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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 7
» Latest member: John Andrew
» Forum threads: 1,614
» Forum posts: 5,120

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 12 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 12 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
GSLDPD99178617
Forum: DNA found in panties
Last Post: jameson245
05-17-2020, 01:02 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 346
May 2020 Boulder Camera a...
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: Dave
05-11-2020, 12:29 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 540
GSLDPD99178617
Forum: What is in the news - staying up to date
Last Post: jameson245
05-08-2020, 08:04 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 255
Bobby Brown = friend of L...
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-05-2020, 05:17 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 238
odds and ends people
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-04-2020, 06:42 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 154
James Rapp
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2020, 11:29 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 143
me on Lin Wood
Forum: Some Important quotes
Last Post: jameson245
04-25-2020, 09:45 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 300
announcing appointment
Forum: Police Chief Maris Herold
Last Post: jameson245
04-25-2020, 07:56 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 140
M'Linda Kula
Forum: Discredited and discounted witnesses in this case
Last Post: jameson245
04-25-2020, 07:14 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 293
Pete Peterson
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
04-23-2020, 11:36 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 2,898

 
  In senate questionaire
Posted by: jameson245 - 11-09-2019, 10:18 AM - Forum: Judge Carnes Decision in Wolf Lawsuit - No Replies

10. Wolfv. Ramsey, Case No. 1:00-cv-1187-JEC, 253 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (N.D. Ga. 2003).

This was a civil case arising out of the widely-publicized and unsolved murder of six-year old JonBenet Ramsey, whose body was found in the basement of her parent's home in Boulder, Colorado. The plaintiff, Mr. Wolf, sued the Ramsey parents based on allegedly defamatory statements that they had made indicating their belief that he should be considered a suspect. The plaintiff contended that the Ramseys necessarily knew that he should not be a suspect because they knew that they had murdered their own child or, at least, knew that someone, other than the plaintiff, was responsible for the murder. I granted summary judgment for the Ramseys as the material evidence presented by them, and not disputed by the plaintiff, could not, as a matter of law, give rise to an inference that they had killed their child. My decision was based only on the civil record before me, which did not include the police investigative reports. The plaintiff had made little to no effort to adduce any facts in support of his contentions and my Order did not profess to answer definitively the question of who had murdered the child.

Print this item

  DNA and plea bargains
Posted by: jameson245 - 11-08-2019, 08:38 PM - Forum: DNA - more technical discussions - No Replies

https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstr...sequence=1

Print this item

  Quinn Hasley
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-30-2019, 08:04 PM - Forum: Ramsey family FRIENDS - Replies (1)

Quinn Podcast Interview (part 1)
[Image: renderTimingPixel.png]


The first 19:30 of this episode for those who can't listen or prefer to read:
INTRODUCTION
Hello, and welcome back to DIE-ALOGUE: a true crime conversation. I’m your host, Rebekah Sebastian and today I am speaking with Quinn. Quinn is a childhood friend of JonBenet Ramsey, and in listening back to our conversation I have to tell you that this is exactly the kind of dialogue I imagined having when I imagined starting this podcast. I just love her candor and vulnerability and we just talked all about the things that mean so much to me and that I wonder about and I have some very in real-time conclusions and thoughts and responses to the things that she shares, and it was just a great conversation, and the fact that it was hovering around the case of JonBenet Ramsey sort of just made it icing on the cake if you ask me. So I feel extremely honored to have had this conversation and I want to thank Quinn very specifically for choosing to sit down with me and share her story and thereby share it with you. So, please enjoy this episode of DIE-ALOGUE: a true crime conversation.
REBEKAH: Quinn, welcome to DIE-ALOGUE: a true crime conversation. Thank you so much for sitting down with me today.
QUINN: Thank you so much for having me.
R: Yeah of course. I was really glad to get your message, like all good things it started on Instagram.
Q: Always, always - sliding in peoples’ DMs.
R: Yes, oh my gosh I’m like the queen of that so I appreciated it and I particularly loved that you were pitching this idea of maybe you talking on DIALOGUE because you are connected to, I think your words were, ‘a semi-popular cold case.”
Q: I think I downplayed it a little.

