The Alie Berrelez/JonBenet Ramsey cases

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

candy

East Lansing, MI

#1 Nov 16, 2012
One reason I think Stan Garnett is so unwilling to indict this case given the current state of the evidence, despite the powerful argument by Chief Kolar in his book, knocking out the intruder theory "evidence" and entry in any way to the basement by even one person, let alone a "small foreign faction" of six is the six unsourced pieces of DNA on the victim's body and clothing, ESPECIALLY, the dna in the underwear and waistband of the victim. WHY that DNA when most of we RDI people believe it is an artifact, likely from the manufacturing process of the garment in Thailand? This DNA as we all know, when found on the waistband of JonBenet's longjohns, prompted Lacy to clear the Ramseys. But more than that, I believe it was the resolution to the Colorado cold case of Alie Berrelez in 2011, and how it was resolved that haunts and prevents a resolution in the JonBenet Ramsey case, absent a confession.

All the current boards lack posters from Colorado and Boulder, otherwise I believe this case would have received the attention it should have in relation to this case earlier. I'm not going to synopsize the case here, because I'll link to an article that describes how it was solved. Like Ramsey, the case was taken by police with who they believed (RIGHTLY) to a prosecutor who believed they didn't have enough to charge that suspect with the crime. A cold case investigator, going through all the evidence again,(and you see the down side to the strong evidence they had previously, what a defense attorney would have used to try to refute it) hung her hat on DNA being the thing to break this case, sent ALL (not one piece like Lacy) the evidence to CBI to be retested, given new DNA techniques. Sure enough, this main suspect, whose DNA had previously NOT been linked to any of the evidence, with new techniques two PARTIAL profiles were developed IN THE UNDERWEAR AND ON THE WAISTBAND of the victim, leading to him, which led prosecutors to say this long cold case had finally been solved. The point is, as LONG as that DNA in the underwear and waistband is UNMATCHED to anyone, prosecutors are liely to be TOO SCARED to indict the Ramsey case absent a confession or confessionary statement overheard by someone.

Here is the article about solving the Alie Berrelez cold case: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19073450...
candy

East Lansing, MI

#2 Nov 16, 2012
Another connection between the Alie and JonBenet cases: Alie was abducted in 1994, and the case was so well known in Colorado at the time, that Sargeant Larry Mason wanted to use Yogi, the bloodhound that found Alie's body stashed in a dufflebag in a ravine about 10 miles from the abduction site, to try to track any "kidnapper" in the Ramsey case.

Unlike the Scams, the Berrelez family was fully cooperative with the police in the intervening 18 years the case was cold, and used Alie's case and name, not to $ell books about themselves and video of the victim, and have the tabloids pay for their weddings all the while stonewalling police investigators, but to PRODUCTIVELY help police solve other crimes by starting a foundation in Alie's name, and buying Yogi like bloodhounds for police departments to use. And the Berrelez family wasn't one percent as wealthy as the Scams either.



candy

East Lansing, MI

#3 Aug 19, 2013
We don't have enought posters from Colorado anymore, otherwise, "another board" wouldn't have been getting away with practically levitating over what a DNA expert told them about the partial DNA profile in this case:

In the Alie Berrelez case, 18 years after the crime, CBI was able to extract two PARTIAL repeat PARTIAL DNA profiles from the underwear of the victim. THESE TWO PARTIAL DNA PROFILES enabled CBI to CLOSE OUT THE CASE.

In spite of what DNA expert Dan Crane stated yesterday in a radio program that there is "no generally accepted means of attaching a reliable statistical weight to a mixed DNA profile where allelic drop out may have occurred." http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.p...

THAT DOES NOT MEAN that these PARTIAL DNA samples cannot HELP (with other evidence) solve a case, in fact this is how the Alie Berrelez case WAS SOLVED.


candy

East Lansing, MI

#4 Aug 19, 2013
From the Denver Post article:

But Roth told her how he'd run moistened cotton swabs over Alie's clothing, then tested them. And how that testing had yielded two DNA hits both from Alie's underpants.

One was a PARTIAL genetic profile, and Stofer could not be eliminated as the source of it. Because the profile was not complete, Roth could not say with a "reasonable degree of scientific certainty" that it came from Stofer. BUT WHAT ROTH COULD SAY was that the odds of it coming from someone else were, at a minimum, GREATER THAN ONE IN 100 MILLION. At the same time, he found A SECOND PARTIAL PROFILE, this one known as a Y-STR. It is a DNA profile that is male-specific and is passed from fathers to sons. And it, too, matched Stofer.

Because the samples were so small, Roth could not tell her what had left the DNA. It could have been anything drops of sweat, or saliva, or a few skin cells.

No matter. Garrett had DNA consistent with Stofer's on the underpants Alie was wearing when her body was found. And with that, she had the FINAL CLUE she needed to close the books on a case that frustrated her and many other investigators and left Alie's family in limbo for more than 18 years.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19073450...

