Comments on: DNA Clears Family In JonBenet Slaying

Colo. Prosecutor Says New Tests Point To "Unexplained Third Party" In Girl's 1996 Killing

[nssherlock1]

OK then, who killed her and hid her in the basement?
Posted by lovesamerica



O.J. Simpson. He loved him some young White Women!

[brianp55]

Hmmmm....Sounds like what the DA is actualy saying is something like the following: "We now have new DNA evidence that completely exonerates the Ramsey family. So of course, it is completely understandable that we were never able to generate sufficient evidence to bring any of them to trial. Good job, boys".

[o2bewealthy]

It''s sad that some of you refuse to accept DNA evidence, and even sadder that Patsy Ramsey died under a cloud of suspicion. An apology seems insufficient here - I''d like to see some kind of recompense paid to John and Burke Ramsey byt all of those tabloids that crucified them.

[jack773]

Yes robichaldrich4. but you must confirm that there is looking for something there rather than wandering DNA. If a match comes up then a match is a match, no matter how volitile the solution. The Simpson crime scene matches were interesting because they were so weak - to my mind they really looked very planted.
I''m not a DNA guy, more of a streeter, and I can''t see one guy - anyone doing Goldmann vary quickly without much yelling - two guys necessary probably.
So more that one person involved yet one man being tried, no blood drops around the Rockingham glove yet plenty everywhere else - hey this was a dope crime, and probably Goldmann happened in at the wrong time - it will never be solved.

[candyc4]

Unbelievable! I worked in the criminal justice system and I never believe the parents were guilty. It didn''t make sense. Then the leading criminoligist in the FBI said they weren''t guilty. Now DNA says they aren''t guilty. But the ''experts'' on here still believe
they are guilty. Innocent until proven guilty doesn''t mean anything in the USA. The media trashed these people. How would it feel to be wrongly accused of murdering your child and then know there are idiots who don''t want to let go of their. I believe the US is the only democracy where somebody can be so destroyed without ever being charged. I suspect the people on here who still believe they are guilty also believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. But what can you expect from people who don''t believe the holocaust--certainly not intelligence. Don''t bother with nasty answers Iwon''t see it.

[robaldrich]

Someone said, ''This does NOT "clear" anyone, it simply means that there was at least 1 perp who was present and was not a biological member of the family.
_____

Good thing this is America and nobody has to "clear" themselves, at least in theory. The government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[kaffirboetie]

All credit to vivaviva80 for using what little english she has to make a valid point on this article, namely the tendency of local US police forces to make assumptions of guilt about someone and ignore any other evidence that does not support that assumption. It is clear that each State needs to create a "Police Complaints Authority" similar to that which exists in Britain. This may go some way to deterring the overzealous victimisation of marginal suspects

[robaldrich]

Jack773 said, ''Exactly what I said, robaldrich4, . . . .

Thanks Jack773. It''s hard to disagree, when you agree with me.

[excoachken]

This does NOT "clear" anyone, it sinply means that there was at least 1 perp who was present and was not a biological member of the family. It could be that the bro was involved in a double team, with a "buddy."

[dmhphils]

It''''s well documented that this District Attorney is an advocate for the family and has been trying to clear their name since the day she took office. She has NO credibility. I think Patsy did it (probably an accident) but there wasn''''t enough solid evidence to bring her to trial.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by thisandthat1 at 09:43 PM : Jul 09, 2008

Read the book by the Ramsey''s and that should change your mind. The media tried and convicted them when the district attorney knew there was not enough evidence to do it.

[jack773]

Wait a minute rudy664 - I never said that.
In fact I am a holocaust denier.

[jack773]

Exactly what I said, robaldrich4 - these guys or women, are absolutely correct until you find a match. then all their circumstantialisms are out the window.
I work mostly with historical crime, and crime scenes are a big part of that too, of course. The crime scenes of botched Lindbergh are an excellent example, but look at Simpson and Ramsey - much more botched, and how much have we learned.
Simpson is especially interesting because although his being black may have had nothing to do with it, he''s the only high profile crime to my knowledge to be slanted towards the initial suspect, including Leopold and Loeb (who were homosexuals) and Sheppard -which wasn''t slanted, he just made a poor impression on the jury.
I am certainly not a racist, and I look at these crimes objectively, but look at how Ramsey''s crime scene was slanted away from the Ramseys just as another good example. There are of course many more.

[thisandthat1]

It''s well documented that this District Attorney is an advocate for the family and has been trying to clear their name since the day she took office. She has NO credibility. I think Patsy did it (probably an accident) but there wasn''t enough solid evidence to bring her to trial.

[robaldrich]

The methods used to analyze and genotype DNA sequences are VERY sensitive to contamination. Simply stated, this "touch test", IMO, is far too little, far too late after far too many persons have handled this clothing and there have been far to many opportunities for contamination....AND virtually all of the circumstantial evidence points to member of the family. Please recall "Ockham''''s Razor".
________

Thank you for your explanation. I''m sorry. It just goes to show that no matter how much you know, what seems certain, may not be. My nuclear physics and legal backgrounds failed me.

So this DNA test is as worthless as fingerprints, polygraphs, handwriting tests, and blood tests. All have been excluded by U.S. courts when you can afford to bring in a national or international expert to testify. I''m an attorney now.

If we are going on circumstantial evidence, wouldn''t the fact that the DNA from the touch test was determined to be the same as the earlier blood sample overcome the circumstantial evidence you mention, using reasonable doubt as the standard?

[rudy654-2009]

Posted by JACK773 at 09:24 PM

You remind me of holocaust deniers. You make it up as you go.

[susanhelit]

DNA one place could be an error - and that''s what we''ve had for the last decade, one bit of DNA in her panties. But DNA 3 separate places from the same mystery person - that''s no error, that''s no contamination - that''s a killer.

[jack773]

For Brianp55 - that''s true - unless you come up with a match! Then what you say is not at all true.

[jack773]

You''re mostly barking up the wrong tree. The DNA is probably from one of Patsy''s "photographer - junkies" who got an agreement to photo her alone in the basement for a load to Patsy upstairs, and things went beyond things. Patsy tried to cover with the note (concededly by experts to be written by her) and it had probably been going on for a while with John''s knowledge (why wouldn''t he wake up that night when a person or persons entered his home, and there was a very loud scream and other noises heard across the street, but not upstairs?) so what could John do but cover as best he could.
If DNA on the several photographers could be checked, the crime might be solved - and, byebye John.

[brianp55]

The methods used to analyze and genotype DNA sequences are VERY sensitive to contamination. Simply stated, this "touch test", IMO, is far too little, far too late after far too many persons have handled this clothing and there have been far to many opportunities for contamination....AND virtually all of the circumstantial evidence points to member of the family. Please recall "Ockham''s Razor".

[lovesamerica]

OK then, who killed her and hid her in the basement?