R: Yeah, which was good. I mean you know, the intrigue was there so I wrote back and I said, ‘just curious, which case is it?’ and you can tell us what you replied.
Q: I replied, ‘It’s the JonBenet Ramsey case.’
R: Right, I’m like I think I’ve heard of that one, say more.
Q: Yeah, people have.
R: So this is kind of exactly up my alley in terms of exploring true crime and the genre itself. There sort of is no case that embodies true crime, in a weird way the way - I would say it’s one of maybe five or ten that everybody can reference.
Q: Every kind of like true crime podcasts, books I feel like everybody’s covered this case.
R: Everybody’s covered it. And everybody knows it. She is a household name. The case is a household case. So your perspective is that of a childhood friend. So maybe we could start there, in Colorado I assume.
Q: Yes, in Colorado.
R: So, you’re from Boulder, and do you want to tell us how you came to know the Ramseys? Was it your whole family or was it just you and JonBenet through school, or, how did that come about?
Q: So, JonBenet and I went to the same preschool in Boulder, which was, it was a preschool that was housed in the church that both of our families went to - ? Prebyterian, in Boulder. So I met her, I guess I was like, three or four, in preschool. So originally it was really just, me knowing her because it was just us being in preschool together. After a while, I would say that of anybody in my family knowing anybody else closely, it would be my mom knowing Patsy. Just because they’re both moms and they’re doing playdates and stuff together so that would probably be the other family member that talked to anybody who was really in the family.
R: So, what are your first memories of her as your friend?
Q: I would say something that I always found really interesting about her, it’s a weird, distinct memory that I have is, and everybody knows that her family was fairly well off, that’s like always part of the story that I think comes up when people are discussing it - and I remember it’s just kind of getting that vibe from her family. Like, she had nicer things than some of the other kids and I remember as a kid bringing it up to her when I first met her and her being like, ‘oh, I don’t like to talk about that.’ Like, she was very aware of it as a kid, which I think is really interesting, that she didn’t want to brag about it, she was very like ‘I don’t like to talk about that my family has money,’ and like for a four year old -
R: That’s so mature. That is like an old soul.
Q: I know! I really think that she was incredibly mature for her age.
R: Wow. That’s kind of wild because most kids at that age it’s all about having the best stuff and -
Q: showing off to everybody and she was so not like that. Very humble.
R: Oh my gosh. So, I mean, Boulder as an area, nice town?
Q: Very affluent town. Not very diverse, as a town, but yeah - I mean everybody always talks about that one of the reasons why the case had so many flaws when it came to solving the crime was that things like that just don’t happen there.
R: They didn’t know how to deal with it.
Q: Yeah, like drunk college students… that’s what the police handle in Boulder, but not murders like this.
R: Right, and so you’re saying everyone sort of knew the Ramseys as this sort of especially affluent family? So even within an upscale community even they were kind of, doing better than everyone else?
Q: I would say so. I mean like everybody in Boulder, well not everybody, but, it’s definitely a pretty affluent city but I would still say that they were considered one of the more affluent families there.
R: Ok, and so, your friendship with JonBenet, I mean it obviously, and this is just where the surreal, I mean for me just talking about it, the timeline it’s obviously a very short period of time because her life was cut so tragically short. Did it go past preschool? Did you go to the same kindergarten after preschool?
Q: We did not. So we ended up going to different kindergartens, but we still remained friends and would still have playdates. We definitely didn’t see each other as often just because we’re not with each other every single day but we’d still have playdates up until she died.
R: And how about Mrs. Ramsey? Did you, do you have an impression of her? I can think of my childhood friends’ moms - they’re actually kind of a big influence in your life when your spend a lot of time -
Q: They definitely are. Yeah and I always think about that because I mean I remember having friends’ parents who like I wasn’t as big of a fan of, but I loved Patsy as a kid. She was amazing. People will always talk about that just because the family is always, you know, people aren’t the nicest about the family and I understand that and I can kind of see where people are coming from but simultaneously, I didn’t have a ton of experience really with John or Burke. I didn’t spend that much time with them, but spent a decent amount of time with Patsy and can say only nice things about her - which, I thought she was an amazing mother -