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#5 Aug 19, 2013
Candy,

Crane = Krane
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

#6 Aug 19, 2013
candy wrote:
From the Denver Post article:
But Roth told her how he'd run moistened cotton swabs over Alie's clothing, then tested them. And how that testing had yielded two DNA hits both from Alie's underpants.
One was a PARTIAL genetic profile, and Stofer could not be eliminated as the source of it. Because the profile was not complete, Roth could not say with a "reasonable degree of scientific certainty" that it came from Stofer. BUT WHAT ROTH COULD SAY was that the odds of it coming from someone else were, at a minimum, GREATER THAN ONE IN 100 MILLION. At the same time, he found A SECOND PARTIAL PROFILE, this one known as a Y-STR. It is a DNA profile that is male-specific and is passed from fathers to sons. And it, too, matched Stofer.
Because the samples were so small, Roth could not tell her what had left the DNA. It could have been anything drops of sweat, or saliva, or a few skin cells.
No matter. Garrett had DNA consistent with Stofer's on the underpants Alie was wearing when her body was found. And with that, she had the FINAL CLUE she needed to close the books on a case that frustrated her and many other investigators and left Alie's family in limbo for more than 18 years.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19073450...
Candy, I really don't like to discuss DNA because I know so little about it. But I do wonder if these same law enforcement officials who were behind solving Alie's case deliberately WILL NOT resolve the JonBenet case. At least, it appears that way to me since if they have DNA proof of Ramsey guilt they would have acted upon it by now.

So, can it be that the evidence they got from JonBenet-case DNA tests leaves them with egg on their faces? Maybe it's more comfortable for THEM to leave things "as is"...

Besides leaving them vulnerable to lawsuits by the Ramseys, it can also mean that some other suspect they might have cleared can be guilty, can it not?
candy

East Lansing, MI

#7 Aug 19, 2013
Thanks for the correction on the DNA expert's name.

Differences in the Alie and JonBenet cases. The perp in the Alie case was always THE prime suspect, and KNOWN to law enforcement. He was a neighbor in the apartment complex where Alie lived, who suddenly took off for California in the days after Alie's disappearance. Alie was abducted while playing outside the apartment in a crime of opportunity for the perp. Alie's 3 year old brother saw the crime, even led police to the perp's door, calling him the one who abducted Alie and "the old man." (The perp was 30 at the time). The perp loudly complained about being the prime suspect, and never confessed to anything. He died of a drug overdose in the early 2000's. Those last two partial DNA matches just put the case beyond a reasonable doubt at that point, coupled with all the other circumstantial evidence they had at that point against him.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#8 Aug 19, 2013
Spice Pond wrote:
<quoted text>
Candy, I really don't like to discuss DNA because I know so little about it. But I do wonder if these same law enforcement officials who were behind solving Alie's case deliberately WILL NOT resolve the JonBenet case. At least, it appears that way to me since if they have DNA proof of Ramsey guilt they would have acted upon it by now.
So, can it be that the evidence they got from JonBenet-case DNA tests leaves them with egg on their faces? Maybe it's more comfortable for THEM to leave things "as is"...
Besides leaving them vulnerable to lawsuits by the Ramseys, it can also mean that some other suspect they might have cleared can be guilty, can it not?
It's an interesting question. If that DNA were to be sourced, it would depend on who it belonged to and what other evidence, if any, there were against that person. For example, in Colorado's most famous Touch DNA exonoration, the Tim Masters case, they DO know who the touch DNA belongs to. It was an ex boyfriend of the victim, who passed a poloygraph and they clearly don't feel they have enought evidence to arrest him for the crime. So that case is unsolved. We don't know if this cases DNA has been sourced. If it was, it's awfully hard to cover up, DNA labs know the cases they are looking at evidence for, there are orders for DNA tests, a lot of proof tests occurred. If they were exculpatory, the police/DA wouldn't have to tell the public anything, because Lacy already cleared the Ramseys, but you would think they would have told the family about who the DNA matched.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#9 Aug 19, 2013
Spice Pond wrote:
<quoted text>
Candy, I really don't like to discuss DNA because I know so little about it. But I do wonder if these same law enforcement officials who were behind solving Alie's case deliberately WILL NOT resolve the JonBenet case. At least, it appears that way to me since if they have DNA proof of Ramsey guilt they would have acted upon it by now.
So, can it be that the evidence they got from JonBenet-case DNA tests leaves them with egg on their faces? Maybe it's more comfortable for THEM to leave things "as is"...
Besides leaving them vulnerable to lawsuits by the Ramseys, it can also mean that some other suspect they might have cleared can be guilty, can it not?
I wish I understood what you are saying here!:(


AK

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#10 Aug 20, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish I understood what you are saying here!:(

AK
IMO, the pond poster should have stopped after " I really don't like to discuss DNA because I know so little about it."

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#11 Aug 20, 2013
candy wrote:
Thanks for the correction on the DNA expert's name.
You're welcome.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
Haapy Thanksgiving 1 hr Legal__Eagle 16
"Note-Free Case Discussion" 2 hr Capricorn 94
JonBenet Investigation (Nov '11) 7 hr JBI 1,617
Note-odd detail? 12 hr Note 2,400
Upcoming National Enquirer story - JonBenet Ram... (Oct '10) 12 hr berrytea333 35
koldkase patsy wrote the note Wed Legal__Eagle 18
ICU2 's Child Trafficking Tue Legal__Eagle 6
More from around the web