DNA not a match in JonBenet Ramsey murder case... whoops

[george_r_1961]

Well im sure an NCIC check was run before he was released to check for warrants and detainers. So my guess would be hes clean.

[rainstorm]

my guess is even though he may face charges in california and maybe he could face charges for a false confession, they dont want to face the media circus that would follow any further charges against him. this prosecutor should have had the evidence in hand before he was arrested. from what i can tell all she ever had was a confession that appeard ridiculous and the hope that his dna might be a match.

[george_r_1961]

Seeing how he "confessed" in thailand and not the US I fail to see how he can be charged with making a false confession since US law enforcement has no jurisdiction over what he did or said over there. If California has legit charges on him, and it doesnt look like they do, the charges would be pursued regardless of the "media circus". I do believe Boulder officials acted in good faith. The level of proof needed to charge someone is far less than what is needed for a conviction.

Probable Cause vs. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Big difference.

[Brent]

The child stuff charges will probably put him away for a long time if he's found guilty... as it should. He has been released from Boulder custody so I don't expect any charges(a confession on world television as a huge spectacle in a foreign country is different than a confession to officials in the U.S.).

[george_r_1961]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14553130/?GT1=8404

Apparently there WAS a detainer on him..he is being held for california officials.

Sorry Cindy didnt think to actually check' I presumed he was released.

[rainstorm]

Seeing how he "confessed" in thailand and not the US I fail to see how he can be charged with making a false confession since US law enforcement has no jurisdiction over what he did or said over there. If California has legit charges on him, and it doesnt look like they do, the charges would be pursued regardless of the "media circus". I do believe Boulder officials acted in good faith. The level of proof needed to charge someone is far less than what is needed for a conviction.

Probable Cause vs. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Big difference.

that just shows that this DA had nothing for evidence. the dna doesnt prove he didnt do it. i believe, as dr weckt does, that the miniscule amount of dna is a contaminant anyway. she obviously had no proof he was in boulder in dec 1996, no connection to the ransom note, no evidence he was ever inside the house, no connection to the ramseys before 1996. no nothing. if she did, she wouldnt have dropped charges.
i dont believe boulder authorities acted in good faith because all of this could have and should been checked out years ago

[Lindaloo]

Make up your mind Helen. Either you think he did it or didn't. By your previous replies in this thread you have argued that he was not guilty and that he was lying. Now you sra saying the DA has no evidence and that now the DNA is contaminated. If this is not proof of things, then I dunno what to say to some folks.

[rainstorm]

you dont understand what i am saying. im not saying the dna is " contaminated". im saying its a "contaminant" . you needed to hear dr cyril weckt. the dna is likely there not related at all to the case. thats what a contamintant is. the dna not matching exonerates no one, including the ramsey's. the dna matching would have been evidence of giult.

here is what i am saying. fox news just reported this DA has admitted in court filings she had absolutely no evidence he was guilty. she basically did all this on a wing and a prayer. she had his rambling e-mails to a co professor, his ridiculous confession, and absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever.

he was lying in his confession

again, there is a difference between "contaminated" and "contaminant"

[Stephanie]

I never believed for a second that the DA felt 100% sure about being the killer of JonBonet. I always felt that she was being cautious when she spoke about him and said that they were waiting on the DNA evidence before formally charging him.

As others said above, HE CONFESSED. The DA was probably notified that Thailand had a suspect in the killing because he confessed and she waited for the DNA samples to determine what the next step would be. She had to take this confession seriously but did the right thing to wait to formally charge him.

I really don't know what your whole point is about the DA, Helen. It seems like she did her job.

[GalvestonDuck]

Here's my question (and remember, this is coming from someone who also thought Patsy was guilty, so I'm actually somewhat on your side, Helen) -- Since the DNA didn't match the parents or John Mark Karr and since it may very well be a contaminant, then how does that clear him any more than it clears Patsy or John Ramsey?

[rainstorm]

well, im hearing expert after expert saying they are incredulous at how she has handled this case. i was always convinced there was no evidence of his quilt, and there wasnt. george brought up a great point. all she needed was probable cause to bring charges and she had nothing, and never had anything. she was hoping his dna matched. lets hope prosecutors, who have almost unlimited power, use that power more judiciously than she did here.

now, back to the point of the dna. not matching exonerates no one, including the ramsey's. and while i wont go back to every detail of the case, there is much more reason to suspect the ramseys than there ever was to suspect mr karr. i believe if you go back to just after the murder, there was and is much more probable cause to have arrested patsy ramsey than there was now to arrest mr karr.
i strongly feel the ramsey's money enabled them to manipulate a substandard boulder police and DA at the beginning of the case. i also believe this killing will never be solved.

finally, i dont consider mr karr to be someone i would want around me or my loved ones. if he is quilty of child stuff in california, lets hope he spends considerable time in jail

[Stephanie]

Which experts have said this about how she handled the case? Also, wouldn't you think that if someone had CONFESSED to a murder, she just might need to investigate the claim? I think EVERYONE was hoping his DNA matched so that just can finally be served and little JonBonet can rest in peace. I even mentioned a few pages back that I didn't think that he was guilty, just from the way he acted, etc.

It sounds like you already have the case solved, tried and closed.

[rainstorm]

Here's my question (and remember, this is coming from someone who also thought Patsy was guilty, so I'm actually somewhat on your side, Helen) -- Since the DNA didn't match the parents or John Mark Karr and since it may very well be a contaminant, then how does that clear him any more than it clears Patsy or John Ramsey?

thats my whole point. the dna doesnt clear him. the total lack of evidence does. the DA was basing this whole charade on the hope and prayer the dna matched. that was her whole case. i always said they would find nothing that connected him in any way to the crime, and they didnt. my other point. there was much much more probable cause to arrest the ramseys. i still contend they are the likely killers. so far, as far as anyone knows, 3 people are proven to have been in the house at the time of jon benets murder.
patsy ramsey
john ramsey
and their son
the DA couldnt prove john karr was there
thats why i feel there was much more reason to have arrested the ramsey's
mark fuman made another great point. step num 1 in any case is placing the suspect at the scene of the crime. again, 3 and only 3 people are known to have been inside the house when the murder occured.

[rainstorm]

Which experts have said this about how she handled the case? Also, wouldn't you think that if someone had CONFESSED to a murder, she just might need to investigate the claim? I think EVERYONE was hoping his DNA matched so that just can finally be served and little JonBonet can rest in peace. I even mentioned a few pages back that I didn't think that he was guilty, just from the way he acted, etc.

It sounds like you already have the case solved, tried and closed.

sadly, it will never be solved. again, my point is that there was and is much more probale cause that the ramseys killed jon benet. we all have our opinions, and thats mine. so far, there are only 3 people on earth that are proven to have had the opportunity to kill her.
as far as investigating the claim, mr karr was on tape saying things about the case in 2001 in cali, and it was reported to bolder authorities. they had 5 years to link him to boulder in dec of 1996 and couldnt.

[Stephanie]

Which experts have said this about how she handled the case? Also, wouldn't you think that if someone had CONFESSED to a murder, she just might need to investigate the claim? I think EVERYONE was hoping his DNA matched so that just can finally be served and little JonBonet can rest in peace. I even mentioned a few pages back that I didn't think that he was guilty, just from the way he acted, etc.

It sounds like you already have the case solved, tried and closed.

sadly, it will never be solved. again, my point is that there was and is much more probale cause that the ramseys killed jon benet. we all have our opinions, and thats mine. so far, there are only 3 people on earth that are proven to have had the opportunity to kill her.
as far as investigating the claim, mr karr was on tape saying things about the case in 2001 in cali, and it was reported to bolder authorities. they had 5 years to link him to boulder in dec of 1996 and couldnt.

Of course, you didn't answer my question. Here's something for you though, my FOX NEWS CHANNEL last night mentioned how the DA was constantly CAUTIONING people about speculating about the outcome of all of this. They then even showed a partial video of a press conference she had saying the same thing.

[rainstorm]

no wonder. she knew all along she had 0 evidence. she should be prosecuted.

why werent the ramseys arrested 10 years ago?
only 3 people have been proven to have been in the house when she was killed. the ramsey's
the only 2 people in the house who knew the exact amount of his bonus were john and patsy ramsey.

that alone is far more probable cause than they had against mr karr.

i havent heard a single expert say she did a great job
its over now. i still feel the ramseys wealth and influence got them out of a murder conviction. thats my opinion

[alicia-w]

the Ramseys were cleared. they passed polygraphs and their DNA didnt match that found at the scene either.

this guy is nuts. he really thinks he killed her. too bad they couldnt lock him up just to keep the public safe.

[petal*pusher]

i havent heard a single expert say she did a great job
its over now. i still feel the ramseys wealth and influence got them out of a murder conviction. thats my opinion

Actually, there have been several "experts" on who say her actions were correct with the information she was given. I guess each of us pay attention to whatever news we want to agree with!

I think there is much more to this story that will still unfold......p