R: Good, I’m glad to hear that.
Q: Very attentive to JonBenet and very sweet to us. I mean, I never had any bad experiences with her.
R: That makes me happy. The pageant thing - was that happening, how did you, did you have consciousness of it ?
Q: Yeah, definitely. I mean, this is always something that comes up with people when they talk about the pageant thing and I know that, a lot of the things I see about it are people saying ‘oh, she was obviously forced into this thing’ and that like because Patsy did the pageants she wanted to have like a little mini-me and honestly, I didn’t see that. Again, I was a kid so there could have been things that I was missing but when JonBenet would talk to me about pageants, I only just remember her being extremely proud of them and showing off the trophies that she had won and writing me postcards like, ‘I’m at this one right now and I’m so excited to do it.’ I also remember, there was one time as a kid, Patsy invited me, JonBenet, and my mom to go watch Patsy in this kind of pageant fashion thing that she was doing in Boulder so I always felt that JonBenet’s pageants were just her wanting to be like her mom.
R: That was their connection.
Q: Yeah, that was a connection that they had. I never got the impression that she was forced into doing anything or that she didn’t enjoy what she was doing. I went to a couple of pageant rehearsals with her, she always seemed to be really enjoying herself. So I never got the impression that it was like, ‘I’m being forced to do this thing and I hate it.’ I mean I remember doing soccer and playing instruments as a kid and hating it.
R: Yeah, most of us have something like that in our childhood!
Q: Just like, I don’t wanna be doing this, and I think kids are pretty vocal about those kinds of things when they don’t want to do them, and I never heard anything like that from her.
R: Ok, I’m glad to hear that too. Did you want to do it? Did it like, I have that best friend that I kind of envied certain things she did or was able to do -
Q: Oh my god, yes. You got to wear the pretty dresses, you got to do your hair, you got to travel. I mean I thought it was the coolest thing when I was a kid.
R: How did your mom perceive it? Do you remember her having an opinion on it like, ‘no it’s not for you or us’ or?
Q: I don’t know. I mean, I was a dancer as a kid so I think I kind of had that similar outlet of like I liked to perform and I get to put makeup on and it’s not like anything weird, it’s just me and what I do for my dance show. This is how I perform. I put on a costume, kind of thing. So I think I found similarities through that.
R: Ok, and then your mom and Mrs. Ramsey, whose name is escaping me - it’s Patricia, right?
Q: Yeah, Patsy. Patricia.
R: Patsy! So, were they friendly? I mean it sounds like you had some experience together the four of you and I guess this move us a little bit more into the future and present - does your mom have perceptions of Patsy and are they pretty aligned with yours?
Q: Yeah. I have not had lengthy discussions with my mom about Patsy. I do know that she met with her a couple of times after JonBenet died. I remember ones of those times. I remember one of those times because Patsy came over, I think this was after they had moved out of Boulder, too.
R: And how soon was that after JonBenet died?
Q: I don’t think it took them very long because they also already had other houses so I think they just went to just go - because I mean like, it’s a lot, living in that house, I can’t even fathom what that would feel like. So it was pretty soon after, I think, and I remember her coming over and she had brought me like a little teddy bear with angel wings, and the teddy bear if you squeezed its hand would say ‘I’m your guardian angel’ and so, she was very, I think she did an amazing job with me as a kid and understanding -
R: Wait so this is Patsy or your mom?
Q: Patsy had brought me that.
R: Was it JonBenet’s or had she just got it for you?
Q: No, she had just gotten it for me.
R: That’s very thoughtful.
Q: Yeah, and I have a couple of letters that she wrote to me and my mom afterwards so I mean she really kept in touch a little bit, I think obviously she was going through a lot and then she had the battle with cancer that she was going through later, so they weren’t extremely close but there was definitely a little bit of contact afterwards.
R: We’ve already gone to the death of JonBenet but let’s go back to maybe right before it happened and leading up - so she was six?
Q: She was six.
R: And you were six? You were the same age?
Q: Yes.
R: So you’re six year old, and news, I mean how quickly did your family hear and the community and what did that look like? Who told you and what did they say?
Q: Obviously it traveled very quickly and because it was such a high profile case it was everywhere, immediately.

