DD note: This rebuttal to my column is written by highly respected defense attorney and well known victim rights advocate, Wendy Murphy for whom I have enormous respect.  She is the author of a must-read book entitled, '"And Justice For Some" in which she details her thoughts on the Ramsey case and many others.  As an experienced attorney who deals constantly with issues of child sexual abuse Murphy's thoughts expressed below carry weight.  I count her as a friend but we disagree on the Ramsey's involvement in Jon Benet's sex abuse and murder.

 

Wendy Murphy from Boston, Mass writes ...

Much of the evidence in the case has not been revealed to the public.

Mary Lacy is a lame duck politician who is about to lose her job to term limits.  Who knows why she would declare the Ramseys "innocent".  Shame on her for assuming the public would be dumb enough to believe her - especially after she caused such a spectacle, accusing John Mark Karr even though there was no evidence the guy had EVER even BEEN TO Boulder, Colorado.  With a record like that -- her opinion in general deserves no respect.

And why not declare other suspects "innocent" (e.g., McReynolds -- the "Santa Claus" guy.  There was no evidence he killed Jonbenet -- why not clear him?)  She cleared people for whom there is much reason to be suspicious - but none of the innocent people who were convenient red herrings over the past decade.  Suffice it to say - a lot of people think there's meaningful “touch" DNA in the case - but its Mary Lacy's -- and it's on John Ramsey’s rear end.

Here's some evidence folks need to keep in mind before making any conclusions about the case (this is all in my book).

1. When police interviewed John Ramsey - they told him they found black wool sweater fibers inside the underpants Jonbenet was wearing -- fibers that matched the sweater he was wearing on the night in question.  Ramsey and his attorney had no explanation for how the fibers could have gotten there -- so they just yelled and swore and filibustered -- a common technique in interrogations when the suspect doesn't want to or can't answer a question.  If there IS an innocent explanation -- I'd like to hear it.  Ramsey acknowledged his sweater was wool -- not the type of clothing that would be sent through the laundry in the home.  And the underpants were brand new -- had never been worn by the child AND were three sizes too big for her.

2.  The fragmented partial piece of DNA everyone's talking about (collected in 1997 from Jonbenet’s underwear) was likely from the manufacturing process, which is why it was fragmented and there was only a single super small bit of material.  If, as has been reported, the fragment had only 10 markers, it couldn't ever be a "match" -- it could only "rule out" an individual.  There have to be many more markers present to say it is the SAME DNA as a particular person.  And any responsible prosecutor knows that while DNA can establish that a person was at a particular place -- it cannot tell us when, how or why the contact was made.  In short - it could have occurred weeks or months earlier.  We also know that Patsy told police SHE put the long johns on the child -- so why is nobody saying whether they found HER DNA?

3.  The autopsy says the child's vaginal mucosa showed "chronic inflammation"; "epithelial erosion" and that the hymen had been "eroded".  These are terms of art that mean she had suffered PAST penetration.  There were also "acute" injuries - meaning that there was penetration on the night in question.  If the same person who killed her is the one who caused the prior injuries -- it had to have been someone with ongoing intimate access.

4.  Patsy's red sweater fibers were found ENTANGLED in the rope around Jonbenet's neck - intermingled with colored garland matching that which had been strung around the banister on the Ramsey's staircase.  Her sweater fibers were also found underneath the duct tape that covered the child's mouth.

5. The Ramseys hired CRIMINAL defense attorneys on the day the child's body was found -- and refused to submit to separate interviews at the police station.  They didn't agree to be interviewed about the crime until many months later.

6.  Three search warrants were executed for the Ramsey homes and computers.  They cited a need to look for child pornography.  Some items were seized.  What were they?  Why not reveal the results to the public?

7.  The child had undigested pineapple in her belly at the time of autopsy - which means she ate it within two hours of death.  She died after midnight.  The Ramsey’s told police they brought her home at about 9:30 pm and that she was sound asleep.  They said she stayed asleep and they put her to bed.  A bowl of pineapple was found on the kitchen table.  Patsy's fingerprints were found on the bowl.  Both parents adamantly denied giving the child pineapple.  Why?  The bowl was taken by police, and presumably tested.  What were they looking for?  Did they perform drug tests?  Why? What were the results?  Why were the Ramseys asked about the presence of a variety of sedatives in the home, such as Klonopin?

8.  Within minutes of finding the child's body, John Ramsey was on the telephone with his private pilot making arrangements to leave for Atlanta.  He told police he had business he needed to tend to.

All these facts - and so many more - may not prove the Ramseys guilt - but they are relevant to a fair consideration of the case.

When a child dies and the parents are under the umbrella of suspicion, it is the DA's duty to speak for the child.  When the DA can't get the job done - the public should speak for the child.  For starters, we must demand full disclosure of the evidence to provide oversight and figure out whether the government has done its job properly.

It's likely that Mary Lacy will refuse to release the files, claiming she can't reveal the case file because it's an "ongoing investigation".  She'll claim she needs to keep the file a secret to make sure the real killer doesn't learn too many details -- which would allow him to make up a story to defend himself in a way that takes advantage of the investigative information.

But if there were truly a concern about shielding the evidence from the real killer- Lacy would never have revealed the details of the DNA tests.  So if she NOW refuses to reveal the evidence that once had the Ramseys under an umbrella of suspicion, (which clearly won't hurt the case now that she's cleared the Ramseys) the public should call her bluff and relentlessly demand full disclosure until the truth is told.

Jonbenet deserves it because truth matters!

 

Attorney Wendy Murphy

Author of "And Justice For Some"