December 26, 2024 • 39 mins
Twenty eight years ago today, six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey was murdered. The case has remained in the spotlight for nearly three decades and still, no arrest has been made and no suspect has been named. Joseph Scott Morgan and Dave Mack discuss the case and what evidence is still available for testing as well as the new documentary on Netflix.
Transcript Highlights
00:02.48 Introduction 28 Years today
03:08.70 Talk about Netflix doc
08:27.79 Anger directed at the parents
12:45.76 DNA Evidence, what happened at scene
15:56.55 Public told of strangulation, not about head trauma
20:06.75 Joe Scott talks about students studying autopsy report
24:31.16 Forensic needs to do DNA profile would have had to be robust at the time
29:13.54 DNA found on the hands of JonBenet
34:58.76 Police at scene have no excuse for what happened
39:11.38 Conclusion
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Body times, but Joseph's gotten.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
More twenty eight years. Twenty eight that's a long time.
It's almost three decades, almost three decades of not knowing
who you know, you know me. I'll never bite on
(00:32):
the idea of why, because I don't know that that's
even measurable. I don't know that that's even something that
we could begin to assess. But it's been almost three
decades since the six year old girl was found murdered
in the basement of her parents' home. There's still many
(00:59):
questions other than why. I think probably things that are
more salient, like the who who did this? Because whoever
they are, they were an absolute lost. We're going to
revisit this case once again, the Jean Benet homicide. I'm
(01:27):
Jesseph Scott Morgan, and this is Bodybags Dave. I had
fired off an article to you that was published by BuzzFeed,
and I found it interesting. In the wake of in
You and I in the first episode had already talked
about how we've heard about this case for so long.
(01:51):
I think both of us had to be druck kicking
and screaming in front of the televisions to watch. To
watch the documentary, this is not something that we would
have necessarily chosen to do, because it's just we live
it day in and day out. Neither you nor I
spent our time watching true crop stuff. But I think
that we were compelled to do this, you know, just
(02:14):
to try to understand, you know, maybe another view and
trying to get an idea as to what perhaps what
new information had been developed. I don't know that there's
necessarily new information. I think that it's a re examination
of what could be, and perhaps that's the most hopeful
(02:39):
thing in all of this.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
I watched it for the same reason Joe. I wasn't
planning on it. I was not planning on watching it.
I felt like the reason we can't solve it is
because they messed it up by being law enforcement, messed
it up from the very beginning, and that prevents solving
the case. Yeah, and I still after watching this, still
feel the same way. But I really watched it because
(03:06):
I am so jaded and I have a certain way
of looking at things, and nothing you say is going
to change the kind of thing. I've tried to change
from that attitude. I used to have that all the time,
and I've tried changing that attitude of well, let me see, Okay.
You say, you know there's an inspector here with a
great track record who claims he believes there was an
intruder that came into the Ramsey home, and I think
(03:31):
I'll leave it at that because he thinks there's evidence
proving that somebody came into that home. My problem with
that is you've got a six year old child who
was murdered, you have a note, a ransom note written
after she was dead. You leave the body behind, but
(03:52):
leave the ransom note, and the ransom note is actually
no good when they find the body so threatening if
you don't do exactly what we say when we say
it that we're going to kill your baby, and the
baby's dead in the house, you know, it makes no sense.
If if if jean Mine Ramsey had been murdered and
removed from the home and a ransom note was left behind,
(04:15):
then you might have my attention, you know, in terms
of believing what else you want to add to it,
But I believe there might be some truth in that.
You could prove an intruder came into the house. You
could prove an intruder came into your house last night,
Joe I could show how that back window at your
house that I've never seen was opened, and that there's
(04:37):
a footprint right over here, and somehow, you know, I
can go into my garage. You know what I found
in my garage, Joe, what's up in the bricks in
It's a garage. It's actual garage. It's not like a
closed in room or anything else. Although it could be
a gun, a nine millimeter gun pistol hidden in my house,
in my bricks, Okay, just down in the cinder block.
(05:01):
Somebody put it there. I don't know who or why,
but I found it.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Holy smokes.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
So I didn't put it there. But if you know,
if I was to be investigated and they saw that,
oh what the what in the world, Dave's got a
hidden gun?
Speaker 1 (05:13):
No? I did not.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
I'm taking notes.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Yeah, go ahead, take notes. I'm saying it right now
on the show because, believe me, it scared me.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
But I guess my.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
Whole point is that you can The detective says he
believed somebody broke into that home and did it in
this window, in this fashion, and it was downstairs in
the train room and all this, and even though you
can make me believe that even though physics will prove
that a baseball cannot curve in mid air. I can
throw a curveball. I believe somebody could crawl through that window.
(05:45):
I just don't believe they did, right.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Yeah, And that that's the you know, you think about
access and going back to the one that you know,
one of the things that that mister Ramsey has always
talked about is that he had had to knock that
glass out because he forgot his keys. And that's that's
that's talked about, you know, in the in the documentary
that you know you can see on Netflix, that he
(06:09):
had had to knock that window out and for whatever reason,
it had never gotten repaired. Uh, there was still glass shards,
you know, that were visible. And of course this this
you know, the suitcase that was found immediately adjacent there
that had dirt on top of a deposition of dirt.
I've had many questions about that as far as how
(06:31):
well was let's see, with what care was that suitcase treated?
You know during that period of time? Uh were how
careful were they because you know, just the crumsing image
that you can see, you see loose dirt sitting on
top of it. Was that soil sample that was on
(06:51):
top of that. Was that consistent with maybe that kind
of loamy soil that you have adjacent to a home
that at is not necessarily native to that area, Like
if you go out to Low's or home depot or
wherever you get your garden supplies, that stuff that comes
in bags that you you know, that you churn into
(07:13):
your soil in order to create, you know, a flower
garden or whatever, is at the point of origin because
that stuff is not necessarily native to Boulder. Or was
the soil that they found there was it? Did they
do did they do a geological assessment of that soil
because there are people and trace evidence that can do that,
(07:34):
And then what type of footprint or shoe print may
have been there? And how well did they document that?
I think that those are all very important questions. You know,
early on in going back to this article from BuzzFeed,
you know the she kind of made up an obvious
statement in this and I don't she talked about the
(07:58):
the I guess the anger that was directed at the parents,
you know, throughout this process of the early investigation, and
that there was I'm putting words into her mouth, this
is not necessarily coming from her. But you know, speculatively,
you know, people are looking for someone to blame in
a case like this, because this little girl was taken
(08:20):
to heart by the United States. The people that the
viewers that were out there there were just eating this
stuff up and they do, you know, want answers. I
think that most reasonable people would, and so that anger
is directed back. And of course this goes along with
what we've talked about in the past, hasn't it. You know,
you always look at the people in the intimate circle
of the victim and who has access, opportunity and motive,
(08:44):
you know, to facilitate her to pull something off. In
this case, you just take that template and apply to
this access an opportunity way. You think about people that
are that have access to her, you know, who could
have had had the knowledge that she was in that house.