R: On the news all day and all night.
Q: My mom actually, this is something that I didn’t even know she did. She tells me these things like years after it happened, but, so you know in the grocery stores that you go up and there’s those trashy magazines? Tabloids? And so she actually went to our local grocery store and told them ‘you have to take these down because my child is going to be here. This just happened to her. You have to take these down because they’re at eye height and she’s gonna see these and this is like the last thing that she needs right now.’ So she like she made them take it down in the grocery store.
R: What a hero.
Q: I know, my mom - same thing, I went to a doctor’s office to get my DNA taken for the FBI and the FBI tried to talk to me and my mom was like, ‘no, you don’t get to talk to my child. This is gonna be so traumatic for her.’ And same with my pediatrician. Immediately was like, ‘nope, you’re not allowed to come into the room.’
R: Wow, so wait the FBI wanted your DNA?
Q: Yes.
R: Because you’d been in that house?
Q: Because I’d been in the house.
R: So timeline, what do you think, was that days after?
Q: I don’t even, I don’t even remember it.

R: So you’re getting your DNA collected, FBI, how does your mom tell you like, ‘that’s what we’re doing today - like, going to get your DNA’?
Q: So she, what she tells me she had told me because I did not have any memory of this as a kid - she told me that we had to go to the doctor’s office because I had to get a strep test done which makes sense because if they’re swabbing my mouth for DNA I would have thought it was a step test. Or I think she said something about like ‘kids are getting strep at school, we have to double check to make sure you’re ok’ kind of a thing. And I just took that as a kid, so -
R: Your mom is emerging as the hero just more and more throughout this story.
Q: She’s definitely my hero.
R: That makes sense. That’s what I would hope to think of if um, I was in that situation, also what’s DNA? Like a four year old, or, six year old you know, there’s not context.
Q: Yeah, I probably would have had zero understanding of that.
R: So, they were doing that because you’d been in the home. So this is an investigation.
Q: Yeah, you know they have to investigate anybody who had recently been in the home or who was close with the family so -
R: How aware of that were you, at six?
Q: I was not aware that I would have been in any way associated with a case, for sure, that definitely did not hit me at all. I don’t honestly, and this is like now an interesting thing to think about, I don’t really remember what age I was when I finally realized that like her family was being investigated. Cause I know that I had that realization at some point but I don’t really remember how old I was ‘cause my parents really were like, I told you about getting the tabloids taken down and if it ever came on the TV they would turn it off.
R: So they were really sheltering you from the reality of what was happening. But I’m sure if I were to interview your mom, it was probably going rampant like through the mom circuit.
Q: I cannot even imagine. We stopped going to church because it was such an issue and then people at church were turning against the Ramseys and there was a lot of internal drama and so like we stopped going to church because it was all over the church. So there was a lot of like, things that I didn’t realize were happening when I was a kid that my parents were obviously dealing with and trying to keep me as removed from it as possible.
R: Was there any trickle-down on the first-grade, second-grade level of kids? I mean obviously a classmate was lost, you weren’t in her same school, but a child in your community, were kids talking about that?
Q: I remember me bringing it up to other kids ‘cause I think as like a six, seven year old learning how to process that was really difficult. So I remember talking about her a lot as a kid to other kids. And that was mainly it was like ‘she was one of my best friends’ and ‘she was so amazing’ and that kind of stuff. So I remember doing that as a kid and they had heard of her. So it was obviously, I mean you talk to I think anybody who was old enough and especially anybody who was living in Boulder that because it was kind of everywhere and all over the news and everything that people were aware even if they were kids of at least who she was.
R: There was this collective consciousness of the story and the case. But I’m curious because the family and the police put out the kidnapping story and the ransom note, was the town like ‘oh my gosh there’s a kidnapper on the loose?’ Was there any more locking of doors and safety talks? Do you remember that or do your parents?
Q: I don’t remember - I remember as a kid kind of because afraid because when my parents told me what had happened it was like under the thing of somebody broke into their house and did this thing and I remember, I mean me and my sister both talk about just being terrified. Like, I had nightmares for a very long - like it - ‘cause you’re just like, ‘oh, I didn’t realize that that was a thing that could happen as a kid’ so it’s this realization of like sometimes people do bad things to children and kind of realizing that at a pretty young age.
R: Your poor parents had to sit down and do that, so - talk about that moment. Do you remember that or is this more kind of like family memory that you share between you or do you remember that moment?
Q: I remember it, my sister I think remembers it more.
R: She was older?
Q: Yeah, she was older. If I was six, my sister would have been nine when it was happening so I think she has a stronger memory of it. I mean I do remember being sat down, it was like we had just had a playdate with two other friends and my sister and I were downstairs and I remember my parents sitting me down and essentially saying what happened, that somebody had broken into the house and that she was dead and that’s kind of the majority of what I really remember from it.

R: But you wouldn’t say there was widespread panic around Boulder, in terms of intruders.
Q: If there was I don’t think I was aware of it. I definitely think that it could have been a possibility. I think it’s kind of like, you hear about this with any town where something like this happens and it’s not something that towns are used to where, now it’s just this realization of oh you have to lock the door and this was something that could happen here and we didn’t realize that this was something that could happen here.
R: It’s like a loss of innocence on this macro-level in a community.
Q: Yes, definitely.



That is part one - - will post the rest as it becomes available.

