| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | 
|
I was pleased to read this morning that new DNA evidence has been found and is, as we speak, being analyzed. |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 124
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 5:45 pm: |
|
There has been no new DNA evidence found. There is some old DNA that was found at the time of the crime that has been sent to the FBI in the vain hope that it might be matched against a criminal in their DNA database. There is nothing new. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 3:51 pm: |
|
I wasn't perhaps as accurate as I should have been. You're right, they've had the two bloodstains all along, but it has only been recently that they've been able to extract readable DNA from them. |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 133
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 8:08 am: |
|
Diana,
The DNA samples have long been used by the Ramsey camp to beat the drum of their innocence. There was a sample found under her nails and in her underwear. Neither of these samples matched the Ramseys and therefore has been used by their attorneys for years as evidence that they didn't kill her.
Now what they are attempting to do is match that sample against the FBI database. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 239
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 9:47 am: |
|
Correct. I hope they find a match so the whole thing can be put to rest. I also hope (which is not the same as think) that nobody in the family did it. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 389
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 12:25 pm: |
|
I don't think the parents did it. Why would they kill their daughter then hide the body in the basement only for them to call the police before having time to get rid of the body and then whilst the house is full of police have the husband go into the basement with a friend only to uncover the body himself. It doesn't make sense.
Sarah |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 8:48 am: |
|
Lots of killers do things that don't make sense.
(For the record, I have no opinion on whether the parents did it, I'm just pointing out that killers often do stupid things.) |
Eliza Cline
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 8:03 pm: |
|
Sarah, I think the parents deserve to be under suspicion. Let's say they killed the child--what were they supposed to do with the body, wander around in the freezing Colorado winter with it--I believe an intruder, who would presumably have had a car and his own private home/apartment, would have taken the child with him. I can't imagine an intruder with enough confidence to hang around the house long enough to kidnap the child, murder her, find a hiding place for the body, and write a long ransom note. Why not just take the child to his own place? But if the parents were the killers they would have no place to take the body. The fact that the victim was left in the house, really points more to the parents being involved. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 423
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 11:44 am: |
|
Eliza,
There is no proof that it was the parents so you can't really say they "deserve" to be under suspicion. Why did the parents call the police then if they killed her and knew where she was? Remember it was very early in the morning when they called the police, if they had killed her then they still had plenty of time before daybreak to hide her body. They were also going to go on holiday that day so why call the police at all? They didn't need to report it, they could have pretended she was with them on holiday then hide the body and pretend she was taken from them whilst on holiday.
My theory has always been that someone broke in via the basement as it was unlocked, kidnapped the girl, left the note, made their way back to the basement to escape but ended up killing the girl as she kept struggling or something, then of course they freaked and pulled a sheet over her and ran away. The were hardly going to go all the way upstairs to remove the note were they? This would explain why no phone call for the ransom came when they said it would as they had already killed her.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 631
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 10:29 am: |
|
Hi Sarah,
There is no proof that Joe Barnett killed Mary Kelly, or even once abused her trust in him, but I’ve never seen you argue that he doesn’t “deserve” to be under suspicion on account of his close relationship to the deceased.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 435
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 10:41 am: |
|
Caz,
I have never said he "deserves" to be under suspicion. In my mind there IS proof that he may have killed Mary therefore he is under suspicion in my mind as I see some evidence pointing to him, however there is NO proof that JonBenet's Parents killed her at all. It isn't fair to say someone deserves to be under suspicion if there is a serious lack of evidence.
Just because people are under suspicion it doesn't mean they deserve it, that's just a cruel and nasty thing to say.
Sarah |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 153
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 11:06 am: |
|
There is no more 'proof' that Joe killed Mary than there is 'proof' that the Ramseys killed JonBenet. If you get to accuse Barnett and say that it is justified, others get to accuse the Ramseys and say that it is justified. You cannot use this argument only on the people you want to accuse but deny it to others when you disagree. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 440
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 11:35 am: |
|
I'm not saying people can't accuse who they want, but to say people "deserve" to be accused it just a nasty thing to say when there is no evidence for it. She was found in their basement and that's it. There is much evidence for Joe which I'm not going to go into again on here as quite honestly I can't be bothered to keep repeating myself over and over.
I also feel sorry for the parents if they are innocent which I feel they are. They still have their lives to lead but how can they do that when other people go about accusing them of something for which there is no evidence. At least Joe Barnett lived his life without being accused and now we can discuss the evidence which there is against him without interfering in his life. He may not have been the Ripper of course but at least we won't be ruining his life by discussing the options, which is exactly the same as the other suspects.
I would never say Joe "deserves" to be suspected as he may not have done anything wrong but he is worth investigating.
Sarah |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 11:39 am: |
|
Sarah,
Suspicion is what you have when you don't have proof. If you have proof, then it's a certainty.
And even if in your mind there is "some evidence" pointing to Barnett (I don't think there is, just a lot of supposition.) then what you have is not proof. There is no proof whatsoever that Joe ever killed anyone.
And while I would not presume to know the wheather the Ramsey's are guilty or not, there is certainly evidence that seems to point in their direction so suspicion is certainly justified even if it doesn't reach the standard of proof.
Regards,
John |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 441
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 11:47 am: |
|
John,
Picky, picky picky. Tomato, tomarto!!
Whatever. I know what I mean.