The opportunity that goes to time, motive, don't know And
(09:09):
you know, as Nancy always says, she's like our yoda,
I guess to a certain de you know, And Nancy,
you know, just got you don't have to plan motive.
You don't have to prove motive in court, you know,
And she's She's right, You don't but it gives investigators, uh,
an indication of who might be involved, not the why,
(09:32):
but who what, what's the motivation behind, you know, wanting
to rid the world of a six year old child
who seemingly, you know, I mean, is is a good kid.
And you know, I don't know how you would make
that assessment of six year old I guess you could,
you know, you you know, people say, well, a child
is brady, or a child is sweet, or you know,
little angel on ours or you know, the devil incarnate,
(09:56):
but you know, you don't really, you don't really know
a lot about a child when there's six years old,
because certainly children's personalities change. But by all measure, she
was a sweet child. I don't know that my opinion
(10:21):
has necessarily changed that much, not that I necessarily formed
a complete opinion about the case. And a lot of
that goes to the absence of forensic evidence, because that's
where I dance. I question. I think more what the
police did or didn't do. Rather, that's really you know,
(10:45):
where where my assessment comes from. As far as being
able to get a feel for the Ramses. You know,
mister Ramsey has always come across as he's not necessarily
a cold fish. But he works in a world of
numbers and is and I don't expect him to still,
after all these years, to be running about, you know,
(11:06):
rending his clothes and pulling his hair out and you know,
screaming to the heavens. You know, he didn't do that
early on. I mean, he showed some emotion. He cried
and that sort of thing. As far as Patsy goes
uh hard to say. I think that she in her
own way, she she's she was a very driven person herself,
(11:30):
and she's certainly committed to to having Jean Benet out
on the stage. I think that to a certain degree.
And certain people who have talked about this that you know,
Patsy had lived this life of where up in West Virginia.
You know, she had been been a beauty queen up there,
(11:52):
and maybe she was vicariously living through through her daughter,
six year old daughter. But beyond that, I can't really
make it a assessment of her.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Now.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
I've met John Ramsey, you know, I've spoken with him,
and he was very obliging gentlemen. He was friendly. You know,
I didn't spend enough time with him to say that,
you know, he's a warm soul or anything like that.
But I did spend time with him on set and
talk directly to him about DNA evidence and talked about
(12:22):
what had happened at the scene during that period of time.
We didn't go into a lot of the detail because
you know, on these shows, you don't have, particularly if
you've got a big panel, you don't have like an
exhaustive amount of time, you know, like you do in
a documentary to go into great detail. And you know,
(12:45):
I think that that the people are persons that were
involved in this knew John Ramsey very very well. I
will say that they have to if if you were
to connect him with this very personal information about his
(13:08):
bonus that note access to this home, understanding the layout
of this home, there's no other kind of conclusion you
can kind of arrive at because somebody didn't just like
blindly walk through this house. And all of these things
fall into place, and then the leaving behind of the
(13:29):
kidnap victims, you know, deceased remains at that point in time.
They know John Ramsey, they know him very well, and
I guess that that leads us all the way back.
It's kind of circular, you know it leads us all
the way back, all the way back to who. And
I think that list is very very short. And that's
(13:50):
one of the surprising bits to this when you begin
to think about this kind of geographic isolation that this
family experienced as a result of having not lived there
for a long long time. They didn't have this huge
network of friends that you know, extended all over the
place in Colorado. Back in Atlanta, they would have, but
(14:12):
you know, you didn't. There was very few people that
they actually had data to contact with, and you didn't
have time enough to develop develop a you know, a
relationship with a lot of people. So that list is
very short, particularly as that applies to Boulder Day.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Interesting that while you have this supposed kidnap and nine
to one one call before six am, that they have
friends air quotes friends that are there providing support in
the home that morning, the day after Christmas.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
And I was thinking.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
About that from my perspective, I would not want anyone
in my home.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
No, I'd want police.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
Here's what we know, get it, you know, And granted
that's my way of thinking, I also know we apply
these things and what happens to how would I have
dealt with this and we kind of project ourselves into
the situation, and as people who cover these stories, I
analyze everybody's behavior, from the police to the victims, to
(15:21):
the suspects. I look at all of that and none
of this makes sense. But when you add in, we
were told of the strangulation, that she was strangled. That's
what we were as the media, as the public, we
were told. There was not a lot said about the
other injuries that she suffered that could have been fatal.
(15:42):
We weren't told of those, which makes me wonder why
were we not made aware of this? On top of that,
did you know there's eyewitnesses involved in this?
Speaker 2 (15:51):
No, No, I didn't do.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
Scott Gibbons is a neighbor. He claimed around midnight, while
looking from his kitchen window, he saw the kitchen of
the Ramsey residence to be lit up with lights on
dim neighbors Melody Stan. Our neighbor. Melody Stan reported that
(16:14):
she was awoken shortly after midnight by the sound of
a child's scream coming from the Ramsey residence. So we
have two neighbors that are turning on lights and hearing
a scream in the Ramsey residence around midnight. If you
can hear that across the street, Joe, you could certainly
hear it in the house. If an intruder breaks into
that house and kills John Bena Ramsey and that scream
(16:37):
is heard at a neighbor's home, You're going to tell
me that nobody inside the house heard it?
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Yeah, you would think so. Who would be that numb
to it that they could not have heard it from
within the house. And the characterization of screams are they
merely screams or is it some kind of vocalization of something,
you know, like oh my god, oh my god?
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Or have you ever heard of scared scream?
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Yeah? Yeah, I have.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
Actually it's different, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Yeah it is. It's Uh, it's got this this kind
of haunting pitch to it. And you know, people can
be surprised by things, and that is a scare as well.
But I've you know, I've I've actually been in contact
with with on on scenes with close relatives that roll
(17:37):
up and and a body has been found, and you
hear that that sound that emanates from a mother's mouth
when she finds out her son's been killed, and it
is that it is that terrible, high pitched noise. It's
something you never forget, and I've heard a lot of
(17:59):
them over the years, just in those circumstances alone. So yeah,
and that is that is part and parcel of all this.
You you think about what went on with Jean Benet
and some of the things that people don't really talk
about that came out in this documentary and they use
(18:22):
the term sexual assault, is that she, you know, Jean
Benet was penetrated with something that I think that one
of their suppositions is that it was part of the paintstick.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Or that was later used as the Yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Yeah, and that that's that's a big tail here, because
it's one thing for an individual to take the life
of a six year old, but to sexually assault a child.