Print this item

  Dale Yeager on Dave Matthew's
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-30-2019, 08:35 AM - Forum: Discredited and discounted witnesses in this case - No Replies

WROW Radio, The Dave Lucas Radio Show, Albany, NY, January 30, 1999

DAVE LUCAS: On line we have Dale Yeager, the executive director of SERAPH. Hello Mr. Yeager. Welcome to the program.
DALE YEAGER: Hi, how are you?
DAVE LUCAS: Very Good. Mr. Yeager has been involved in the training of law enforcement officers in "less than lethal" tactics for more than ten years. He's a trained criminal analyst who's consulted on more than 130 criminal cases - including the murder investigation of JonBenét Ramsey. Now, you were hired by the Boulder Police Department. Tell us about that.
DALE YEAGER: I was hired by the district attorney’s office to work with the investigative team. Originally we were asked to do an analysis of the ransom note and then in the spring of last year we were asked to write a psychological profile on Patsy Ramsey.
Excuse me for being bold but I've been sitting here listening to this now for three hours. I am one of the few people, my team of people are one of the few people that actually worked on this case. We are not reading things in the newspaper, we are not getting things off of CNN. I had information to do my work that none of these guests had -- and these theories are just... I'm blown away by this.
DAVE LUCAS: There are some ???? theories aren't they?
DALE YEAGER: You know there's a lot of "wanna be experts" out there and it really disgusts me that this case has become a magnet would like to theorize in an area they have no right to be in. I have done this for 10 years. I've worked on cases like this before and some of these theories have no basis in reality. I think that your listeners need to understand that there's significant, some significant issues here that need to be dealt with and some issues here that affect our society as a whole and I just think that needs to be brought out.
DAVE LUCAS: Well, who killed JonBenét Ramsey?
DALE YEAGER: Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter.
DAVE LUCAS: What evidence do you have to support that?
DALE YEAGER: The evidence is very clear. Patsy Ramsey is a sociopath. There are basically two types of people who commit violent acts. There are sociopaths and psychopaths. A sociopath is a person who is very controlling. A sociopath is a person that must be in charge at all times. They pick someone in their life to control, or multiple people to control. When they can no longer control that individual, they lash out at them - either by isolating them out of their life - more than likely killing them. OJ Simpson is a sociopath and it's not very hard to understand the basic motive behind this murder. The problem is that all the so-called "experts" we heard tonight who get all their media attention really are using logic to understand an illogical act. We have a woman here who has been immersed in a subculture of religious fervor- that has never been brought out as far as the motivation here. She is a religious delusional sociopath and it would take me literally six hours to explain to - to commit to people how that works. The bottom line is that her daughter was growing up and becoming more independent. The bedwetting was part of that... different things that... anyone could read the newspaper... you could see there was a split between her and her daughter.
DAVE LUCAS: Let me ask you, what about the sexual abuse?
DALE YEAGER: There's... You know what? Let me tell you something. First of all, autoerotic asphyxiation ... there... if you talk to child abuse experts, the occurrence of that with an adult on a child, there are no cases of that. Show me a case where that has happened involving a child. Normally it is done in a solo act of masturbation -- or it has been done with couples...
[SNIP]
DALE YEAGER: OK - the bottom line is that the motivation for killing a child is very simple - either jealousy, control, sex or rage. It's not that difficult - this isn't brain surgery we are talking about here. We have a woman who is very controlling. We have a woman here who has shown signs of violence in the past -- it's not that difficult to see the connection here. When her daughter starts becoming more aggressive, becoming more independent and she lashes out at her. You know these elaborate theories that have been perpetuated by people who really have a financial interest in the case more than anything else....
CALLER: Have you ever seen a religious delusion murder situation which involved an elaborate cover-up like this one was?
DALE YEAGER: One of my specialties, one of the things that we do a lot of with murder cases, are murder cases that involve people who are using... who have committed an act of violence or murder with some kind of religious motivation whether it be ritualistic.. something like that. As far as "elaborate cover-up, I will agree that the ransom note is the central key feature to the evidence in this case. It certainly hasn't been given the attention that it deserves. You know, as far as "coded messages" are concerned, I find that kind of ironic since the ransom note itself is poorly written. It's obviously written in haste. It's written by someone who has limited knowledge of grammar if nothing else. As far as the religious motivation is concerned, you can look at Patsy's writings, you can look at her involvement with the charismatic movement, and you add to that a near death experience like having..... cancer. You add to that her sociopathic tendencies and you get a fairly scary individual, you get a violent individual. I just think people need to understand this is more common than just this case. People do have religious delusions and they take things out of context. We've always believed that the 118 was related to scripture that showed up in many of her writings and ....
Pardon me?
Caller: I know that people sometimes kill their children in a brief delusional state, a brief psychotic episode. You don't see it as that. What evidence do you have that she is sociopathic?
