square one

In a conversation about junk science and subject matter experts lending far fetched opinions on high profile crimes, someone queried why Dr. Henry Lee, a Connecticut pathologist known as a blood spatter expert was brought into the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

I think Dr. Lee might have made his mark with blood splatter, perceived more as a forensic expert by the law enforcement community. I also firmly believe he, along with others, were mis-sound-bite-quoted in the media, Or inept police departments can confuse exploring a potential theory or scenario as fact.

Even worse when the media brings such information to the general public who apparently is unable to discern between junk and science, theory or opinion versus fact. Rumors permeate the public opinion unwittingly fueled by what has not been made public. The private information associated with JonBenet's investigation and the multitude of reasons experts like Dr. Lee place high value on the DNA as a component of the case will not be fully realized by the public until, when and if, there is a trial. But half-baked speculation and false assumptions will still reign in JonBenet's case because people in general often tend to take what they like and leave the rest,. One can't gossip about something one is not even aware of - or questions - and there is no fun in that. Angry, skeptical busybodies will always be happier implicating the Ramseys for something they did not do until the face of the killer is seen. Heck, just like the Ramsey persecutors, DNA value challengers could be seen as promoting the delusions of those like John Mark Karr (apparently still lobbing he is the child molesting killer even though his DNA is nowhere to be found at the scene). People can't "see" the DNA, nor can we as outsiders understand the details of what is sealed in volumes of information about the case that resides in Bouder.

I suspect this may have occurred to some degree with Boulder authorities way back when too, we do not know if sciences and methods Dr. Lee recommended to assist with the investigation were leveraged. Take what you like and leave the rest?

Looking closely, Dr. Lee's position on the Ramsey case hasn't really changed over the years and adds up all the way to the value of the unknown male DNA found in several places on JonBenet's clothing by skin cells, tissue and biologicals of the killer. His original questions about what the any DNA might have represented in the past - in a potential theory - were legitimate at that time in my opinion. But that was yesterday and a liftime ago in technology and biometric advances. Pondering and theorizing had to be done to get to today and now truly supports some unknown man killed JonBenet leaving his DNA and a few other things behind. The DNA is, in my most humble opinion, only one part of an answer that may someday, God willing, lead to a conviction.

Dr. Lee has made concise observations about the underlying challenges that have contributed to lack of movement in solving JonBenet's case, and nothing has changed. And nothing will until an objective investigation in pursuit of fair justice starts at square one-

"Police arrived at 6:10 a.m. and from that point forward, the case was to drag on for years as a stormy mixture of tragedy, investigative ineptness, controversy, accusations of incompetence and alleged cover-up...."