And I'll tell you, I'll tell you, you know, with the
autopsy report, one of the things if if folks that
(18:58):
are listening to my voice, if you'll think about an
old fashioned clock face, it's weird. Have we have say
old fashioned clockface, but the clock face you know, uh
one through twelve, right, So, and this is how we
demonstrate things in forensic pathology. Forensic pathologists use clock face
all the time in order to orient people. So and
(19:20):
in the autopsy report itself, they talk about this insulted
area at her vaginal opening that's at the seven o'clock position,
and there's a bit of hemorrhage there that was obvious,
you know, obvious two to the to the m E
(19:43):
or the the forensic pathologists when they were doing uh,
doing the examination. And this gives you an idea that
there is something going on here. They knew that and then.
And that's something that you know, I take it for
(20:05):
granted because you know, my my students every semester view
jumping as autopsy report, every single semester. I use it
when I teach the six year old deaths. So they
have to review it, they have to comment on it,
those sort of things, and that's part of their testing material.
And so I kind of take it for granted that
(20:25):
it seems as though we've had access to this autopsy
report forever and ever. But going back to what you
said earlier about how the actual diagnoses of the strangulation,
that's all we knew. We didn't know anything about the
head trauma. We certainly didn't know anything about you know,
this this attack that that you know that had taken
(20:48):
place and she's essentially I think, assaulted, you know, sexually
or vaginally. Something has been inserted, you know, into her.
Now I don't know really how deep that this went.
(21:09):
If I remember correctly, I believe that that her hymen
was still intact, you know, but there was some type
of contact that was made on this child's body. It's
a male profile that they obtained after the examination of
(21:31):
that DNA, and I don't I would love to know
when this examination was actually conducted. I think it was
like ninety eight perhaps, if I'm not mistaken. I think
that's accurate. All the way back then or ninety seven.
They knew back then that they had foreign DNA, and
(21:52):
none of that information was released. But the ramses knew.
They knew at that point in time, uh, back in
ninety seven, and it was never you know, it was
never put forward. Yeah, well, I think that there was
(22:15):
no I felt as though that this was a male,
a male event, and the reason is that it's got
the binding thing, you know, just just with the torture
you know around the neck, uh and where she's been
strangled with this grot. That's something that a sadistic male
(22:42):
would know something of, I would think, and again, my
my view of this is kind of colored. You know,
I mentioned to you in earlier comments that I had
made about the serial killer that you used to Garat,
that I worked that case and and he was all
about torture, and this is this is I'm not saying
that a female could not have done it could not
(23:03):
have have tortured a child with a Garat. However, these
are known torture devices and homicide weapons that there's a
utility to them. This is not just like a regular
old literature. This is something that's highly complex, so that
that part to me pointed in a in a very
(23:26):
specific direction. It's almost as if it's it's a a
male sadist perhaps, And if I remember correctly, there was
some seminal deposition I think on a blanket that was
(23:47):
that was found a Jason, you know, to her and
I don't know, I don't know what due care was
taken with that item as well. And that's that's the
big problem with the DNA. There is hope that I'll
go ahead and say this, There is hope and this
circumstances day because with and all those years ago when
(24:08):
I was on the air with on CNN talking about
this case. You know, back during this period of time,
our our needs from a forensic standpoint, you would need
to do a DNA profile. You would need a robust
sample of blood most of the time, okay, or some
(24:30):
other body fluid. But it would have to be robust okay,
because this is a you know, it becomes a depends
upon how you sample it. It becomes a destructive test, okay.
And so you need you need enough so that you
can go back. You need enough on reserve so that
you can hold it back for further studies. It ain't
the case no more, dude, That's just not the case.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
You know.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Now we're talking about touch DNA where you don't even
need a complete You don't need a complete profile in
order to facilitate this. You can use a partial and
build it out from there. And that's done on a
regular basis. Now that's that's it's not the only way
we assess DNA, but that's part and parcel of how
(25:16):
we operate. Now we don't expect to find you know,
foreign blood samples that are pools of blood that are
generated from the perpetrator. Now, all it requires is did
they love skinned skin cells, did they sweat and those
sorts of things, and so you can retrieve that. Yeah,
(25:37):
it really does. And I think that there that's going
to be the silver bullet in this case. That it
sounds almost like intellectual laziness on my part of this.
(25:59):
Maybe I don't know, but I think the key to
all of this is going to be this DNA and
I think that there are other places where they could
source the DNA from from items that were collected at
the home. I tell you, you want to know what
one of my biggest shocks that that I had in
(26:20):
this in the mob reveal in this in this particular
set of circumstances, they found a large rope and it's
not the rope that was used, you know, to strangulate
this child with, but another bit of rope that was found.
And they said that the Ramses had never seen it,
and it was in an adjacent area. And you're thinking, well,
(26:44):
how in the world would you why would this rope appear,
you know, in this house? Well, I think I think
of things like that, you know, that bit of rope
that's there, and this thing was apparently coiled and secured.
They don't necessarily talk about the nature of the knots
(27:05):
that the things used to be secured with. However, for me,
you know, I'm thinking again as a forensic scientist. You
know that if you're calling a rope, every place you've
touched on that rope, uh, there's a probability there's a
chance that you can be depositing touch DNA allong the
(27:29):
surface of it. Again, going back to this molecular evidence,
that would endwell, this these spaces, these tiny little crevices,
you know, I'd like to know where that rope is.
You know, what became of that rope, what became of
all the rest of this evidence that was collected at autopsy,
(27:50):
for instance, you know the literature once it's removed from
her neck and the groat. And here's another thing, that
paintbrush that was snapped into well, yeah, you've got the
part that was used as a growth. And what they're
saying is they believe that it may have been used
as a device to sexually assault her. But also what's
the status on the rest of that paint brush was it?
(28:13):
As a matter of fact, what's the status on everything
that was in that craft box? Because you have to
believe that someone went in there and they were digging
for something well, if you're going to be digging for
something and you're not wearing gloves, there's a chance you
may have left something behind. Now, maybe I'm putting too
much stock, okay, and the value of potential DNA evidence, However,
(28:36):
what else do you have? What else do you have?