I certainly see no evidence that points to the Ramsey's.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 636
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 5:05 am: |
|
Hi Sarah,
Pointing out the vast gulf that exists between evidence and proof, or suspicion and conviction, is hardly being ‘picky’ when you have been confusing one with t’other!
I think you are reading too much into the word ‘deserve’ here. All we are really saying is ‘it is only right and fair’ that the parents remain under suspicion in a case like this, unless or until they can be eliminated from enquiries – same with long-suffering Joe, except he has already been eliminated once.
If the suspects in these two cases are innocent, the parents won’t ‘deserve’ to be convicted – and Joe won’t ‘deserve’ to have ‘Case Closed’ on the cover of a ripper book about him.
That’s the comparison IMHO.
Love,
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 637
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 5:19 am: |
|
Hi again Sarah,
If a child is murdered, I imagine that is probably THE worst thing that could ever happen in the parents’ lives if they are innocent. The pointing finger of suspicion could never be anywhere near as terrible as the experience of losing their child. And they can at least live in hope that the truth will come out one day and the killer will be caught and prevented from ruining any more lives.
That ought to be more important than worrying about the suspicions of mean and nasty people who might still have doubts even if the parents’ names were cleared.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 448
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 7:01 am: |
|
Caz,
Firstly, I don't think anyone has said that they will be writing "Case Closed" on their book about Joe.
Ok, I am sorry then that I got proof and evidence mixed up. I knew what I meant and I was rush typing. Also I was joking around when I said "picky".
I'm not saying that Joe was certainly the Ripper but he is now dead and was able to live out his life in peace without being accused of something he may not have done. JonBenet's parents may end up living out the rest of their lives being under suspicion if no actual evidence points away from them. If they are innocent their lives will have been ruined but if they are guilty then fine they should be convicted. What I am basically saying is they are innocent until proven guilty.
Also, since I know what you will say to that, I am not saying Joe is guilty, I am just looking at him as a possible suspect. He is indeed innocent in my mind and he shall remain that way until there shows to be more evidence against him to show he did do it, if any at all as he may not have killed those women.
In short we are not ruining Joe's, or any other suspect's, lives as they are now long dead but JonBenet's parents still need to live their lives and many people already have them convicted in their minds and I feel very sorry for them as that would be a nightmare of a live to lead.
Sarah |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 158
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 11:56 am: |
|
Sarah,
I think the parents set themselves up for scrutiny by retaining a lawyer and denying police interviews without an attorney mere hours after their daughter is discovered murdered. Look at parents of other missing/murdered children. Look at the VanDammes. They had the most to lose by allowing police scrutiny due to their lifestyle which would be viewed as unconventional and suspect by the majority of Americans (prudery being ingrained) and yet they cared less for public opinion than finding their daughter's murderer. They cooperated fully and exonerated themselves in the court of public opinion despite their lifestyle. The Ramseys with their picture perfect lifestyle lawyered up immediately and did not cooperate fully with the police. They invited police and therefore, public scrutiny by their actions. If they are innocent, oh well. They must live with the consequences of their actions in stonewalling, bottom line. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 457
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Losing some you care about can make you do silly things. They could be innocent but just because they acted a bit foolishly shouldn't put them under public scrutiny. If it was me I don't know if I would want to be interviewed by the police without a solicitor present even if I was innocent. Police always question the ones closest to the victim first and are always put under a lot of pressure when you're still feeling fragile so you could end up saying something the police could twist. It's just common sense to get a solicitor.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 642
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Hi Sarah,
I was just clarifying for you what wouldn’t be ‘deserved’ if it were to happen (ie if Joe is innocent, he wouldn’t deserve it if anyone pronounced him otherwise).
The parents have to live with the terrible fact that their child has been killed.
They also have to live with other people’s suspicions about them.
They either have clear consciences or they don’t.
But I should imagine that lying awake worrying about what other people are saying about them would be like complaining about a bunion on your left foot when your right foot has been amputated.
Love,
Caz
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 160
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Losing someone you love can make you do silly things. It can make you stop eating, cut off all your hair, drink or drug excessively, stand out naked in the cold, scratch yourself repeatedly with a knife or other sharp object, randomly destroy things in your house...these qualify as silly.
Hiding behind lawyers is not silly. It's a rational decision made to protect yourself from investigation. And yes, acting foolishly DOES put you under public scrutiny. People who don't act foolishly aren't interesting enough to hold the public eye. |
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Yes but how about the "$118,000.00" in the three page rambling ransom note.
Who knew that Access Graphics (1996) recently issued a bonus check to John in the amount of $118,117.50? Maybe a handful, maybe a few more. John and Patsy knew and are/where suspects. 118.000.00 is the key.
Take care,
Kevin
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 459
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 7:27 am: |
|
I'm not going to argue about this. I've just put my point across. It is common sense to get a solicitor. She was found in her own house so of course the parents instantly knew they would be the main suspects so why not get a solicitor? I would be devastated if that had been my daughter but I would not go down for her murder as well if I was innocent as that would grieve me more knowing the guilty person is still out there so of course I would get a solicitor. How do we know that they weren't advised by someone to get a solicitor? We don't.
I'm not changing my mind here and I'm not trying to force my opinions on anyone else. I'm just stating what I see as common sense.
Sarah |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 167
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 1:48 pm: |
|
So on one hand you claim they did a silly thing out of grief..they weren't thinking clearly and on the other, you claim that it was only common sense to get a solicitor. Which one is it actually? Oh well... |