DALE YEAGER: Well, a sociopath is very easy to define - a sociopath is a person that likes to control the situation, they like to control the people around them. Their opinion is the only one that matters. They tend to be very aggressive verbally. They tend to be very aggressive physically. When they are attacked, they become the victim, "poor pitiful me". They are kind of a chameleon in a social setting. They are usually leaders, the type of person who takes charge in a situation. And then you add to the fact that she comes from a southern culture.... and that's a whole other aspect... women in southern cultures... you know, the.. the whole aspect of women being reared in southern cultures where protecting your family by lying, protecting your family by any means is something almost genetically drilled into that subculture. There's a lot of aspects to this but the bottom line is it's a very common crime - a child being killed by their parents, especially the mother. You look at her past, you look at her personality, the evidence is there that she's committed this crime. My job as a profiler with investigative teams is to give them some kind of an idea of motivation. The motivation here is somewhat simple but it has some complicated aspects to it. And mainly it's this feeling that we believe she felt she was going to die and she started to see a need for a sacrifice that she had to make and the murder of her daughter becomes a sacrifice. You can't understand those kinds of motivations with logical thought. Everyone's coming at this tonight from a very forensics perspective and I have a great deal of respect for forensic scientists, a very important part of solving crimes, but there are other aspects to trying to figure out motive than just forensics.
LANCE MATTHEWS: Evidence of stun gun or TAZER - any... is that crap??
DALE YEAGER: Well, look, I do not claim and never have claimed to be a forensic expert. My responsibility in the investigation of a crime is to assess motive, to research anomalies in that crime, and to provide questions for the interview of suspects. So I just don't claim to be a forensics person, at best it would be guessing. I do agree with your current guest that's on with me, I'm sorry I forget your name, about the series of events in regards to how the death occurred. I do agree with that. I think that the evidence is very clear that that is how things occurred.
But remember too, that strangulation is a very intimate type of crime. There's two types of intimate crimes and that is strangulation and stabbing someone with an edged weapon. So whenever you see that in a murder scene, you know there was some kind of an intimate connection between the two people - when that's the method of killing. Strangulation or using an edged weapon. They're very intimate ways of killing. There's enough evidence here to point to the people closest to this poor young girl.
Program was interrupted.... problems at studio...
Apologies from DAVE LUCAS -
DALE YEAGER: Maybe it's an omen...
LANCE MATTHEWS: Where were we?
DALE YEAGER: We were talking about the method of the killing which really points to some specific motive in itself...
Caller from Albany suggesting making this a federal case.
DALE YEAGER: I think that the district attorney.... I finally quit and said enough is enough. I refused to work anymore on the case. My partner who wrote those reports with me agreed ... there were a lot of us who left basically at the same time that Steve Thomas left. We'd had enough. I think the district attorney - I think your caller is correct in the sense that the district attorney I think has political aspirations and this is my opinion, my personal opinion, I think he believes that is he tries the case and loses it, that his political aspirations will go down the drain similar to the district attorney in Los Angeles who lost the OJ case. And I think that's why this incompetent investigation from the district attorney's perspective. I think the police who have been involved, the detectives who have been involved have been top notch and I think they've tried to do their job but they've been hampered by a district attorney who is more concerned about perception than doing the job that he was hired to do.
CHARLES BOSWORTH: No, Hunter has no political aspirations - he is dead politically. "The DA has been bribed. Period."
No one really knew where John Ramsey had all his money - a bribe could be paid in the future.
"How much does the family have?
DALE YEAGER: There was quite a bit.
CHARLES BOSWORTH: How much?"
DALE YEAGER: I've been told 30 million... or 45....
CHARLES BOSWORTH: -- Is that all?
DALE YEAGER: What's that?
Have you checked the value of the stock lately?
DALE YEAGER: I don't know. I think the district attorney... there's a possibility that that has occurred. I've heard some things to that, only rumors. Because he stepped in front of a lot of bullets for the family
CHARLES BOSWORTH: We need a federal...
DALE YEAGER: I do agree with that assessment
Lance Matthews pointed out that Hal Haddon is multi-million dollar partners with DA Alex Hunter -- talk about lax legal system in Colorado...
DALE YEAGER:.... Someone has to step in and intervene in this case because it has dragged on too long. I said before there are social implications of this case on a national basis that I think no one has really talked much about. I think one of them is that there is a lot of classism that has been brought to the surface because of this case. I get a lot of people asking me - when I work out at the YMCA or when I am at church - about the case. And invariably, as much as this is an amateur survey, invariably, white wealthy women will say to me, "I can't perceive that happening. Why... how can a mother kill her daughter?" And I will always say to them, "Well, if she was Black or Hispanic, would you feel the same way?" And they ALWAYS say, "Well, no. That happens in that society."
LANCE MATTHEWS: "Let's go to Patsy's origins - let's go with Southern women."
DALE YEAGER: This is an subject that will probably annoy certain listeners but try to understand it from a criminal analysis perspective.
Our culture, American culture, is really made up of a lot of subcultures. For example, I am Pennsylvania Dutch. My family has been in Pennsylvania since 1703 and that's a subculture and there are certain norms about that subculture. One of the things we know about Southern culture is that women in Southern cultures, with exceptions but for the most part, are raised in a very specific way. And one of the things that the Justice Department, where I received my training, did a study of this and found that there is a... what is called a sociopathic tendency to childrearing as it relates to women in Southern culture. I know this sounds bizarre but is very real and the best way to explain that is the case of the woman in Texas several years ago who attempted or did kill the girl who took her daughter's spot on the cheerleading team. If you remember that case.
LANCE MATTHEWS: I remember that one.
DALE YEAGER: When she was interviewed by detectives, she said, "I was taught by my mother that you protect your family at all costs." And we call it "The Cult of the Family". James Dobson is probably the greatest perpetuator of this "The Cult of the Family".
The family is more important than anything else and it becomes an obsession. And so these woman of the southern culture are taught that lying to protect your family, doing illegal acts or unethical things is part of your process of being a mom.