Because right now you're down to the DNA there's nothing
else that unless and lets somebody have some kind of
you know, epiphanal moment where guilt just overrides every bit
of judgment in their brain. They say, I've got to
get this off my chest. I'm going to say that
(28:58):
I did it and truly say that they did. You're
not going to be like some weirdo that runs off
the Southeast Asia, like the guy you know that they
famously filmed. Yeah, that that weirdo you know that he
you know, said that he had intimate knowledge of it,
he had done it, and he no more did that
in a mand the moon and it was again another
attention grab. So you know what, what what are you
(29:22):
left with? Well? I think, uh, your best hope here
is is going to be this this deposition of DNA
going back to those you know, those precious little hands
that you know and a funny. A lot of these
cases that we that we cover, you know, there some
of these things are literally wound up being solved by
(29:43):
the victim themselves. And wouldn't that be something, you know,
if that DNA, that unknown bit of DNA that they found,
you know, deposited beneath her fingernails, that you know, that's
going to be the thing that eventually points us out,
or that you know, the unknown foreign male DNA that's
(30:04):
found within our panties, you know, would not be something.
You know, there's that child's desperation to fight off whoever
it was that was doing this to her, you know,
winds up telling the tale of the perpetrator.
Speaker 1 (30:18):
Perhaps, And after twenty eight years, we still don't know.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
No, no, we don't, but I think I think probably
after you know, we you know, we'd mentioned these these
grand juries that had been convened, and nothing you know,
truly happened with this we you know. One of the
(30:44):
other points that was raised in this is that you've
got this mass communications professor from University of Colorado, that's
Michael Tracy is Professor emeritus, which means he's retired. In
case people don't know, Professor emeritis is generally and esteem professor,
a tenured professor that has retired and they still occupy
space at the university, and he's been contacted by this
(31:08):
this person, this was revealed in the documentary by the
name of Taxis, and that this individual was going to
give him information about the case. And you know it
kind of strung him along for uh, for you know,
a protracted uh period period of time, and you know
(31:30):
that he knew graphic details about everything that had occurred.
And you the thing about these cases like this, they
draw you know, flies like uh, you know, like a barbecue. Uh.
You know that they want to come in and have
some peace of this, get their moment of fame and notoriety.
(31:52):
And this has happened. You know, you get all kinds
of false confessions over the years, and generally it's the
higher the higher of the you know, the profile of
the case. People want to interject themselves into it. And
it doesn't mean that their altruists and they want to help.
It means that they want themselves to become part of
the story.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
Just got to remember the d access was revealed to
be John Mark Carr.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Yeah, yeah, exactly. And you know that kind of circular
event that takes place, you know, with car after you know,
and I'll never forget seeing him. And listen, I'll put
it to you this way. You know they talk about
you know, you can't judge a book by its cover.
I'll judge I saw that guy getting off the plane.
(32:34):
I'm thinking, this guy's freaking weirdo. You know, you see
him walking through the concourse. He's got that weird kind
of appearance about him. Yeah, that's dis settling, to say
the very least. And then anybody that would interject themselves
into the circumstances where a child would be murdered like this,
(32:54):
And listen, he's the only he's like one of the
ones that we know about. Can you imagine how the
other calls have come in over the year's Dave, And
I'm imagine, and not just a law enforcement think about
all the newsrooms out there. They got phone calls because
you get them all the time. I mean I've gotten
them over the years. You know, at the e's office,
you know people that claim that they know special or
(33:15):
hidden information about something you know, And I would say, well,
you need to go to the police department and give
a statement. Here's phone number for the lead homicide detective
Pick and wow, they never it never works out. They
sometimes these people are mentally unbalanced, they just want somebody
to talk to or but they do have a desire
(33:36):
to to interject themselves, you know, into into this narrative.
But you know that, you know, kind of topping all
of this off, and this goes hand in hand. You know,
she had seventeen points in this article and the last
two do in fact go hand in hand because they
(33:58):
have to do with DNA. Here we go again. They
felt as though they both investigators and reporters, felt as
though that first off, the crime scene had been contaminated
relative to DNA. I don't know what they mean by
it being contaminated. Is does it go to the friends
(34:19):
all being invited over, Does it go to John touching
her body and bringing her upstairs. Does it go to
making coffee and having cookies, you know, in the kitchen.
Does it go to the cops not wearing gloves? And
I don't know if they did or didn't at the
scene to work the scene. Did they introduce theirselfs into
the scene, you know, because there's bootprints that are found
(34:42):
in the house that are high tech, high tech bootprints
that are what cops wear, you know, so you've got
you've got that bit in there. So are people wearing
shoe covers, they have hair covers, you know, all those
sorts of things. And you can't just you can't just
simply say, well, they just didn't know dog don't hunt man.
You should have known better at that point in time.
(35:05):
But like I I've always wondered, why in the world,
why in the world hasn't hasn't there been a third
party involved in this relative to the DNA science, And
of course you know where I'm going with this. I'm
going with their friends at AUTHORM. I mean, hands down,
(35:25):
this is the typical kind of case. This is the
perfect case for an organization like AUTHORN to be involved
in because if you still have DNA, or if you
if you think that there is a chance that you
can harvest DNA, they're the people to do it. And
if they can extract that DNA from any of the surfaces,
(35:46):
whether it's a rope, whether it's the panties, where it's
the fingernails, whether it's any kind of whether it's this
mass of blankets and everything, which you know, at some
point in time somebody said about seminal deposition. I don't
know how to verify that. Is there seminal deposition that
you can extract? What's the status on all of this stuff?
(36:07):
Is it moldering in a back room somewhere or is
it something that you actually that you're actually protecting after
all these years. If you've got this into the hands
of authorm Labs, they can they can build out this
profile now, Dave. And not only can they build it out,
they turn this damn thing over to the genealogists that
(36:29):
are on board and Katie bar the door brother, because
it's at that point in time that they can source this.
It doesn't matter if this individuals not in CODIS. It
doesn't it doesn't, it doesn't matter. That's that's no, that's
off the table at this point in time. Yeah, I mean,
at the we have moved so far beyond beyond the
(36:54):
system where stuff is is you know, inserted into with
codis when you start to get into this forensic genetic genealogy.
And interestingly enough, in twenty twenty two, I think it
correct me if I'm wrong, I think it is. Isn't
that when John D. John He's solicited you know, for
(37:16):
the governor. Please, I'm asked, please.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
Let us let somebody else help.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
I'm thinking, why is he having to ask the governor
on you're talking two years ago? The guy is begging,
please let me find out who killed my daughter. This
is all I'm asking.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
Now.
Speaker 3 (37:33):
This is a guy who's asking the governor to step in,
to allow them to take this DNA evidence and turn
it over to another group that can look at it differently.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
And why is there a no?
Speaker 2 (37:47):
Yeah, that's something that I certainly don't understand. And perhaps,
and again this is me spitballing because I was on
I was covering. I was covering. This was somebody else recently,
Maybe we were Maybe we were on Nancy. I can't
remember anyway that the idea came up with, you know,
(38:12):
the DNA testing being a destructive test. And is there
enough of it left? Well? How much did you go
through at that point in time? And you have to remember,
And this is where the hope herein lies. The hope
is that you don't need as much as you used to.
