Alex Hunter and the Ramsey case
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Old South

AOL

#41 Aug 27, 2011
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
March of 2000 was when there was a problem. Are you thinking everything since then, including JMK is wrong? I would think that to be erroneous. Labs have problems, things are corrected, evidence in question is re-tested and life goes on. I do agree that if during that specific period a court case hinged on forensic evidence tested at that same lab, during that same time frame, there should be a mandate to retest. I would think any reputable lab would do that anyhow.
My contention all along is that the collection, testing, storing, and every aspect of the Denver Crime Lab's involvement with the DNA in the JonBenet case (and possibly others as well) cannot be considered reliable because of the mishandling/non-compliance by the Denver Crime Lab with protocol established concerning DNA collection, etc. If the coroner himself did not follow the protocol, who is there to see that those beneath him did? This would include the technicians and anyone involved with the crime-scene DNA collection, transportation, storage, retrieval, testing, etc. Perhaps not everyone involved was in violation, but even ONE person not following protocol contaminates the entire DNA process.

And who is to say that simply re-testing will correct any deficiency or error since it's possible that the sample itself was contaminated by or during the first testing, therefore all subsequent tests or re-tests would come from contaminated samples?

My point is that once an original sample is contaminated it cannot be "corrected". IOW, once a specimen has been "soiled" THAT PARTICULAR specimen is useless and should be tossed. And in regard to samples many years old, there is no "going back" to obtain NEW SAMPLES. And if perchance it can be possible to obtain a new sample from old evidence, what assurance is there that in the meantime even MORE contamination has not taken place?

So, it all comes back to, get it right the first time or not at all!!

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#42 Aug 28, 2011
Old South wrote:
<quoted text>
My contention all along is that the collection, testing, storing, and every aspect of the Denver Crime Lab's involvement with the DNA in the JonBenet case (and possibly others as well) cannot be considered reliable because of the mishandling/non-compliance by the Denver Crime Lab with protocol established concerning DNA collection, etc. If the coroner himself did not follow the protocol, who is there to see that those beneath him did? This would include the technicians and anyone involved with the crime-scene DNA collection, transportation, storage, retrieval, testing, etc. Perhaps not everyone involved was in violation, but even ONE person not following protocol contaminates the entire DNA process.
And who is to say that simply re-testing will correct any deficiency or error since it's possible that the sample itself was contaminated by or during the first testing, therefore all subsequent tests or re-tests would come from contaminated samples?
My point is that once an original sample is contaminated it cannot be "corrected". IOW, once a specimen has been "soiled" THAT PARTICULAR specimen is useless and should be tossed. And in regard to samples many years old, there is no "going back" to obtain NEW SAMPLES. And if perchance it can be possible to obtain a new sample from old evidence, what assurance is there that in the meantime even MORE contamination has not taken place?
So, it all comes back to, get it right the first time or not at all!!
You made several good points here, but I don’t agree with the throw the baby out with the bath water part. If there is a breach in testing that doesn’t mean there was a breach in collection.

If they have multiple samples, a fresh sample can be retested. If not, then it cannot.

Just because there is a breach in one area does not mean there is a breach in other areas. There are SOPs in place and I believe them to be rigid, but mistakes do happen and they will always happen.

There is always going to be human error where humans are involved in the processes.

Just because there was a breach in 2000, doesn’t mean everything collected and tested then, or since then, is wrong.

I do agree with get it right the first time!
deb

Minneapolis, MN

#43 Aug 28, 2011
Old South wrote:
<quoted text>
My contention all along is that the collection, testing, storing, and every aspect of the Denver Crime Lab's involvement with the DNA in the JonBenet case (and possibly others as well) cannot be considered reliable because of the mishandling/non-compliance by the Denver Crime Lab with protocol established concerning DNA collection, etc. If the coroner himself did not follow the protocol, who is there to see that those beneath him did? This would include the technicians and anyone involved with the crime-scene DNA collection, transportation, storage, retrieval, testing, etc. Perhaps not everyone involved was in violation, but even ONE person not following protocol contaminates the entire DNA process.
And who is to say that simply re-testing will correct any deficiency or error since it's possible that the sample itself was contaminated by or during the first testing, therefore all subsequent tests or re-tests would come from contaminated samples?
My point is that once an original sample is contaminated it cannot be "corrected". IOW, once a specimen has been "soiled" THAT PARTICULAR specimen is useless and should be tossed. And in regard to samples many years old, there is no "going back" to obtain NEW SAMPLES. And if perchance it can be possible to obtain a new sample from old evidence, what assurance is there that in the meantime even MORE contamination has not taken place?
So, it all comes back to, get it right the first time or not at all!!
Since the newer TDNA matched the old DNA it would indicate that there were no mistakes in handling the specimens.
Lynette

Germiston, South Africa

#44 Aug 29, 2011
This is an old thread Candy, but in response to your harsh criticizm of Alex Hunter, while you told the truth as you see it, you painted a very black picture of him and did not present the other side of the story.

