Posted on 08/28/2006 10:59:22 PM PDT by beaversmom
As I recall Burke was cleared.
Wonder how much the cable stations paid the various 'experts' to tell us that Karr was guilty guilty guilty.
The Ramsey's have hired more than a few people to work on their behalf.
The sewer rats in the media really went into the crapper this time, when they turned this freak into a rock star.
Don't forget the eager public, which laps up this garbage. They don't get off the hook that easily.
If people didn't watch it, the networks wouldn't spend so much time broadcasting it.
I agree....Err on the side of caution
I think TO should go into politics. It would be hilarious.
Guess its a different story if all you get is a little ole perv. It was worth the shot. Lacy did a GOOD thing. There isn't any other way to look at it.
Had Karr protested and said I had nothing to do with the Jonbenet killing ON CAMERA. We'd all would have looked at this totally diffferent. The bottom line is that, hopefully, maybe this stirred the pot and we will find Jonbenet's killer.
Please re-read my post. I didn't say ANYTHING about money - wasted or otherwise.
Any DNA samples taken from JonBenét Ramsey murder suspect John Mark Karr were taken without his consent and without a judge's order, Colorado attorneys for the 41-year-old schoolteacher claim.
Seth Temin, head of the Boulder Public Defender's Office, said in a motion filed late Friday that before any DNA testing is done by authorities, he wants a hearing in which he will seek to block testing of the biological samples.
...Authorities reportedly took DNA from Karr in Thailand after he was arrested. Experts believe that samples taken overseas could cause prosecutors various legal and technical problems if they attempt to introduce the samples at trial in Colorado.
Yeah, I though of that before I posted.
I though Karr was cooperating with authorities and would not object about giving DNA. Sticking with that premise of cooperation, going to Thailand and obtaining a DNA sample would have been cost effective.
If the DNA sample matched, you would then extradite Karr back to Colorado, and then use that DNA evidence to present before a judge to obtain a search warrant for DNA evidence that could be used in the court of law.
Ideally , the first DNA sample from Karr or his admittance of the crime, would be kept out of the press if at all possible. Alas, as we know, it did not go down that way.
He was picked up by Thai officials and a Boulder DA investigator.
The Thai people put Karr in their jail as a courtesy to the Boulder DA, who had someone in Bangkok for 3 weeks, working on finding this guy, whose name was unknown at the time. Thai cops had been on the case for several months, once the emails had been tracked to the area.
Mary Lacy gave the hurry-up directive to pick "Daxis" up at that time, because they just found that he had gotten another teaching job with young people and at the same time, he had been describing a relationship to Michael Tracey, a professor/writer in Boulder with whom he had been communicating anonymously for 4 years, that involved a young girl in Thailand.
Someone alerted John Ramsey of this, possibly Tracey, my best guess - but the first stories said Ramsey had been told by "authorities" in Boulder. Since the Boulder DA's office is the only LE on the case now, that would mean Lacy or possibly Tom Bennett.
Within minutes, it was on MSNBC, with Dan Abrams apprised of the situation. Soon thereafter, Ramsey mouthpiece Lin Wood was all over everywhere saying the case was closed.
The media wildfire came from that origin.
They did get surreptitious DNA samples, because they did not want to alert the guy to their presence yet and have him flee before they could further investigate him.
The problem was that they needed buccal samples, straight from inside his mouth, not contaminated from a paper cup or something, to compare with the limited amount of DNA they had been able to derive from the mixed sample they had from JonBenet's underwear.
It was commingled with her own blood and had to be separated to ID it. Lacy said that was why they had to bring him to Boulder to get that non-contaminated saliva sample from inside his mouth.
The DNA coaxed apart from JonBenet's was said to be from male Caucasian saliva.
Thank you, Rte66.
I'm not sure the DNA sample is even good enough to hold up in court. The fingernail DNA is said to be a weak sample and the panty DNA had to be separated from JBR's blood. A good DNA defense expert could probably shoot holes in them to cause reasonable doubt if the prosecution had nothing else to pin a suspect to the crime.
We may be seeing just how unwinnable a conviction really would be in this case - at least if one sticks to the intruder theory. As to the "family did it" theory, there's DNA all over the place but easily explained away. Apparently there was not even enough evidence for a grand jury to indict the Ramseys so that case is weak too.
I'm having doubts this will ever be solved.