(38:33):
If I tried, I don't know that I could necessarily
give us sufficient I would. My words are insufficient to
describe to you how little you need now in order
to do this, in order to facilitate this, and that Dave,
that one that one shot at it could be enough
(38:54):
to finally reveal maybe not who killed her, but who
was present when she died. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan, and
this is Bockbacks
Body times, but Joseph's gotten.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
More twenty eight years. Twenty eight that's a long time.
It's almost three decades, almost three decades of not knowing
who you know, you know me. I'll never bite on
(00:32):
the idea of why, because I don't know that that's
even measurable. I don't know that that's even something that
we could begin to assess. But it's been almost three
decades since the six year old girl was found murdered
in the basement of her parents' home. There's still many
(00:59):
questions other than why. I think probably things that are
more salient, like the who who did this? Because whoever
they are, they were an absolute lost. We're going to
revisit this case once again, the Jean Benet homicide. I'm
(01:27):
Jesseph Scott Morgan, and this is Bodybags Dave. I had
fired off an article to you that was published by BuzzFeed,
and I found it interesting. In the wake of in
You and I in the first episode had already talked
about how we've heard about this case for so long.
(01:51):
I think both of us had to be druck kicking
and screaming in front of the televisions to watch. To
watch the documentary, this is not something that we would
have necessarily chosen to do, because it's just we live
it day in and day out. Neither you nor I
spent our time watching true crop stuff. But I think
that we were compelled to do this, you know, just
(02:14):
to try to understand, you know, maybe another view and
trying to get an idea as to what perhaps what
new information had been developed. I don't know that there's
necessarily new information. I think that it's a re examination
of what could be, and perhaps that's the most hopeful
(02:39):
thing in all of this.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
I watched it for the same reason Joe. I wasn't
planning on it. I was not planning on watching it.
I felt like the reason we can't solve it is
because they messed it up by being law enforcement, messed
it up from the very beginning, and that prevents solving
the case. Yeah, and I still after watching this, still
feel the same way. But I really watched it because
(03:06):
I am so jaded and I have a certain way
of looking at things, and nothing you say is going
to change the kind of thing. I've tried to change
from that attitude. I used to have that all the time,
and I've tried changing that attitude of well, let me see, Okay.
You say, you know there's an inspector here with a
great track record who claims he believes there was an
intruder that came into the Ramsey home, and I think
(03:31):
I'll leave it at that because he thinks there's evidence
proving that somebody came into that home. My problem with
that is you've got a six year old child who
was murdered, you have a note, a ransom note written
after she was dead. You leave the body behind, but
(03:52):
leave the ransom note, and the ransom note is actually
no good when they find the body so threatening if
you don't do exactly what we say when we say
it that we're going to kill your baby, and the
baby's dead in the house, you know, it makes no sense.
If if if jean Mine Ramsey had been murdered and
removed from the home and a ransom note was left behind,
(04:15):
then you might have my attention, you know, in terms
of believing what else you want to add to it,
But I believe there might be some truth in that.
You could prove an intruder came into the house. You
could prove an intruder came into your house last night,
Joe I could show how that back window at your
house that I've never seen was opened, and that there's
(04:37):
a footprint right over here, and somehow, you know, I
can go into my garage. You know what I found
in my garage, Joe, what's up in the bricks in
It's a garage. It's actual garage. It's not like a
closed in room or anything else. Although it could be
a gun, a nine millimeter gun pistol hidden in my house,
in my bricks, Okay, just down in the cinder block.
(05:01):
Somebody put it there. I don't know who or why,
but I found it.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Holy smokes.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
So I didn't put it there. But if you know,
if I was to be investigated and they saw that,
oh what the what in the world, Dave's got a
hidden gun?
Speaker 1 (05:13):
No? I did not.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
I'm taking notes.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Yeah, go ahead, take notes. I'm saying it right now
on the show because, believe me, it scared me.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
But I guess my.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
Whole point is that you can The detective says he
believed somebody broke into that home and did it in
this window, in this fashion, and it was downstairs in
the train room and all this, and even though you
can make me believe that even though physics will prove
that a baseball cannot curve in mid air. I can
throw a curveball. I believe somebody could crawl through that window.
(05:45):
I just don't believe they did, right.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Yeah, And that that's the you know, you think about
access and going back to the one that you know,
one of the things that that mister Ramsey has always
talked about is that he had had to knock that
glass out because he forgot his keys. And that's that's
that's talked about, you know, in the in the documentary
that you know you can see on Netflix, that he
(06:09):
had had to knock that window out and for whatever reason,
it had never gotten repaired. Uh, there was still glass shards,
you know, that were visible. And of course this this
you know, the suitcase that was found immediately adjacent there
that had dirt on top of a deposition of dirt.
I've had many questions about that as far as how
(06:31):
well was let's see, with what care was that suitcase treated?
You know during that period of time? Uh were how
careful were they because you know, just the crumsing image
that you can see, you see loose dirt sitting on
top of it. Was that soil sample that was on
(06:51):
top of that. Was that consistent with maybe that kind
of loamy soil that you have adjacent to a home
that at is not necessarily native to that area, Like
if you go out to Low's or home depot or
wherever you get your garden supplies, that stuff that comes
in bags that you you know, that you churn into
(07:13):
your soil in order to create, you know, a flower
garden or whatever, is at the point of origin because
that stuff is not necessarily native to Boulder. Or was
the soil that they found there was it? Did they
do did they do a geological assessment of that soil
because there are people and trace evidence that can do that,
(07:34):
And then what type of footprint or shoe print may
have been there? And how well did they document that?
I think that those are all very important questions. You know,
early on in going back to this article from BuzzFeed,
you know the she kind of made up an obvious
statement in this and I don't she talked about the
(07:58):
the I guess the anger that was directed at the parents,
you know, throughout this process of the early investigation, and
that there was I'm putting words into her mouth, this
is not necessarily coming from her. But you know, speculatively,
you know, people are looking for someone to blame in
a case like this, because this little girl was taken
(08:20):
to heart by the United States. The people that the
viewers that were out there there were just eating this
stuff up and they do, you know, want answers. I
think that most reasonable people would, and so that anger
is directed back. And of course this goes along with
what we've talked about in the past, hasn't it. You know,
you always look at the people in the intimate circle
of the victim and who has access, opportunity and motive,
(08:44):
you know, to facilitate her to pull something off. In
this case, you just take that template and apply to
this access an opportunity way. You think about people that
are that have access to her, you know, who could
have had had the knowledge that she was in that house.
The opportunity that goes to time, motive, don't know And
(09:09):
you know, as Nancy always says, she's like our yoda,
I guess to a certain de you know, And Nancy,
you know, just got you don't have to plan motive.