The impression of him you create is that all he set out to do was throw innocent people "under the bus" and waste taxpayers money, but that is not true. He was under severe pressure from the police and the media to have the Ramseys arrested, but refused to bow down to the pressure, not because he was pro-Ramsey, but because he did not feel there was sufficient evidence with which to secure a conviction. He therefore formed an expert prosecution task force which included experts like Henry Lee and Barry Scheck and he hired Lou Smit whom he felt had the experience and dedication necessary to get to the bottom of this difficult case. Remember, he had no way of knowing in advance that LS would ultimately conclude that an intruder was responsible. His actions speak of a responsible and consciencious person who did NOT want to waste taxpayers money by taking the case to trial knowing that a good defence team would wipe the floor with the flimsy evidence presented to the prosecution by the BPD.

He was eventually given an ultimatum by Mark Beckner: arrest the Ramseys or convene a grand jury, and he agreed to the latter. Again, he was consciencious in his choice of prosecutor and consulted with Bill Ritter, a member of his task force, as to which grand jury specialist to appoint as he specially wanted someone with Colorado experience. Ritter's choice was Michael Kane whom he said was one of the finest grand jury experts he'd ever worked with.

Alex Hunter found himself in a situation in which he'd have come under severe criticizm no matter which decision he made. Had the Ramseys been arrested and later acquitted, it would have been his fault, but his hesitation in allowing them to be arrested brought him under fire anyway. Ultimately he just did what he felt was responsible and correct and IMO he made the right decision.

Insisting that the police investigate other suspects and leads is not a waste of taxpayers' money, he was simply expecting the police to do what they're paid to. The "innocent" people you mentioned were not thrown under the bus but were suspects for a good reason and if the "investigation" into Chris Wolf is anything to go by, none of those people were ever properly investigated by the BPD. Was it wrong to investigate Jameson's suspicions regarding Ariana Pugh? What if it had been her and the matter had never been looked into? She was thirteen years old and it would have been irresponsible NOT to investigate.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#45 Aug 29, 2011
Please source what was omitted from the Chris Wolf investigation and how you know what Hunter and the others were feeling and why they did whatever they did..or you can state that it is your opinion only

Also, please explain if you can why Hunter didn't allow the police to get the phone records

TIA
Lynette

Germiston, South Africa

#52 Aug 29, 2011
Old South wrote:
<quoted text>
My contention all along is that the collection, testing, storing, and every aspect of the Denver Crime Lab's involvement with the DNA in the JonBenet case (and possibly others as well) cannot be considered reliable because of the mishandling/non-compliance by the Denver Crime Lab with protocol established concerning DNA collection, etc. If the coroner himself did not follow the protocol, who is there to see that those beneath him did? This would include the technicians and anyone involved with the crime-scene DNA collection, transportation, storage, retrieval, testing, etc. Perhaps not everyone involved was in violation, but even ONE person not following protocol contaminates the entire DNA process.
And who is to say that simply re-testing will correct any deficiency or error since it's possible that the sample itself was contaminated by or during the first testing, therefore all subsequent tests or re-tests would come from contaminated samples?
My point is that once an original sample is contaminated it cannot be "corrected". IOW, once a specimen has been "soiled" THAT PARTICULAR specimen is useless and should be tossed. And in regard to samples many years old, there is no "going back" to obtain NEW SAMPLES. And if perchance it can be possible to obtain a new sample from old evidence, what assurance is there that in the meantime even MORE contamination has not taken place?
So, it all comes back to, get it right the first time or not at all!!
Old South, I already know in advance I'm going to be scorned and ridiculed for asking this, but I'm going to be very brave and ask the question anyway. Do you think there's any possibility that the DNA samples taken from suspects are not the same samples that were sent to the labs? What if, for example, JMK's swab was discarded and a replacement swab with someone else's DNA was sent in for testing instead? It's just a thought, but if there was corruption somewhere along the line, perhaps that's the reason the DNA has never been matched.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#53 Aug 29, 2011
If there was "corruption" they would have replaced it with Ramsey DNA. Since all the corruption IDIs mention is geared toward "getting those Ramseys", swapping Ramsey DNA would have been perfect