Print this item

  Dale Yeager's reports
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-30-2019, 08:31 AM - Forum: Discredited and discounted witnesses in this case - No Replies

PROFILE REPORT
Analysis of $118,000 ransom demand in Ramsey case
To: Det. Ron Gosage
Reference: Psalm 118:27b, Biblical reference Old Testament

"The Lord is our God, Who has shown and given us light. Decorate the festival with leafy boughs and bind the sacrifices to be offered with thick cords to the horns of the altar."

Based on my experience, this second section of verse 27 has been used by several white supremacy groups such as the Christian Identity movement and the Aryan Nation to justify their killing of blacks, Jews and other minorities. In their non-orthodox view, the verse is speaking of offering a person as a sacrifice to God and God is accepting their sacrifice on his altar as atonement. No conservative or liberal Christian theologians interpret the verse in this way.

We have consulted with several theologians about the verse and all have agreed that the verse is a metaphor concerning praise and redemption.

As a historical note, the Hebrews where required to offer a blood sacrifice to God to atone for their sins as a nation. A lamb or sheep would be placed on the altar and tied to the four extended horns of the altar with thick cords. The animal was then cut and bled until it was dead. The blood was then used in ceremony for the "washing away by the blood, the sins of the people".

White supremacists use the redemption and sacrifice ideas to form a justification for killing "animals" [minorities] and offering them to God.

In 1987, I met a FBI agent who told me about a case in the late 1970s, that involved this verse of scripture. The case involved a woman with a very conservative Christian background, who strangled her daughter and used this verse as a justification for the killing. Her belief was that the child would be better off in "heaven with God" and that the daughter would be a redemptive sacrifice to God for her [the mother's] sins. We have tried to find information about this case but have been unsuccessful. I would suggest a call to the Psychological Crimes Unit of the FBI in Quantico, VA.

My assessment of this verse and it's possible relevance to this case is as follows: The person using this verse would be from a conservative Christian background, i.e. Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, etc. They would see themselves as having committed a grievous sin that requires more than a prayer of forgiveness. Their disgust for their sin would lead to anger towards themselves and towards the person that they felt they had wronged in this case the girl.

By killing the child they believed that they where taking the child from a dark world or a dark existence and sending the child to a better place. This blood sacrifice would in their mind bring them redemption for their sin and rid them of their guilt as it related to the child.

I have spent over twenty years studying extreme conservative Christian ideology. Based on my experience and research, this belief in para-redemptive acts manifests itself in many ways, some extreme and some more philosophical.

From my limited knowledge of the killing [ news reports of forensic findings ], I believe that the individual who committed this act, had no previous experience with the killing of a human being.

If the information is correct, the strangulation and blunt trauma to the skull meant that the offender tried one method of killing the girl and then changed to a different method out of frustration. One of these methods failed and the person resorted to a second method to kill the victim. The contusions and other secondary injuries may have been attempts to control the victim during a struggle or strikes of frustration when the child did not die on the first attempt.