You don't have to prove motive in court, you know,
And she's She's right, You don't but it gives investigators, uh,
an indication of who might be involved, not the why,
(09:32):
but who what, what's the motivation behind, you know, wanting
to rid the world of a six year old child
who seemingly, you know, I mean, is is a good kid.
And you know, I don't know how you would make
that assessment of six year old I guess you could,
you know, you you know, people say, well, a child
is brady, or a child is sweet, or you know,
little angel on ours or you know, the devil incarnate,
(09:56):
but you know, you don't really, you don't really know
a lot about a child when there's six years old,
because certainly children's personalities change. But by all measure, she
was a sweet child. I don't know that my opinion
(10:21):
has necessarily changed that much, not that I necessarily formed
a complete opinion about the case. And a lot of
that goes to the absence of forensic evidence, because that's
where I dance. I question. I think more what the
police did or didn't do. Rather, that's really you know,
(10:45):
where where my assessment comes from. As far as being
able to get a feel for the Ramses. You know,
mister Ramsey has always come across as he's not necessarily
a cold fish. But he works in a world of
numbers and is and I don't expect him to still,
after all these years, to be running about, you know,
(11:06):
rending his clothes and pulling his hair out and you know,
screaming to the heavens. You know, he didn't do that
early on. I mean, he showed some emotion. He cried
and that sort of thing. As far as Patsy goes
uh hard to say. I think that she in her
own way, she she's she was a very driven person herself,
(11:30):
and she's certainly committed to to having Jean Benet out
on the stage. I think that to a certain degree.
And certain people who have talked about this that you know,
Patsy had lived this life of where up in West Virginia.
You know, she had been been a beauty queen up there,
(11:52):
and maybe she was vicariously living through through her daughter,
six year old daughter. But beyond that, I can't really
make it a assessment of her.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Now.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
I've met John Ramsey, you know, I've spoken with him,
and he was very obliging gentlemen. He was friendly. You know,
I didn't spend enough time with him to say that,
you know, he's a warm soul or anything like that.
But I did spend time with him on set and
talk directly to him about DNA evidence and talked about
(12:22):
what had happened at the scene during that period of time.
We didn't go into a lot of the detail because
you know, on these shows, you don't have, particularly if
you've got a big panel, you don't have like an
exhaustive amount of time, you know, like you do in
a documentary to go into great detail. And you know,
(12:45):
I think that that the people are persons that were
involved in this knew John Ramsey very very well. I
will say that they have to if if you were
to connect him with this very personal information about his
(13:08):
bonus that note access to this home, understanding the layout
of this home, there's no other kind of conclusion you
can kind of arrive at because somebody didn't just like
blindly walk through this house. And all of these things
fall into place, and then the leaving behind of the
(13:29):
kidnap victims, you know, deceased remains at that point in time.
They know John Ramsey, they know him very well, and
I guess that that leads us all the way back.
It's kind of circular, you know it leads us all
the way back, all the way back to who. And
I think that list is very very short. And that's
(13:50):
one of the surprising bits to this when you begin
to think about this kind of geographic isolation that this
family experienced as a result of having not lived there
for a long long time. They didn't have this huge
network of friends that you know, extended all over the
place in Colorado. Back in Atlanta, they would have, but
(14:12):
you know, you didn't. There was very few people that
they actually had data to contact with, and you didn't
have time enough to develop develop a you know, a
relationship with a lot of people. So that list is
very short, particularly as that applies to Boulder Day.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Interesting that while you have this supposed kidnap and nine
to one one call before six am, that they have
friends air quotes friends that are there providing support in
the home that morning, the day after Christmas.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
And I was thinking.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
About that from my perspective, I would not want anyone
in my home.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
No, I'd want police.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
Here's what we know, get it, you know, And granted
that's my way of thinking, I also know we apply
these things and what happens to how would I have
dealt with this and we kind of project ourselves into
the situation, and as people who cover these stories, I
analyze everybody's behavior, from the police to the victims, to
(15:21):
the suspects. I look at all of that and none
of this makes sense. But when you add in, we
were told of the strangulation, that she was strangled. That's
what we were as the media, as the public, we
were told. There was not a lot said about the
other injuries that she suffered that could have been fatal.
(15:42):
We weren't told of those, which makes me wonder why
were we not made aware of this? On top of that,
did you know there's eyewitnesses involved in this?
Speaker 2 (15:51):
No, No, I didn't do.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
Scott Gibbons is a neighbor. He claimed around midnight, while
looking from his kitchen window, he saw the kitchen of
the Ramsey residence to be lit up with lights on
dim neighbors Melody Stan. Our neighbor. Melody Stan reported that
(16:14):
she was awoken shortly after midnight by the sound of
a child's scream coming from the Ramsey residence. So we
have two neighbors that are turning on lights and hearing
a scream in the Ramsey residence around midnight. If you
can hear that across the street, Joe, you could certainly
hear it in the house. If an intruder breaks into
that house and kills John Bena Ramsey and that scream
(16:37):
is heard at a neighbor's home, You're going to tell
me that nobody inside the house heard it?
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Yeah, you would think so. Who would be that numb
to it that they could not have heard it from
within the house. And the characterization of screams are they
merely screams or is it some kind of vocalization of something,
you know, like oh my god, oh my god?
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Or have you ever heard of scared scream?
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Yeah? Yeah, I have.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
Actually it's different, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Yeah it is. It's Uh, it's got this this kind
of haunting pitch to it. And you know, people can
be surprised by things, and that is a scare as well.
But I've you know, I've I've actually been in contact
with with on on scenes with close relatives that roll
(17:37):
up and and a body has been found, and you
hear that that sound that emanates from a mother's mouth
when she finds out her son's been killed, and it
is that it is that terrible, high pitched noise. It's
something you never forget, and I've heard a lot of
(17:59):
them over the years, just in those circumstances alone. So yeah,
and that is that is part and parcel of all this.
You you think about what went on with Jean Benet
and some of the things that people don't really talk
about that came out in this documentary and they use
(18:22):
the term sexual assault, is that she, you know, Jean
Benet was penetrated with something that I think that one
of their suppositions is that it was part of the paintstick.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Or that was later used as the Yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Yeah, and that that's that's a big tail here, because
it's one thing for an individual to take the life
of a six year old, but to sexually assault a child.