However, that said, if the DNA report is ever released, there's a good chance there is in fact, Ramsey DNA also there
Henri McPhee

Louth, UK

#54 Aug 29, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
Please source what was omitted from the Chris Wolf investigation and how you know what Hunter and the others were feeling and why they did whatever they did..or you can state that it is your opinion only
Also, please explain if you can why Hunter didn't allow the police to get the phone records
TIA
Alex Hunter never told Steve Thomas about the phone records information becuse Steve Thomas was unlawfully leaking confidential police information to the media for moneygrubbing at the time. There has never been any complaint from Beckner or the rest of the Boulder cops or Ramsey prosecutors about not seeing phone records since Steve Thomas left.

There are aspects of Chris Wolf's testimony which are suspicious and which were never thoroughly investigated. Chris Wolf could have been involved, or have knowledge in relation to the crime. Besides categorically denying that he was out that evening or night, which came as a surprise to his girlfriend Jackie Dilson, Chris Wolf also said this at his deposition in 2001:

Q. Mr. Wolf, have you ever been a cross-dresser?
A. No, I wouldn't say that.
Q. Have you ever dressed in woman's underwear?
A. On Halloween I wore a dress.
Q. Have you ever dressed in woman's underwear?
A. No.
Q. Which Halloween did you wear a dress?
A. Last Halloween.
Q. Do you, from time to time, shave your legs?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been doing that?
A. Since I was racing bicycles. And I don't do it on any regular basis at all. I've done it probably six times in my life. Mostly when I was bike racing, which I did that for three years.
Q. Do you dial what I will refer to as ****ographic telephone lines?
Page 277
A. I have.
Q. While you were living with Jackie Dilson, did you do that?
A. Yes, sir. I regret to say that I did. I realize that that was not the right thing to do when you live with a woman.
Q. Do you frequent what I refer to as **** shops?
A. Yes, sir. I have been to them on a number of occasions over many years.
Q. This is true throughout the '90s and before?
A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. Did you tell Ricky Elsey that you enjoy staring at school girls?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you own a pair of Hi-Tec boots? And I want to get the spelling correct, H-i, dash, capital T-e-c.
A. No, sir. I never owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots. I own a pair of Danner boots that Jackie bought me.
Q. If Jackie Dilson or Ricky Elsey or anyone else said that you had owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots, they were simply mistaken or
Page 278
lying; is that correct?
A. They were lying because -- yeah, simply mistaken or lying, yes.
Q. Well, I said mistaken or lying, but in fact, your answer began with they were lying; didn't it, sir?
A. Well, Jackie knew what kind of boots that I wore. So if Jackie said they were Hi-Tec boots -- Jackie bought those boots for me, so I -- I don't know. I guess she wouldn't know one brand for another, so she could be mistaken. But I've got those boots in Kentucky, and I can produce them for you at any time you want.
Q. Did you borrow a long, black metal flashlight from Jackie Dilson's home?
A. No, sir.
Q. Ever?
A. I didn't know that -- I didn't know her to have one, and I have not borrowed one for any purpose.
Q. Did the police ever even show you one?
A. I don't think so.
Henri McPhee

Louth, UK

#55 Aug 29, 2011
More from Chris Wolf:

