Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Announcement: JonBenet Ramsey Case

  1. #1

    Announcement: JonBenet Ramsey Case

    Ramsey Press Release
    Boulder District Attorney Mary T. Lacy issues the following announcement with regard to the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
    On December 25-26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in the home where she lived with her mother, father and brother. Despite a long and intensive investigation, the death of JonBenet remains unsolved.
    The murder has received unprecedented publicity and has been shrouded in controversy. That publicity has led to many theories over the years in which suspicion has focused on one family member or another. However, there has been at least one persistent stumbling block to the possibility of prosecuting any Ramsey family members for the death of JonBenet – DNA.
    As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder Police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenet's blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.
    The police department diligently compared that profile to a very large number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the investigation, and has not identified the source, innocent or otherwise, of this DNA. The Boulder Police and prosecutors assigned to this investigation in the past also worked conscientiously with laboratory analysts to obtain better results through new approaches and additional tests as they became available. Those efforts ultimately led to the discovery of sufficient genetic markers from this male profile to enter it into the national DNA data bank.
    In December of 2002, the Boulder District Attorney's Office, under Mary T. Lacy, assumed responsibility for the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide. Since then, this office has worked with the Boulder Police Department to continue the investigation of this crime.
    In early August of 2007, District Attorney Lacy attended a Continuing Education Program in West Virginia sponsored by the National Institute of Justice on Forensic Biology and DNA. The presenters discussed successful outcomes from a new methodology described as "touch DNA." One method for sampling for touch DNA is the "scraping method." In this process, forensic scientists scrape a surface where there is no observable stain or other indication of possible DNA in an effort to recover for analysis any genetic material that might nonetheless be present. This methodology was not well known in this country until recently and is still used infrequently.
    In October of 2007, we decided to pursue the possibility of submitting additional items from the JonBenet Ramsey homicide to be examined using this methodology. We checked with a number of Colorado sources regarding which private laboratory to use for this work. Based upon multiple recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory. First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of 2007.
    The Bode Technology laboratory applied the "touch DNA" scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.
    On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.
    We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.
    I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and assistance they have contributed to this investigation.
    The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim's underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.
    It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.
    DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find during a criminal investigation. We rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. It can likewise be reliable evidence upon which to remove people from suspicion in appropriate cases.
    The Boulder District Attorney's Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.
    Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media.
    It is the responsibility of every prosecutor to seek justice. That responsibility includes seeking justice for people whose reputations and lives can be damaged irreparably by the lingering specter of suspicion. In a highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and suspicion on people's lives can be extreme. The suspicions about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet.
    For reasons including those discussed above, we believe that justice dictates that the Ramseys be treated only as victims of this very serious crime. We will accord them all the rights guaranteed to the victims of violent crimes under the law in Colorado and all the respect and sympathy due from one human being to another. To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology.
    We prefer that any tips related to this ongoing investigation be submitted in writing or via electronic mail to BoulderDA.org, but they can also be submitted to our tip line at

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1215...googlenews_wsj

  2. #2

    Default Re: Announcement: JonBenet Ramsey Case

    Not that the Ramseys will give a hoot about my opinion but I do apologize for stating my belief on other forums of in their involvement with Jonbenet's death.

    For me, it was so hard to believe that they weren't more careful about securing the home to protect their wordly possessions and most importantly, their lives. It's scary to think that a murderer could enter your home and not only kill your child while you slept, but to feel at ease enough to take their time doing it.

    RIP Jonbenet...

  3. #3
    texasx Guest

    Default Re: Announcement: JonBenet Ramsey Case

    Maybe security had nothing to do with it.