And I'll tell you, I'll tell you, you know, with the
autopsy report, one of the things if if folks that
(18:58):
are listening to my voice, if you'll think about an
old fashioned clock face, it's weird. Have we have say
old fashioned clockface, but the clock face you know, uh
one through twelve, right, So, and this is how we
demonstrate things in forensic pathology. Forensic pathologists use clock face
all the time in order to orient people. So and
(19:20):
in the autopsy report itself, they talk about this insulted
area at her vaginal opening that's at the seven o'clock position,
and there's a bit of hemorrhage there that was obvious,
you know, obvious two to the to the m E
(19:43):
or the the forensic pathologists when they were doing uh,
doing the examination. And this gives you an idea that
there is something going on here. They knew that and then.
And that's something that you know, I take it for
(20:05):
granted because you know, my my students every semester view
jumping as autopsy report, every single semester. I use it
when I teach the six year old deaths. So they
have to review it, they have to comment on it,
those sort of things, and that's part of their testing material.
And so I kind of take it for granted that
(20:25):
it seems as though we've had access to this autopsy
report forever and ever. But going back to what you
said earlier about how the actual diagnoses of the strangulation,
that's all we knew. We didn't know anything about the
head trauma. We certainly didn't know anything about you know,
this this attack that that you know that had taken
(20:48):
place and she's essentially I think, assaulted, you know, sexually
or vaginally. Something has been inserted, you know, into her.
Now I don't know really how deep that this went.
(21:09):
If I remember correctly, I believe that that her hymen
was still intact, you know, but there was some type
of contact that was made on this child's body. It's
a male profile that they obtained after the examination of
(21:31):
that DNA, and I don't I would love to know
when this examination was actually conducted. I think it was
like ninety eight perhaps, if I'm not mistaken. I think
that's accurate. All the way back then or ninety seven.
They knew back then that they had foreign DNA, and
(21:52):
none of that information was released. But the ramses knew.
They knew at that point in time, uh, back in
ninety seven, and it was never you know, it was
never put forward. Yeah, well, I think that there was
(22:15):
no I felt as though that this was a male,
a male event, and the reason is that it's got
the binding thing, you know, just just with the torture
you know around the neck, uh and where she's been
strangled with this grot. That's something that a sadistic male
(22:42):
would know something of, I would think, and again, my
my view of this is kind of colored. You know,
I mentioned to you in earlier comments that I had
made about the serial killer that you used to Garat,
that I worked that case and and he was all
about torture, and this is this is I'm not saying
that a female could not have done it could not
(23:03):
have have tortured a child with a Garat. However, these
are known torture devices and homicide weapons that there's a
utility to them. This is not just like a regular
old literature. This is something that's highly complex, so that
that part to me pointed in a in a very
(23:26):
specific direction. It's almost as if it's it's a a
male sadist perhaps, And if I remember correctly, there was
some seminal deposition I think on a blanket that was
(23:47):
that was found a Jason, you know, to her and
I don't know, I don't know what due care was
taken with that item as well. And that's that's the
big problem with the DNA. There is hope that I'll
go ahead and say this, There is hope and this
circumstances day because with and all those years ago when
(24:08):
I was on the air with on CNN talking about
this case. You know, back during this period of time,
our our needs from a forensic standpoint, you would need
to do a DNA profile. You would need a robust
sample of blood most of the time, okay, or some
(24:30):
other body fluid. But it would have to be robust okay,
because this is a you know, it becomes a depends
upon how you sample it. It becomes a destructive test, okay.
And so you need you need enough so that you
can go back. You need enough on reserve so that
you can hold it back for further studies. It ain't
the case no more, dude, That's just not the case.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
You know.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Now we're talking about touch DNA where you don't even
need a complete You don't need a complete profile in
order to facilitate this. You can use a partial and
build it out from there. And that's done on a
regular basis. Now that's that's it's not the only way
we assess DNA, but that's part and parcel of how
(25:16):
we operate. Now we don't expect to find you know,
foreign blood samples that are pools of blood that are
generated from the perpetrator. Now, all it requires is did
they love skinned skin cells, did they sweat and those
sorts of things, and so you can retrieve that. Yeah,
(25:37):
it really does. And I think that there that's going
to be the silver bullet in this case. That it
sounds almost like intellectual laziness on my part of this.
(25:59):
Maybe I don't know, but I think the key to
all of this is going to be this DNA and
I think that there are other places where they could
source the DNA from from items that were collected at
the home. I tell you, you want to know what
one of my biggest shocks that that I had in
(26:20):
this in the mob reveal in this in this particular
set of circumstances, they found a large rope and it's
not the rope that was used, you know, to strangulate
this child with, but another bit of rope that was found.
And they said that the Ramses had never seen it,
and it was in an adjacent area. And you're thinking, well,
(26:44):
how in the world would you why would this rope appear,
you know, in this house? Well, I think I think
of things like that, you know, that bit of rope
that's there, and this thing was apparently coiled and secured.
They don't necessarily talk about the nature of the knots
(27:05):
that the things used to be secured with. However, for me,
you know, I'm thinking again as a forensic scientist. You
know that if you're calling a rope, every place you've
touched on that rope, uh, there's a probability there's a
chance that you can be depositing touch DNA allong the
(27:29):
surface of it. Again, going back to this molecular evidence,
that would endwell, this these spaces, these tiny little crevices,
you know, I'd like to know where that rope is.
You know, what became of that rope, what became of
all the rest of this evidence that was collected at autopsy,
(27:50):
for instance, you know the literature once it's removed from
her neck and the groat. And here's another thing, that
paintbrush that was snapped into well, yeah, you've got the
part that was used as a growth. And what they're
saying is they believe that it may have been used
as a device to sexually assault her. But also what's
the status on the rest of that paint brush was it?
(28:13):
As a matter of fact, what's the status on everything
that was in that craft box? Because you have to
believe that someone went in there and they were digging
for something well, if you're going to be digging for
something and you're not wearing gloves, there's a chance you
may have left something behind. Now, maybe I'm putting too
much stock, okay, and the value of potential DNA evidence, However,
(28:36):
what else do you have? What else do you have?
Because right now you're down to the DNA there's nothing
else that unless and lets somebody have some kind of
you know, epiphanal moment where guilt just overrides every bit
of judgment in their brain. They say, I've got to
get this off my chest. I'm going to say that
(28:58):
I did it and truly say that they did. You're
not going to be like some weirdo that runs off
the Southeast Asia, like the guy you know that they
famously filmed. Yeah, that that weirdo you know that he
you know, said that he had intimate knowledge of it,
he had done it, and he no more did that
in a mand the moon and it was again another
attention grab. So you know what, what what are you
(29:22):
left with? Well? I think, uh, your best hope here
is is going to be this this deposition of DNA
going back to those you know, those precious little hands
that you know and a funny. A lot of these
cases that we that we cover, you know, there some
of these things are literally wound up being solved by
(29:43):
the victim themselves. And wouldn't that be something, you know,
if that DNA, that unknown bit of DNA that they found,
you know, deposited beneath her fingernails, that you know, that's
going to be the thing that eventually points us out,
or that you know, the unknown foreign male DNA that's
(30:04):
found within our panties, you know, would not be something.
