patsy) "What do you think about these fibers?"

Patsy Ramsey:
"After John discovered the body and she was brought to the living room. I laid eyes on her; I knelt down and hugged her. But I was, had my whole body on her body. My sweater fibers or whatever I had on that morning are going to transfer to her clothing."

Print this item