Q. You were a rock climber at one
Page 279
time; were you not, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You became very familiar with knots during your rock climbing; did you not?
A. Climbing knots.
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Well, and it was definitely my weak point as a climber. Knots and the mechanics.
Q. In your bathroom at Jackie Dilson's home, could Ricky Elsey have found five pairs of little girls underwear?
A. I didn't have a bathroom that was my bathroom. Jackie and I shared the bathrooms. And I guess he could have found -- I mean, Jackie had lots of people over, and, you know, the place was a bed and breakfast, and a conference center, and there were children there. And for all I know -- I mean, everything else that he has apparently said to you has been a lie, so I assume that that may be, too, although he may have found five pairs of children's underwear in the bathroom.
Q. Let me put the question to you
Page 280
this way. Did you bring little girls' underwear into the Dilson home, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever --
A. No, sir.
Q.-- collected little girl's underwear --
A. No, sir.
Q.-- of the size that might be worn by a four, five, or six-year-old girl?
A. No, sir.
Q. And if, after your truck stopped to open a gate, in the plain view of Ricky Elsey and Jackie Dilson, and very soon thereafter, a little pair of little girl's underwear was found right where it might have fallen out of your automobile or truck, it didn't get there from your vehicle?
A. Well, I didn't own a truck. Jackie owned a truck. And if Jackie had little girls' underwear in the car and it fell out when I opened the door, that may have happened, but I don't have anything to do with any little girl's underwear.
Q. With Jackie Dilson, did you ever
Page 281
engage in a fantasy that she was a six-year-old girl?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever put your hands around her neck and squeeze her neck?
A. I have put my hands around her neck. I have never squeezed her neck.
Q. When did you put your hands around her neck?
A. I did that as sort of a joke because she had told me that she has fantasies of being killed during having sex, which I thought was strange, and I didn't want to participate in any play, in any playing around like that with her, but I -- at one point, as I recall, as I have been reminded by people who reminded me about that incident in regards to this case, I think I do recall one time trying to -- going in to wake her up and in so doing, putting my hands gently, without any pressure that would cause even the slightest bit of injury, around her neck sort of as a joke, which sort of came to me just as the spur of the moment. And I-- you know, relating to her
Page 282
having told me that she has a fantasy of being murdered during sex. So I, you know, I don't know anything about S&M or violence or anything like that, and I never played any of that, anything like that with her or anyone else, but I did do that sort of kind of stupid thing at one point, as I recall.
Q. Did you tell Jackie Dilson soon after JonBenét Ramsey was murdered that you would never strangle anyone with your hands; you would always use a rope?
Davey B Da Man

Belleville, MI

#56 Aug 29, 2011
Shut up, Henri. You have ZERO credibility.

You lie, you're an imbecile and you alter the transcripts you post to suit your own agenda.
Henri McPhee

Louth, UK

#57 Aug 29, 2011
Davey B Da Man wrote:
Shut up, Henri. You have ZERO credibility.
You lie, you're an imbecile and you alter the transcripts you post to suit your own agenda.
Have you been drinking?
Lynette

Germiston, South Africa

#58 Aug 30, 2011
Henri McPhee wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you been drinking?
Lol, interesting question, Henri. But I think it's just TWW1 being her usual sweet, kind, friendly self.
Lynette

Germiston, South Africa

#59 Aug 30, 2011
Henri McPhee wrote:
More from Chris Wolf:
Q. And if, after your truck stopped to open a gate, in the plain view of Ricky Elsey and Jackie Dilson, and very soon thereafter, a little pair of little girl's underwear was found right where it might have fallen out of your automobile or truck, it didn't get there from your vehicle?
A. Well, I didn't own a truck. Jackie owned a truck. And if Jackie had little girls' underwear in the car and it fell out when I opened the door, that may have happened, but I don't have anything to do with any little girl's underwear.
Did Jackie Dilson have a little girl of her own? If not, why would she be driving around with a pair of little girl's underwear in her car? VERY unlikely. He's lying, IMO. Did the police ever take the underwear into evidence? Were they ever tested for DNA?

No? I thought not.
robert

Yellowknife, Canada

#62 Aug 31, 2011
Lynette wrote:
<quoted text> Did Jackie Dilson have a little girl of her own? If not, why would she be driving around with a pair of little girl's underwear in her car? VERY unlikely. He's lying, IMO. Did the police ever take the underwear into evidence? Were they ever tested for DNA?
No? I thought not.
Hi lynette- To me it looks like the investigators went to extreames chaseing leads all over the country and didn't follow up on those closest to home. LHP told a story ( I call it,painted a picture) of how Pat might have done it-- but CW goes into detail as to how it all happened- Can you tell me if these are the only two suspects who have offered a theory as to what happened?
candy

East Lansing, MI

#63 Aug 19, 2012
I'm posting this thread as a resource to show just how bad Hunter's record was as a DA at obtaining justice in felony cases, and why he would enter into these sleazy deals with the Ramseys attorneys, giving over evidence for interviews, caving on the Burke affidavit, clearing Burke, and all the other unheard of things he did as DA in this case:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.p...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
It always leads back to Burke (Oct '11) 7 min HJT 2,270
To: Heather79 19 min BrokenPcs 11
What is the best theory? 45 min BrokenPcs 6
Grapefruit knife (Jan '07) 1 hr HJT 6
Is there any hard evidence against Burke? (Jun '17) 1 hr HJT 232
News Honey Boo Boo, child-appropriate TV? (Aug '12) 6 hr BrokenPcs 68
News Texas woman leads police on 100mph chase (Mar '17) 12 hr Joey 8