You know, there's that child's desperation to fight off whoever
it was that was doing this to her, you know,
winds up telling the tale of the perpetrator.
Speaker 1 (30:18):
Perhaps, And after twenty eight years, we still don't know.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
No, no, we don't, but I think I think probably
after you know, we you know, we'd mentioned these these
grand juries that had been convened, and nothing you know,
truly happened with this we you know. One of the
(30:44):
other points that was raised in this is that you've
got this mass communications professor from University of Colorado, that's
Michael Tracy is Professor emeritus, which means he's retired. In
case people don't know, Professor emeritis is generally and esteem professor,
a tenured professor that has retired and they still occupy
space at the university, and he's been contacted by this
(31:08):
this person, this was revealed in the documentary by the
name of Taxis, and that this individual was going to
give him information about the case. And you know it
kind of strung him along for uh, for you know,
a protracted uh period period of time, and you know
(31:30):
that he knew graphic details about everything that had occurred.
And you the thing about these cases like this, they
draw you know, flies like uh, you know, like a barbecue. Uh.
You know that they want to come in and have
some peace of this, get their moment of fame and notoriety.
(31:52):
And this has happened. You know, you get all kinds
of false confessions over the years, and generally it's the
higher the higher of the you know, the profile of
the case. People want to interject themselves into it. And
it doesn't mean that their altruists and they want to help.
It means that they want themselves to become part of
the story.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
Just got to remember the d access was revealed to
be John Mark Carr.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Yeah, yeah, exactly. And you know that kind of circular
event that takes place, you know, with car after you know,
and I'll never forget seeing him. And listen, I'll put
it to you this way. You know they talk about
you know, you can't judge a book by its cover.
I'll judge I saw that guy getting off the plane.
(32:34):
I'm thinking, this guy's freaking weirdo. You know, you see
him walking through the concourse. He's got that weird kind
of appearance about him. Yeah, that's dis settling, to say
the very least. And then anybody that would interject themselves
into the circumstances where a child would be murdered like this,
(32:54):
And listen, he's the only he's like one of the
ones that we know about. Can you imagine how the
other calls have come in over the year's Dave, And
I'm imagine, and not just a law enforcement think about
all the newsrooms out there. They got phone calls because
you get them all the time. I mean I've gotten
them over the years. You know, at the e's office,
you know people that claim that they know special or
(33:15):
hidden information about something you know, And I would say, well,
you need to go to the police department and give
a statement. Here's phone number for the lead homicide detective
Pick and wow, they never it never works out. They
sometimes these people are mentally unbalanced, they just want somebody
to talk to or but they do have a desire
(33:36):
to to interject themselves, you know, into into this narrative.
But you know that, you know, kind of topping all
of this off, and this goes hand in hand. You know,
she had seventeen points in this article and the last
two do in fact go hand in hand because they
(33:58):
have to do with DNA. Here we go again. They
felt as though they both investigators and reporters, felt as
though that first off, the crime scene had been contaminated
relative to DNA. I don't know what they mean by
it being contaminated. Is does it go to the friends
(34:19):
all being invited over, Does it go to John touching
her body and bringing her upstairs. Does it go to
making coffee and having cookies, you know, in the kitchen.
Does it go to the cops not wearing gloves? And
I don't know if they did or didn't at the
scene to work the scene. Did they introduce theirselfs into
the scene, you know, because there's bootprints that are found
(34:42):
in the house that are high tech, high tech bootprints
that are what cops wear, you know, so you've got
you've got that bit in there. So are people wearing
shoe covers, they have hair covers, you know, all those
sorts of things. And you can't just you can't just
simply say, well, they just didn't know dog don't hunt man.
You should have known better at that point in time.
(35:05):
But like I I've always wondered, why in the world,
why in the world hasn't hasn't there been a third
party involved in this relative to the DNA science, And
of course you know where I'm going with this. I'm
going with their friends at AUTHORM. I mean, hands down,
(35:25):
this is the typical kind of case. This is the
perfect case for an organization like AUTHORN to be involved
in because if you still have DNA, or if you
if you think that there is a chance that you
can harvest DNA, they're the people to do it. And
if they can extract that DNA from any of the surfaces,
(35:46):
whether it's a rope, whether it's the panties, where it's
the fingernails, whether it's any kind of whether it's this
mass of blankets and everything, which you know, at some
point in time somebody said about seminal deposition. I don't
know how to verify that. Is there seminal deposition that
you can extract? What's the status on all of this stuff?
(36:07):
Is it moldering in a back room somewhere or is
it something that you actually that you're actually protecting after
all these years. If you've got this into the hands
of authorm Labs, they can they can build out this
profile now, Dave. And not only can they build it out,
they turn this damn thing over to the genealogists that
(36:29):
are on board and Katie bar the door brother, because
it's at that point in time that they can source this.
It doesn't matter if this individuals not in CODIS. It
doesn't it doesn't, it doesn't matter. That's that's no, that's
off the table at this point in time. Yeah, I mean,
at the we have moved so far beyond beyond the
(36:54):
system where stuff is is you know, inserted into with
codis when you start to get into this forensic genetic genealogy.
And interestingly enough, in twenty twenty two, I think it
correct me if I'm wrong, I think it is. Isn't
that when John D. John He's solicited you know, for
(37:16):
the governor. Please, I'm asked, please.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
Let us let somebody else help.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
I'm thinking, why is he having to ask the governor
on you're talking two years ago? The guy is begging,
please let me find out who killed my daughter. This
is all I'm asking.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
Now.
Speaker 3 (37:33):
This is a guy who's asking the governor to step in,
to allow them to take this DNA evidence and turn
it over to another group that can look at it differently.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
And why is there a no?
Speaker 2 (37:47):
Yeah, that's something that I certainly don't understand. And perhaps,
and again this is me spitballing because I was on
I was covering. I was covering. This was somebody else recently,
Maybe we were Maybe we were on Nancy. I can't
remember anyway that the idea came up with, you know,
(38:12):
the DNA testing being a destructive test. And is there
enough of it left? Well? How much did you go
through at that point in time? And you have to remember,
And this is where the hope herein lies. The hope
is that you don't need as much as you used to.
(38:33):
If I tried, I don't know that I could necessarily
give us sufficient I would. My words are insufficient to
describe to you how little you need now in order
to do this, in order to facilitate this, and that Dave,
that one that one shot at it could be enough
(38:54):
to finally reveal maybe not who killed her, but who
was present when she died. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan, and
this is Bockbacks
Host
Joseph Scott Morgan
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.