2000-12-11: ACandyRose Internet Subculture Forum
"JonBenet Ramsey Folder - Jams is harboring DNA???"
From: WILTONJR_ 12/11/2000 12:21 pm
To: ALL (10 of 143)
285.10 in reply to 285.8
Here's a snippet from this article:
"“The need to guard against contamination, improper
storage and handling, and chain-of-custody issues are really
some of the most important issues in the effective use of
DNA as evidence."
She might as well get over herself. With 'chain-of-custody' as a major issue, there's no way in 'ell what she's holding is going to be worth anything. She might as well face up to the fact that she's a NOBODY.
From: MS_CAUTION 12/11/2000 12:59 pm
To: ALL (13 of 143)
285.13 in reply to 285.12
Sigh. You'll get my bill :)
I'm not a criminal lawyer, and want to give my normal disclaimer - i.e., don't trust legal advice over the internet.
That being said, and fishing through my cobweb-filled mind, here's my recollection of the law, at least at the time I was in law school:
1. No one can be compelled to give testimonial evidence against him/herself.
2. "Non-testimonial" evidence CAN be compelled. This includes blood, hair, etc. No need to be a suspect, no need to be charged to get this information. However, it cannot be used if gained illegally. (For example, if the cops broke into a house to get DNA samples from a toothbrush, it would likely be "fruit of the poisonous tree," and therefore not admissible. If, however, cops found a toothbrush on the street, and connected DNA from it to a suspect from a crime, that's ok.
3. If a witness does not agree to submit to producing the non-testimonial evidence voluntarily, a court can compel him/her to do so. However, my guess is that a court would not do so without some justification.
4. The difference between testimonial & non-testimonial evidence is: The state cannot compel a witness to admit to a crime. The state cannot compel a witness to make statements (verbal) that would help convict him/her. Blood, writing, DNA samples, however, are considered neutral, and therefore, non-testimonial.
Hope this helps.
Edited 12/11/00 1:00:02 PM ET by MS_CAUTION
From: "Ma" (MRSBRADY) 12/11/2000 7:35 pm
To: Kattnipp (17 of 143)
285.17 in reply to 285.16
I am imagining hir following strangers on the streets of Boulder armed with open Zip-Lock bags and scooping God-only-knows-what off the sidewalk with Q-tips...
aargh, lost my appetite...
From: JAMSJAMESON 12/16/2000 5:14 pm
To: ALL (19 of 143)
285.19 in reply to 285.13
The fact is, there are several ways to get someone's DNA that are perfectly legal. You can follow the person and pick up anything they abandon - - that could mean something from their garbage that has been put on the side of the road, a cigarette butt they throw down, a cup or can they drop into the trash on a public street or leave behind on a restaurant counter, or even a hair from their jacket that they leave hanging from a chair when they use a restroom. A civilian does not have to get the person's permission to take such items.
I have done nothing illegal.
From: JAMSJAMESON 12/16/2000 5:24 pm
To: ALL (20 of 143)
285.20 in reply to 285.19
And using the evidence in court is not going to be a problem either - I have spoken to people who know - - there are ways to deal with this - - not to worry. The "Chain of Custody" is not going to be an issue at all.
From: JAMSJAMESON 12/28/2000 1:14 pm
To: WHITEHAWK4 (35 of 143)
285.35 in reply to 285.34
The DNA and handwriting samples that are being held - withheld - are not from NC. They are from very logical suspects. An admitted pedophile whose handwriting is a LOT closer than Patsy's... two men suspected in other child abductions - one where similar cord was used... another with an unusual interest in the Ramsey case.... not one has a solid alibi as far as I can tell... all connected to Boulder or nearby...
I have worked on developing these files - other agencies are not as hesitant to work on suspects - - just can't work on "this case".
If these men have histories... if they had opportunity... it couldn't hurt to compare the DNA and handwriting.
I understand it costs the state $30.00 to run a DNA test - - well, a couple of these guys have their DNA on file (someplace)... wouldn't take much to get their DNA samples to compare... and those that need to be tested, (one or two of them) I am willing to pay for those tests...
From: JAMSJAMESON 12/31/2000 8:02 pm
To: BAILEY38 (69 of 143)
285.69 in reply to 285.67
Plain fact is that I didn't offer the DNA evidence I have to Lou Smit or Ollie Gray because they don't have access to the DNA evidence on JonBenét's body. What could they do that I can't?
They gave Helgoth's boots to the BPD - - didn't mean the Helgoth lead was properly investigated after that - I don't think it was.
I could have sent four packages of evidence to Mark Beckner... but I don't trust that he would treat it more seriously than he did the boots.
No, this stuff will sit safe until I have someone I can give it to who can not only have the tests done but compare it to the Ramsey evidence.