    Keep posting or we come to...where you are and ....your...., for not posting

  4. #4

    Default Re: Announcement: JonBenet Ramsey Case

    http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008...mes-touch-dna/

    While the DNA technology behind Wednesday’s surprise exoneration of the Ramsey family in connection with their daughter JonBenet’s 1996 death is being hailed as new, cutting-edge science, it’s actually been around for a while, experts say.
    What is new, though, is the ability to do so-called “touch DNA” testing with increasingly small genetic samples.
    Pat Wojtowicz, manager of accreditation for Forensic Quality Services International, said “touch DNA” has been around for years. Virginia-based Bode Technology Group Inc. — the lab that conducted the new Ramsey testing — is among a select group of labs accredited by Wojtowicz’s forensic science consulting firm.
    “Recent technological advances have allowed for higher sensitivity to collect DNA samples, which give analysts a stronger likelihood in building a DNA profile,” Wojtowicz said, explaining the rising popularity of the testing method.
    Using “touch DNA,” scientists are able to “scrape” places where visible stains or the presence of DNA are not apparent, allowing undetected genetic material to be analyzed. In theory, “touch DNA” detects genetic material left behind by a simple touch.
    Last October, Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy sent the long johns JonBenet was wearing when she was killed to Bode Technology for “touch DNA” scraping, prosecutors said. The lab tested the sides of the waist of the long underwear, on the theory that the killer would have handled that area when removing and replacing the garment.
    On March 24, Bode Technology notified Boulder prosecutors that its analysts had located genetic material from an unknown male on both sides of the long johns. This DNA profile, Lacy said in a statement Wednesday, matched DNA previously recovered from the crotch of JonBenet’s underwear.
    “We did get a DNA profile,” said Angela Williamson, Bode’s Director of Forensic Casework. “What we got is DNA that matched the undergarments.”
    Further testing, to rule out any contamination at the time of autopsy, was concluded late last month.
    The results led Lacy to announce she believed the Ramseys couldn’t have been involved with JonBenet’s death.
    “It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder,” Lacy said in a statement.
    Although “touch DNA” scraping has been around for some time and is gaining ground, it’s still used seldomly in the U.S., Wojtowicz said.
    The methodology also is not without its critics, said Charles Brenner, a forensic mathematician, speaking from his home in Oakland, Calif.
    “Some controversy surrounds this kind of collection: the sample can be so small, it’s hard to be reliable,” Brenner said.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Announcement: JonBenet Ramsey Case

    HOW DOES THIS RELIEVE THE FAMILY, EXONERATE THE FAMILY? WE DO NOT KNOW THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. WE KNOW VERY LITTLE. MANY THINGS OF EVIDENCE COME IN FORM THAT CANNOT BE MEASURED SCIENTIFICALLY. WE CANNOT GET AWAY FROM BASICS AND RELY ON THE WONDER OF DNA. HOW CAN WE RELY ON THIS DNA TO BE SO CONCLUSIVELY IN EXONERATION OF THE FAMILY WHEN DAILY CONVICTED OFFENDERS ARE RELEASED BY THE FLAWS IN THIS VERY SYSTEM?

    SO, IF NOW THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF DNA LINKING THE FAMILY, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THERE WAS AN ABSENCE OF DNA WHEN IT WAS FELT THE FAMILY WAS INVOLVED, HOW DOES ONE ABSENCE OUTWEIGH ANOTHER WHEN IT IS OF THE SAME THING?

    BEHAVIOR, ACTS, INTENTS, REACTIONS, OPPORTUNITY, MOTIVE, AND MANY OTHER IMMEASURABLE BUT DEMONSTRABLE THINGS EXIST.

    NO, THIS EXONERATES NO ONE. IT DOES NOT EVEN BRING ANOTHER INCLUSION INTO THE FRAY YET. HOW MANY THINGS CAN BE FACTORED? WAS THE CLOTH NEW? WERE THE ITEMS BORROWED? HAD ANYONE ELSE BEEN PRESENT, COULD THE MANUFACTURER'S EMPLOYEE HAVE FOLDED THE CLOTH? WAS THE CLOTH LAID WITH WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S ?

    GOT TO GO

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •