Saturday, July 2, 2011

#JonBenet :Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy has a penchant for overreaching and she's done it again.


Her announcement Wednesday that DNA scraped from the long johns of JonBenet Ramsey matches the genetic material of an unknown male found previously on the murdered girl's underpants provides stunning support for Lacy's long-held theory that an intruder committed the crime. Yet the district attorney coupled this revelation with an apology to the Ramsey family and a declaration that they have been cleared and vindicated.

Not only was it imprudent to go so far but Lacy herself said as much during a press conference following the memorable John Mark Karr fiasco. As you may recall, Karr was arrested in Thailand and brought back to the United States as a suspect in the case, only to be released in fairly short order.

The relevant segment of that press conference was played Wednesday on KHOW radio's Caplis & Silverman show after it was retrieved by Todd Shepherd of CompleteColorado.com.

During that press conference, Lacy was asked if it would be "fair to say that any involvement by John or Patsy Ramsey is completely ruled out by your office. Are you committed to an intruder theory of the crime?"

Her answer: "What we are committed to is solving the crime if we possibly can. You know there are these terms out there - 'umbrella of suspicion' - we don't use that. No one is really cleared of a homicide until there's a conviction in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don't think you will get any prosecutor, unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime, to clear someone, like in this case, [where] the facts are so strange and obviously the family was in the house at the time."


That was just two years ago, in case you're wondering.

Let's be clear: The DA's persistence in pursuing leads and employing the very latest technology is highly commendable. And she is apparently correct in asserting, as she did in her press release, that "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."

In other words, the public may be pleasantly surprised someday by the announcement of an arrest for the murder of JonBenet, the result of a DNA match that pops up after the killer commits another crime and is required to provide a genetic sample.

This is a huge development in the case and obviously a heavy blow to those who have so confidently (and recklessly) asserted throughout the years that the killer unquestionably was one of the parents.

Yet let's also not forget Lacy's own words of two years ago: "The facts are so strange and obviously the family was in the house at the time." Not only that, remember how the Ramseys dummied up after the crime, rejecting interviews with law enforcement?

Why, of course they were considered possible suspects.

Lacy needn't apologize because police and prosecutors entertained that thought and failed to clear them earlier. Nor does the apparent existence of a third party absolutely rule out the involvement of others, as remote as it might now appear.

Over the years, we've made no secret of our belief that Lacy is prone to flamboyant excess, from claiming damning knowledge about the University of Colorado athletic program that she clearly didn't possess to engineering the arrest of Karr without having completed the sort of rudimentary probe that would have cleared him and averted the ensuing embarrassment.


Now, at a moment when she can rightly claim a major advance in the most notorious unsolved murder in Boulder in decades, she has sullied the event by showboating once again. It is no coincidence, we might add, that her dubious behavior once again serves the interest not of justice, but of Mary Lacy.


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/11/jonbenet-again/

#JonBenet : DA were wrong to clear Ramsey's

There is only one victim in the Ramsey case...

Despite what you may have heard, Patsy and John Ramsey have not been "cleared" of wrongdoing in any genuine sense. They were simply handed a legal pass by a staunch ally who has once again shortchanged the genuine victim in the case: JonBenét.
 
Mary Lacy, the district attorney of Boulder, has made it her mission to exonerate the Ramseys since her first day on the job. She has disregarded facts and played the media and the public for a bunch of suckers along the way. She is trying to do it again.
 
Relying on an advanced method of analyzing forensic evidence, Lacy claims an unidentified man was the likely murderer of JonBenét. Lacy stated the Ramsey family should now "be treated only as victims," and apologized to them in writing.
 
Lacy, as anyone who has followed this case knows, has little credibility to offer, much less any absolution to hand out — at least not until a killer is convicted. And without a confession, that's an exceedingly unlikely scenario.
The Ramseys, let's not forget, brought suspicion upon themselves with bizarre behavior during the investigation of the horrific Christmas night 1996 murder of their daughter.
 
Suspicious acts are not the equivalent of guilt, but they certainly provide authorities ample reason to be on alert.
 
Now, according to Lacy, an outside laboratory has found "previously undiscovered genetic material" of a male in three places on JonBenét's clothing. This leads investigators to believe that DNA could not have been left accidentally by an innocent party. It must have been an intruder.
 
So, once again, the public is supposed to believe a murderer snuck into the house undetected, killed the girl undetected, wrote a ransom note and then snuck out undetected, never to be heard from again.
 
"It is, therefore, the position of the Boulder district attorney's office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide," Lacy contends.
Now, you may wonder:
 
How does Lacy know the unidentified male is the one who actually killed JonBenét? How does Lacy know that this person's hands weren't on JonBenét's clothes before or after the murder? How does she know that John Doe wasn't assisting the family in a cover-up of the crime?

And if this nameless individual was indeed the murderer, how does Lacy know that a family member did not assist him in covering up the crime?
 
She doesn't know.
 
But Lacy, one of the most incompetent officials working in Colorado law enforcement, has taken us on this ride before. There is neither the space nor the need to discuss Lacy's ham-fisted ineptitude here. She is, after all, an elected official, and Boulder voters get what they deserve.
 
We must, nonetheless, recall that this is the woman who two years ago conceded she had not a shred of credible evidence tying John Mark Karr to the death of JonBenét Ramsey. Yet, she still hauled this creepy child-sex fetishist back to United States from Thailand (a crime in itself, if you ask me) and let citizens foot the bill.
 
When Karr was brought back to Colorado, there were immediate calls for the media to ask for forgiveness from the Ramsey family for daring to cast suspicion on them all these years.
 
But, as is always prudent in this case, a healthy dose of skepticism about the Boulder police department, the DA and everyone involved was entirely justified — for the obvious reasons that no one wants to believe the unthinkable. No one wants to believe parents are capable of some dreadful act.
 
We should also remember there are plenty of other crimes to be solved. Plenty of other children — most of whom aren't involved in high-profile cases — are in need of justice.
 
But Lacy is in no position to offer apologies or to dictate how the public should view the Ramseys. Because in this case, there is still only one victim.

Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse