Mary Lacy exoneration letter is based on a criminalist forensic report

by redpill Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:04 pm

Mary Lacy's exoneration letter is depicted by RDI on various forums as an action of a rogue DA who is biased towards the Ramseys who believes that the Ramseys could never do such a thing, who were in bed with their lawyers, and had acted unilaterally. RDI forum posters then proceed to "debunk" her conclusions, by claiming the "best" explanation for the DNA is secondary DNA transfer.

Let's get something clear, Mary Lacy exoneration letter is based on an expert witness testimony as outlined in Daubert standard. It is based on a trace evidence criminalist forensic report.
As such it is appropriate.

Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory and FBI have criminalists with expertise in trace evidence analysis on staff. These are real CSI. This is an example of the credentials of a criminalist

Peter D. Barnett
SUMMARY

Professional practice concentrates on the physical, chemical and microscopical examination of physical evidence particularly trace evidence (hairs, fibers, etc.), impression evidence (fingerprints, documents, tool marks), field investigation (scene documentation, evidence collection), firearms examinations (including muzzle distance determination, trajectory reconstruction), and incident reconstruction.

Employment
Education
Experience
Professional Affiliations
Certifications

Technical Papers
Awards
Other Activities
Personal
Contact Information

EMPLOYMENT

PARTNER, Forensic Science Associates, 1978 - present

CONSULTING CRIMINALIST, 1971 - present

CRIMINALIST, Paul L. Kirk & Associates, Berkeley, California, July 1969 - January 1971

CRIMINALIST, San Diego Police Department, San Diego, California, July 1968 - July 1969

EDUCATION

Graduate work in Criminalistics, University of California, Berkeley, 1969-1970

Bachelor of Science in Criminalistics, University of California, 1968

Attended San Francisco State University, September, 1965 - June, 1966, Major: Chemistry

Attended University of California, Berkeley, September 1962 - January 1964, Major: Chemical Engineering

Attended University of Redlands, Redlands, California, September 1960 - June 1962. Major: Engineering

EXPERIENCE

Experienced in the examination and analysis of physical evidence including field and laboratory examination of all types of physical evidence and investigation of a variety of types of crime and accident scenes. With the San Diego Police Department, responsibilities included crime scene investigation, laboratory examination of evidence such as narcotics, blood samples (for alcohol and drugs), firearms, physiological fluid samples, trace evidence comparison (fibers, paint, hair, etc.), supervision of laboratory technicians, training of police officers, etc.

Consulting assignments beginning in 1969 with Paul L. Kirk and Associates have included a wide variety of incidents and many different types of physical evidence. Typical field assignments involve inspection of incident scenes, documentation and collection of physical evidence from those scenes, and the reconstruction of the incident. Typical laboratory assignments include examination of clothing for relevant physical evidence, examination of firearms and related forensic ballistic problems, trace evidence examination (hair, fibers, glass), document examination (handwriting, typewriting, ink comparison, altered or obliterated documents, FAX or photocopied documents, anonymous documents), and fingerprint examinations. Types of cases included death investigation (homicide, suicide, or accidental), assaults, automobile or other types of accidents, slip/trip and fall, industrial accidents, and personnel matters.

Consultation can be provided in preparing for the cross examination of expert witnesses, location of experts in specialized fields, and overall review of the physical evidence and technical aspects of pending litigation.

Clients include Private attorneys, public defenders, district attorneys, law enforcement agencies, corporations, insurance companies, unions, independent insurance adjusters, and private individuals.

Qualified as an expert witness in Superior Court in numerous counties of the State of California as well as in Nevada, Texas, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma, Hawaii, and Federal and Military Courts as well as Administrative hearings (DMV, NLRB). Have presented expert testimony regarding questioned documents examination, auto accidents, product liability, firearms and ballistics, physiological fluids, trace evidence, reconstruction of accident and crime scenes, and examination of various other types of physical evidence.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

Fellow, American Academy of Forensic Sciences (Criminalistics Section)

Member, California Association of Criminalists

Member, American Society for Testing and Materials

Forensic Science Society, Great Britain (Affiliate)

CERTIFICATIONS

Diplomate, American Board of Criminalistics

BOOKS

Ethics in Forensic Science: Professional Standards for the Practice of Criminalistics, New York: CRC Press (2001)

"Criminalistics," in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology 9th Editiong, McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002.

TECHNICAL PAPERS

Whalley, R., and Barnett, P.D., Legal vs. Forensic Definition of Under the Influence. Presented at the 33rd Semi-Annual Seminar of the California Association of Criminalists, May, 1969.

Barnett, P.D., and Berger, R., The Determination of the Age of Latent Fingerprints, J. Forensic Science Society, 16 (1977) 249.

. Under Daubert, only an expert witness may testify in their area of expertise. Under the Daubert Standard, a criminalist is an expert witness.

Trace Evidence
Trace evidence, frequently overlooked because of its microscopic size, applies microanalysis to fibers, hair, soil, paint, glass, pollen, explosives, gunshot residue, food, plastic bags, and virtually anything involved in a crime. No training exists that will prepare the trace evidence analyst for every kind of case that will cross their workbench, as each case is fascinatingly unique. By having a thorough knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of microscopic, spectroscopic, and chromatographic methods, the criminalist can meet the analytical challenge of each case.

Under Daubert, a criminalist who has access to the case file may form an expert witness testimony as to the significance of the trace evidence found. Only a criminalist with the training, credentials and access to case file may form an expert witness forensic report detailing the findings and offer conclusions.

The criminalists who specialize in trace evidence analysis were consulted in the Jonbenet Ramsey case. They use scientifically validated methodology to determine what is the best and most likely explanation for the trace evidence. They then create a forensic crime lab report detailing their findings.

The DA office and Mark Beckner of BPD have access to this criminalist report. We know the conclusions of this report b/c of the wording in the letter.

he murder has received unprecedented publicity and has been shrouded in controversy. That publicity has led to many theories over the years in which suspicion has focused on one family member or another. However, there has been at least one persistent stumbling block to the possibility of prosecuting any Ramsey family members for the death of JonBenet DNA.

As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder Police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenets blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.

The police department diligently compared that profile to a very large number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the investigation, and has not identified the source, innocent or otherwise, of this DNA. The Boulder Police and prosecutors assigned to this investigation in the past also worked conscientiously with laboratory analysts to obtain better results through new approaches and additional tests as they became available. Those efforts ultimately led to the discovery of sufficient genetic markers from this male profile to enter it into the national DNA data bank.

In December of 2002, the Boulder District Attorneys Office, under Mary T. Lacy, assumed responsibility for the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide. Since then, this office has worked with the Boulder Police Department to continue the investigation of this crime.

In early August of 2007, District Attorney Lacy attended a Continuing Education Program in West Virginia sponsored by the National Institute of Justice on Forensic Biology and DNA. The presenters discussed successful outcomes from a new methodology described as touch DNA. One method for sampling for touch DNA is the scraping method. In this process, forensic scientists scrape a surface where there is no observable stain or other indication of possible DNA in an effort to recover for analysis any genetic material that might nonetheless be present. This methodology was not well known in this country until recently and is still used infrequently.

In October of 2007, we decided to pursue the possibility of submitting additional items from the JonBenet Ramsey homicide to be examined using this methodology. We checked with a number of Colorado sources regarding which private laboratory to use for this work. Based upon multiple recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory. First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of 2007.

The Bode Technology laboratory applied the touch DNA scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.

On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.

I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and assistance they have contributed to this investigation.

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 victims 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.

It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorneys Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.

DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find during a criminal investigation. We rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. It can likewise be reliable evidence upon which to remove people from suspicion in appropriate cases.

The Boulder District Attorneys Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.

Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media.

It is the responsibility of every prosecutor to seek justice. That responsibility includes seeking justice for people whose reputations and lives can be damaged irreparably by the lingering specter of suspicion. In a highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and suspicion on peoples lives can be extreme. The suspicions about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet.

For reasons including those discussed above, we believe that justice dictates that the Ramseys be treated only as victims of this very serious crime. We will accord them all the rights guaranteed to the victims of violent crimes under the law in Colorado and all the respect and sympathy due from one human being to another. To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology.

the wording of the letter includes both the DA office wording for exoneration and history, plus actual wording of the criminalist and DNA experts who specialize in DNA in crime scenes.

Since this letter is the conclusion of Daubert-standard criminalists who have scientific training in crime scene reconstruction and trace evidence analysis, and NO RDI has ever studied criminalistics. RDI have no argument.

Mark Beckner is clearly RDI but even he acknowledges that the suspect is the DNA based on this criminalist report.

NO RDI on any forum or book author has any training in forensic criminalistics trace evidence. NONE. therefore their arguments have zero scientific validity.

The issue is not only that they found this evidence, but this evidence is added to previous exculpatory evidence found at the crime scene, and a criminalist with highly specialized scientific training reviewed the case file reviewed the facts applied his training, and arrived at his conclusions.

Mary Lacy is simply passing on a criminalist conclusions.

RDI should simply be ignored on scientific grounds. NO RDI has relevant scientific training. RDI have never studied trace evidence analysis. RDI claims in contradiction to IDI is not based on the conclusions of a criminalist but simply lynch mob mentality.

Tricia Griffith has never studied criminalistics. She has no background. Therefore neither she nor cynic nor superdave nor ukguy or anyone on forumsforjustice have anything serious to add to the discussion.

Whether its Topix or forumsforjustice or websleuth or crimeshots, the scientific evaluation of forensic trace evidence is a highly specialized scientific expert witness training, and NO RDI has such training. Mary Lacy criminalists have, and they concluded in favor of INTRUDER.

Under Daubert, only an expert witness may testify as to the significance of the DNA results + all other trace evidence found, and as reported by Mary Lacy, their testimony is intruder.

RDI really do not know what they are talking about, and not a single one has done the most rudimentary research into trace evidence analysis and forensic crime scene reconstruction.

Their posts are fundamentally ignorant anti-science denialist tactics that do not accord with accepted methodologies as used in science of criminalistics. Embarassed