YW!
Solving might be as difficult as prosecuting. The people who look at the evidence are invested in determining the prosecutability of the case.
The DNA sample they are using is a new one, from what I can gather. "Newly revealed," anyway. I missed whatever happened in the case in the past 2-3 years, except brief glimpses.
There was a DNA-X that had been mentioned in some civil case depositions, which was another sample unknown to the public theretofore. I believe that was revealed in 2002 by Chief Beckner.
Then, in 2003-2004, criminalists announced that they had been able to detect the full 13 markers needed from a crime scene sample in the JBR case to run it through CODIS. The last I had heard when paying attention, they had only had 10 markers.
They ran it through and it was non-Ramsey, but also didn't match anyone else in the CODIS databank. It is run past every new entry since that time, as well. So far, no matches.
What Ramsey case followers were saying this time around (with Karr) was that it was a "2nd spot" on her underwear, also commingled with her blood. I assumed this was the DNA-X, but I forgot one of the clues about that.
Just now refreshed my memory that DNA-X was not on JonBenet's body or her clothing. So, the "2nd spot" on the panties would not be the DNA-X as I thought.
What I don't know is if this other sample matches the separated DNA from the original commingled panty sample, or from the original degraded fingernail samples or from the "2nd spot" panty sample. It was said that the commingled panty sample matched the fingernail sample.
Since the fingernail one was degraded and possibly contaminated, I don't know how it was matched. Next, I don't know if we have two foreign DNAs here or just one, found in two places. And is the "2nd spot" the new one that has all 13 markers, or was that derived from the original one?
And, lastly, does DNA-X match any of the others? Therefore, I don't know which of these they believe to be the "strongest" as far as evidence - and whether finding the match will really find the killer. Lin Wood shouted from the rooftops that it cleared the Ramseys.
Well, not if it didn't come from the killer, it didn't. I've never felt like it was conclusive, when this was a little kid with dirty fingernails and who very likely transferred it to herself "down there" when using the toilet.
Now, if this is the DNA-X sample and it were found someplace else that is incriminating, fine - but what would be incriminating elsewhere than her body? Especially if it were saliva and not semen.
At any rate, none of it matched John Mark Karr, surprise, surprise. I just wanted to let you know that another source of DNA material is being used, as of 2004 when it became ready for CODIS.
As far as the GJ not indicting, the problem with the case all along has been in not prosecuting two individuals who may have contributed different actions to the crime and not being able to precisely attribute the correct ones to each half of the equation. It truly is a "whodunit".
Nonetheless, if it only matches 10 markers, it probably puts the likelihood at about 95% meaning it can't remove reasonable doubt without corroberating evidence which would be what??? Fingerprints? Footprints? Fibers of some clothing left behind? Sounds like they have little or nothing of that to work from.
It's either a crime scene fully contaminated by the Ramseys in their response to finding her and taking her upstairs or it's a crime scene where the killer left virtually no trace evidence or it's a crime scene that had nobody in it that was not part of the household and the rare various non-Ramsey DNA found have innocent explanations such as sneezing that made its way into the panties while manufacturing or packaging.
I'm not saying it *can't* be an intruder. I'm just saying there's not a lot of evidence suggesting one compared to the evidence suggesting there wasn't one.
Yeah, I though of that before I posted.
And, I should add, the truth of it is that defense lawyers are going to howl no matter what. And esp. in high profile cases that have the potential to turn an obscure atty into a mega-bucks star defender.
Ideally , the first DNA sample from Karr or his admittance of the crime, would be kept out of the press if at all possible.
From what I've read, there have been other false confessions to this crime (that didn't turn into a media circus). As to Karr, specifically, on the first go (five years ago), apparently it was kept out of the press. Looking at it from a political perspective, there was little downside to going public--here was a creepy, shadowy character who was (already) a fugitive from (CA) justice. If it turned out (as it did) that he wasn't 'the guy', there is always the possibility that all the media attn. & renewed public interest might flush out new leads. Add in that Lacey is midterm, any negatives will mostly evaporate before she faces a 2008 election.
Ideally, Karr as a suspect, should have been definatively ruled out back 5 years ago--and apparently was (ruled out) then. But that was back when the BPD was running the investigation and before the DA's office took over in late 2002 and may have been before more DNA results were teased out of the samples. Least ways, that makes for a good excuse. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.