From: BAILEY38 12/31/2000 8:12 pm
To: JAMSJAMESON (70 of 143)
285.70 in reply to 285.69
I think if Smit cared about this case as we've all been lead to believe...he'd take whatever you had and check it out. I'm sure he has resources and more connections than yourself, that is ofcourse my opinion..(and a damned good one I might add.)
For two years I've heard the praises of smit and his intruder theory, you being one of his loudest advocates...but I gotta say, if you don't trust him with evidence...I can't trust him either concerning this case.
From: JAMSJAMESON 12/31/2000 8:27 pm
To: BAILEY38 (71 of 143)
285.71 in reply to 285.70
I admire Lou Smit greatly - - he is a trusted friend in this journey.
But I wouldn't ask a polygrapher to dust for prints.
While I certainly would tell Lou about the man in Atlanta who owned Hi-tec boots and wrote a diatribe against Lockheed Martin using the words "and hence", I see no reason to give him these DNA samples - - he hasn't got the DNA evidence in the Ramsey case to compare it to.
I think it would be better to keep the samples safe until a special prosecutor takes over - - let him pick the lab to do the testing - - let them compare the results to the evidence in Ramsey - - and if it matches - - then they will be able to get a court order forcing that suspect to give a controlled sample directly to law enforcement officers.
I haven't gone into this blind - - I am doing what I think is best - - and I don't think asking Lou to do what he clearly can not is part of that "best".
From: JAMSJAMESON 12/31/2000 9:32 pm
To: BAILEY38 (74 of 143)
285.74 in reply to 285.72
Lee told me he would not accept the evidence from anyone but the Boulder Police Department or DA's office - - I went over that with him in great detail, at length. Neither would the FBI. Both knew exactly what my position was and both explained to me what my options were. Both advised me how to preserve the evidence I had while I waited for someone to examine it.
Lou does not have the DNA profile - - he is aware of my situation and has not asked me for any of the files. I have not offered them to him. We have not discussed what I have or where I have sent it - - I am not about to put him in a compromising situation. I have done my best to protect all others from decisions I alone have made.
From: JAMSJAMESON 12/31/2000 9:52 pm
To: BAILEY38 (78 of 143)
285.78 in reply to 285.76
I don't know if I have the solution in one of those four packages - - and I want nothing more than to turn it over to the proper authorities who will look at the handwriting and/or DNA of four most reasonable suspects.
I feel the BPD has four years to show us how serious they are about solving this crime - - I think they will not seriously look at any Intruder evidence and I will not cast my pearls before swine.
The evidence is safe and secure and waiting for an honest investigator to call me and make arrangements to take possession of those files (wherever they are).
Actually, as we speak, negotiations are being made for two files to be handled - - there ARE some back doors opening - - slowy.... slowly... maybe...
From: GSQUARED100 12/31/2000 10:19 pm
To: JAMSJAMESON (83 of 143)
285.83 in reply to 285.81
What the hell? Jams, you claim that you have DNA from someone who wrote a diatribe against Lockheed using the words "and hence" and this guy just happened to own Hi Tec boots? How did you get that DNA? Did the Ramseys give it to you or did you get it yourself? Did you ask this guy for it or did you steal it? Who are you waiting to give it too? I am sure the Ramsey legal team can arrange for the DNA you have to be tested against the DNA on JBR. Maybe all they have to do it ask.
From: JAMSJAMESON 1/1/2001 10:22 am
To: BAILEY38 (89 of 143)
285.89 in reply to 285.88
In order to turn in half of the evidence, I would have to regain physical possession of it, then handle it - risk contamination. I don't think either idea is wise.
I knew exactly how to capture the samples, exactly how to put them into safekeeping... they are safe where they are now and no one is going to have any of it until there is someone I trust to take them.
From: JAMSJAMESON 1/1/2001 11:47 am
To: GSQUARED100 (93 of 143)
285.93 in reply to 285.92
Like I said, I have been advised as to the best way to deal with THIS evidence - - if I mishandle it, it can't be replaced. The packages are safe where they are.
Seems to me, the authorities should do whatever is necessary to get the samples to test them - - if it eventually comes out that one of those packages could ID the killer, THEY will have problems explaining why they never cleared the way to have it tested...
From: MS_CAUTION 1/1/2001 11:53 am
To: JAMSJAMESON (94 of 143)
285.94 in reply to 285.93
I'm surprised any legitimate "authority" would suggest you keep evidence. Chain of custody is extremely important in criminal matters, and, given your advocacy role, would make any evidence you provided immediately suspect.
If you're serious about this, I'd turn it over ASAP to a wholly neutral third party, along with its pedigree, and forget about it.