Based on my experience this crime was done by an intimate, a person who knew the victim and had an emotional attachment to the victim. If the forensic information that I have is correct, the offender attempted strangulation first, ]. The offender was in my opinion connected to the victim in an emotional way.

I hope that this information assist you in your investigation. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact me.

Submitted: 29 July 1997


 

Dale Yeager

Murder Investigation of JonBenet Ramsey
EVIDENCE ANALYSIS
Part II

Prepared by:
SERAPH Inc.
Dale Yeager
Denise Knoke
25-May-98

Psalm 118:18 - 27

1/1a As we stated in our first report, we believe that Patsy Ramsey's mindset before and after the murder of JonBenet, was heavily influenced by the charismatic theological subculture that she had embraced during her bout with cancer.

Psalm 118 is a biblical chapter that is used quite often in the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement. This subculture of the Christian Religion has many unwritten fundamentals that they adhere to. One area in which they divert from main stream Christian theology is in the area of biblical interpretation. Because of their extreme emphasis on spiritual gifts, they tend to have a more flexible view of interpretation compared to the more scholarly approach taken by their fellow Christians in main steam denominations.

Rather than believing the scriptures to be the general will of God being presented to all believers, they take a more mystical approach by viewing the scriptures as a prophetic tool used by God to speak to individual believers. This flexible attitude leads to extraordinarily diverse views theologically. We believe that Patsy Ramsey took this approach from the Osteen, Hickey and Barnhill books that she was introduced to during her illness.

1/2a Several words and phrases that appear in the ransom note also appear together and with great frequency in these books and in the Charismatic subculture. The following list explains their importance in this case.


CORDS OR BINDINGS - Binding is a significant word used frequently in the Charismatic subculture. It stems from the belief that Satan/Evil does not operate without Gods permission. This tenant of Charismatic theology requires that individual believers verbally "bind" Satan's power over their lives through prayer, verbal affirmations to other believers during worship and in some cases through the ceremonial tying of physical cords or ropes around themselves or others. It is possible that the tying of JonBenet body with cords was linked to Patsy's view of JonBenet's death, whether accidental or deliberate, as a para-redemptive sacrifice similar to the request by God to Abraham regarding his son.

S.B.T.C. - In the Charismatic subculture, acronyms are quite common and used quite frequently as teaching tools and on banners [In church icons]. S.B.T.C. is a well-used acronym that represents the words "saved by the cross". In our extensive database of terroristic groups, we find no use of this phrase with White Supremacy or International Organizations. The author of the ransom note uses this acronym along with the word "victory". The word "victory" is used in the Charismatic subculture as a verb. It is seen as the result of actions taken by believers to bind and overcome Satan's power primarily in the areas of physical health.

SACRIFICE - The concept of sacrifice is prominent in all Christian theology most clearly in the idea of Jesus being sacrificed on the cross for the remission of the world's sins. In Charismatic theology sacrifice is connected to chastisement. The idea that believers must sacrifice to be truly repentant is emphasized heavily. Charismatic theology holds that true confession involves sacrificial action by the believer. This sacrificial action is usually benign such as asking forgiveness from a person you have offended.
We believe that Patsy Ramsey is a delusional sociopath. Based on our experience with religious sociopaths, we believe that she saw JonBenet's death as a sacrifice for sins she had committed. Obviously Psalm 118 does not ask for human sacrifice but in her delusional mindset she interpreted verse 27 as a request by God for a para-redemptive act.
1/3a Our conclusion is that you are investigating a child's murder with ritualistic overtones. Mrs. Ramsey's motives and post incident actions cannot be understood with rational thought. This crime was committed by a delusional individual who has convinced herself of her own innocence. Sociopaths always view their violent actions as justified. When a divine intervention is added to this justification pathology, you have a highly volatile individual.

We do not believe as has been theorized that this murder was the result of sexual assault. The autopsy report clearly states that the vaginal trauma was superficial and not consistent with known forensic profiles of sexual assault. There is no evidence in pedophile research of strangulation as a means of sexual gratification for a child molester. Strangulation and sexual assault are most commonly seen in sadomasochism between heterosexual and homosexual adults. Or by late adolescent and young adult males during masturbation.

We do not believe that John Ramsey was involved in a sexual relationship with JonBenet. We do believe that he played a role in the cover up that followed the murder.

 

Print this item

  Lou Smit
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-26-2019, 10:25 AM - Forum: Some Important quotes - Replies (3)

"If there is evidence of an intruder, it is not the parents."   Lou Smit

Print this item

  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