From: JAMSJAMESON 1/1/2001 12:01 pm
To: MS_CAUTION (96 of 143)
285.96 in reply to 285.94
I am very serious about this. I gathered the evidence, legally.
I tried to get it in to the FBI lab or to Henry Lee - - they wouldn't take it - not unless it went through the BPD. That simply is not an option in my mind. I told that to both Lee and the FBI -- they did not seem at all shocked - - I suspect I am not the first person with this dilemna. I spoke to Lee and the FBI lab tech about properly preserving what I have - - I did as I was told - - it is fine and will be fine for years if needs be.
I decided to make sure it is safe - I no longer have physical possession of the stuff - - 4 files in 4 places. All legal and respectable.
Perhaps four years ago it would have been wrong to withhold it - - but with what we know now about the BPD, I feel this is the responsible and right thing to do. I know it is legal.
I still hope to get it in - - there are some interested but concerned about their politics at work.... I say fine - - I can wait..
From: JAMSJAMESON 1/1/2001 5:35 pm
To: GSQUARED100 (99 of 143)
285.99 in reply to 285.98
I want a special investigator brought in - - should have been one called in long ago - - they called in a special prosecutor instead.
If that can't happen, I will compromise - - the authorities will have to negotiate with me on that - - I know already what I would and would not agree to - - and it is not going to be posted.
From: JAMSJAMESON 1/1/2001 6:06 pm
To: MERLCAT (101 of 143)
285.101 in reply to 285.100
I have no intention of proving anything to you - - why would I entertain such a notion?
You said I can be arrested for "obstruction of justice" - - somehow I don't think so - - you see, I am TRYING to get the information in to respectable, responsible, trustworthy investigators.
You said you spent about an hour on the phone today with 2 relatives who are active law enforcement officers. They both, with no knowledge of what the other said, came to the same conclusion.... you are withholding evidence or lying. Either way, you're an idiot.
Well, they are right - I am withholding information. Actually I believe I am just safeguarding it until proper authorities are willing to take custody of it. I am sure they feel it would have been wiser to keep quiet about it - - but that's neither here nor there... I make my own decisions and think I am doing the right thing. I don't care what you or your relatives think.
You obviously don't know much about the law or handling of evidence - - I know what I am doing - - promise.
Flame on, Merlcat... your teeth will wear out before my butt will.
From: PEARLSIM 1/5/2001 10:36 am
To: ALL (137 of 143)
285.137 in reply to 285.136
Well, I think it's incredibly clever and couragous of "The-person-whose-name-I-try-never-to-mention-or-even-think-of" to be storing up DNA. I just tear up at the mere thought of that shy, breadbaking housewife from the hills of North Carolina, going out and diligently hunting up suspects and then managing to steal DNA samples from them. The rest of you lazy supposed justice seekers should be ashamed of yourselves!
In fact, hir leadership has given me an idea. You guys all know the basic premise that murderers often inject themselves into the investigation of their victim's demise, right? Well, that tells me that it could very well be one of us who intruded our way into the Ramsey (mini)mansion to kidnap/molest/strangle/stungun/headbash and otherwise kill poor JonBenet.
Therefore, I am requesting that each of you send me a sample of your DNA, immediately. Those living here in the state of California may drop it off in person but the rest of you are to bag it up and send it to me.
Oh, and please let me know exactly what the source of your DNA is. All I need is a post-it note with the a few words written on it - you know, like "blood", "snot", "sperm" etc. - this will help me decide exactly how I'm going to handle (or not) your sample.
Don't forget to include your full name on the note. Though I tend to be a bit scattered and disorganized, I'm going to try my best to keep those names and samples from getting all mixed up.
I'm still working on storage issues. There's a small space available in our refridgerator and maybe even some room in the kitchen pantry. But then I think, with an active family of five, someone might make a mistake and get into the samples, without knowing what they were. My kids often cook, so I can just picture a few scary scenarios. Just for instance, I'd have to think twice before ever eating any vanilla pudding/tapioca concoctions not personally prepared by me!
I will, of course, trust no one with these precious and valuable samples. Not the BPD, not Hunter, or Keenan or Romer or even GeeDubya. Not Billy Graham and not the Pope. And definitely not that other DNA handler - hir might try to take all the credit for my hard work.
In fact, after much thought, I've decided that the only people I would trust as recipients of my DNA bank would be John and Patsy, in the flesh. That's right. They have to come to my house and pick up the samples, in person. That way I'll know, beyond a shadow of the tiniest doubt, that my contribution to the furtherance of justice is in the hands of the people who most want to see JonBenet's killers be apprehended and punished, to the full extent of the law. I could rest easy then, knowing that upstanding Christian people such as the Ramseys would use the forum DNA samples in only the most upright, moral and aboveboard ways.
Now aren't the rest of you sorry you didn't think of this brilliant idea?