Guests: Jim Thomas, Lisa Bloom, Colin Murray, Gary Casimir, Ken Padowitz, Joe Episcopo, Lawrence Kobilinsky

Updated 12:44 pm ET Dec 30, 2003

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3840387/

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
L. LIN WOOD, RAMSEY FAMILY ATTORNEY: It is strong evidence, if not conclusive evidence that the killer of this child was an intruder and not a member of the Ramsey family.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TACOPINA: It‘s been seven years since 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey was brutally murdered in her parents‘ home in Colorado. But now there‘s new information that could shed new light on the case. Two DNA samples from blood found on JonBenet Ramsey‘s underwear are now being tested by the FBI. Earlier tests indicated that the blood was from a male who was not a member of the Ramsey family, but the samples were then not considered to be of high enough quality to compare against the national DNA data bank. Ramsey family attorney Lin Wood says this new higher quality sample will take the murder investigation to the next level.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WOOD: DNA is going to solve this crime. DNA will ultimately find the killer and identify the killer of JonBenet Ramsey. The DNA sample now taken from the crime scene can be compared with DNA profiles of violent offenders, violent criminals in databases on the local, state, and federal level. That comparison over time will one day result in a hit, a match, and that will identify the killer of JonBenet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TACOPINA: That evidence appears to back up claims by John and Patsy Ramsey that their daughter was killed by an outsider. So could this DNA evidence be the missing link that both the prosecution and the Ramsey family have been waiting for? With us tonight DNA expert and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Dr. Larry Kobilinsky.
Good afternoon Larry.
LAWRENCE KOBILINSKY, PHD, DNA EXPERT: Hi. A pleasure to be with you.
TACOPINA: So what—why all of a sudden after all these years is this evidence good evidence? Why is it of a higher quality now than it was six years ago?
KOBILINSKY: Well, actually that‘s not true. The evidence is the evidence. It‘s the same evidence that existed seven years ago, but what has changed are the tests to analyze the DNA. In fact, the tests have become more sensitive, more reliable, more rapid, and, in fact, this is the reason that we can now hope that there may be a solution to this case. The national database requires 13 pieces of information, 13 genotypes, if you will, and if you have far less than that—for example, if you come up with only six—then you cannot enter it into the database. It becomes incomplete.
But now using some of the newer technology, you can deliver more information and ultimately check that database. And if there‘s a hit, they will know immediately. Obviously, we have not heard about a hit, so now the hope is that this result will provide a solution in the future. And what that simply means is if this individual who committed this crime were to commit a crime again in the future and perhaps he‘ll have to turn his DNA in for testing, at that point he will be linked to this crime as well.
TACOPINA: Larry, how accurate is DNA when it comes to tracking down possible suspects?
Well, OK, Doctor, thanks. We lost you, so we‘re going to go right to our legal panel who is standing by, thank God. Oh, Larry is back. I understand Larry is back with us. Larry, did you hear that question?
KOBILINSKY: Yes, I did.
TACOPINA: OK, let me ask it again.
KOBILINSKY: The answer...
TACOPINA: How accurate...
KOBILINSKY: Sure.
TACOPINA: ... is DNA evidence in tracking down possible suspects? Is it reliable? Is it fool proof?
KOBILINSKY: DNA testing is very reliable. You either get the right answer or you get no answer at all. Now, I must say if they‘re using this special technology called low copy DNA, then it‘s a matter of interpretation. We have to be very careful because you can get some confusing results at times.
TACOPINA: Dr. Larry Kobilinsky, thank you very much. Now, I guess, the question is what does all this DNA mean for the future of the JonBenet Ramsey investigation? Let‘s get our legal panel back in here, Court TV anchor and former prosecutor Lisa Bloom, criminal defense attorney Gary Casimir, criminal defense attorney Joe Episcopo, and former prosecutor Colin Murray.
Lisa, what does it all mean? I mean, seven years since JonBenet Ramsey‘s body was found dead. Do you really think that this investigation is anywhere near over?
BLOOM: Well, I think the DNA found in drops of blood, if it‘s linked to a particular person through the database, can be hugely significant. Remember that David Westerfield, the murderer of little Danielle Van Dam, another little 7-year-old girl who was murdered, he was convicted largely based on a single drop of blood that was Danielle Van Dam‘s that was found on his jacket. Juries love this kind of forensic evidence. It‘s the silent witness that doesn‘t lie. If this is linked to someone, this could be critical in solving this crime.
TACOPINA: Ramsey family attorney Lin Wood had this to say on the—this morning on the “Today” show about how the Ramsey family has long been suspected of wrongdoing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WOOD: The days of accusing this family are over. Without any question they‘re over...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TACOPINA: Colin, you just heard that. Are John and Patsy Ramsey‘s legal troubles potentially over?
MURRAY: It sure sounds like it. And what I wonder about, Joe, is if the technology was not at a level that there were enough genotypes to place into the national database seven years ago, it seems to me that there was sufficient blood sample that under traditional DNA analysis the Ramseys could have been excluded. Now I don‘t know whether that forensic analysis was conducted or not. But if it wasn‘t, it sure seems like the Ramseys went through a lot in this case needlessly.
TACOPINA: Yes. Let me ask you, Joe, these early test samples—this is not newly discovered evidence. Apparently this is evidence that was already there. Yet, somehow the Ramseys were still under that, according to the district attorney at the time, the umbrella of suspicion. How did that happen? I mean, what was it about the evidence then that did not cause them to be exonerated?
EPISCOPO: Well, according to the expert, he indicated that there are now more sensitive testing measures that they can use to develop this strand so that they can make a comparison. But he also indicated that it may require some subjective interpretation, so there is an opening for a defense attorney, when he eventually has to defend someone that‘s accused, to challenge this evidence because it‘s not conclusive or fool-proof. Remember, you asked was it fool proof. He did not agree with that term that it was fool proof.
TACOPINA: Yes and, you know, I just don‘t think that this is one of these cases that‘s going to remain unsolved. I mean, 30 percent of homicides in this country remain just unsolved. But Lisa, this is a case that the national spotlight has been on for a long time and even though it has its peaks and valleys, I think you would agree with me that there is some heavy pressure on someone to be charged with this crime.
BLOOM: Well and great proof of your point, Joe, is the fact that the incoming new district attorney made it a top priority to try to solve this case even though many years have passed. You know, we see cases on Court TV all the time that are 20 years later. A murder is finally solved. Someone ends up speaking to someone years later giving away incriminating information or cold cases reopened and police are able to solve a crime. And certainly when it‘s the murder of a little girl that‘s captured the nation‘s attention, the police are not going to let this rest until they find the killer.
CASIMIR: Joe, I just want to make one comment here. There was another blood sample found, you know, earlier on in the case. It was eliminated as being any member of the family. There is something to be said about the idea that sometimes cops when they have a belief in something, they‘re going to go full throttle on it and they‘re going to ignore some other evidence. I mean we‘re not discussing that here, but obviously that must be—that‘s part of the case.
The Ramseys have been under suspicion for years. Everybody thought they were guilty in one sense or the other and just the prosecution or the government messed up the case. And here you have a situation where blood samples were there before eliminating all family members. That didn‘t stop the suspicion from going forward and here we have another blood sample that might have been tested that would have eliminated someone even further. So you know, no one is discussing that element of how the investigation works and how hunches—hunches are a great tool in police investigations, but sometimes they do cause this kind of, you know, mass hysteria.
TACOPINA: Colin...
EPISCOPO: And you know not only that there never really was a motive for the parents to kill their daughter. That‘s the last thing in the world they would want to do...
CASIMIR: Joe...
EPISCOPO: ... and it certainly wasn‘t...
BLOOM: Well the first suspect if a child is killed is always going to be a family member...
CASIMIR: Exactly.
BLOOM: ... going to look first...
CASIMIR: Exactly.
BLOOM: ... at the family, but not to the exclusion of looking thoroughly at all the evidence.
CASIMIR: Joe, they put...
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: ... molestation out there...
TACOPINA: ... couple that guys with the fact there was some unusual moves made by the Ramseys in those early stages. Let‘s not forget that. I mean there were some idiosyncrasies in how they handled the early stages of the investigation. There were this whole thing about that ransom note and a lot of things that I guess just didn‘t seem to be of the orthodox nature. Colin, as a former prosecutor, I mean, one way or another, this is not probably the case you are going to want landing on your desk the day the police come and say, hey, we found it, we‘ve arrested somebody.
MURRAY: You know, it‘s a tough case to solve, and I think it‘s a good thing that a new district attorney is on the case, and that district attorney is committed. I agree with Lisa, though. Cold cases are solved, and the advent of this new DNA analysis may well help solve this case. The problem is the suspect might not be in the national database, and if the suspect is not in the national database, then you‘re going to have to have some other leads that would bring you to a suspect who could be tested for purposes of comparison.
TACOPINA: Right. Right.

********snip*********

It really is a shame that this case was so poorly handled. The blood samples have been there all along (and I strongly suspect "DNA-X" is the DNA found in the second blood spot, just a better, more complete profile of the DNA; there all along, from day one). So many people could have been saved so much grief (but then, I'd never have 'met' some of you! - lol).

There is some complaint that no one was on this show to represent the anti-Ramsey. Could be because they are getting fewer and farther between, less willing to speak out on national tv with their outdated views.

advertisement
“The Ramseys have a lot of hope that the DNA will solve the case,” said their lawyer, L. Lin Wood.

The DNA sample was taken from two drops of blood on the garment, which has been in storage with authorities since the investigation began into the child’s murder.

JonBenet, a competitor in child beauty contests, was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her parents’ Boulder home on Dec. 26, 1996.

Higher quality obtained
Earlier DNA tests on the blood indicated it was from a male who was not a member of the Ramsey family. At the time, the DNA sample wasn’t of a high enough quality to compare against a national databank of DNA, the attorney said.

Within the last few months, the Boulder District Attorney’s office was able to get a high quality sample of DNA from the garment to send to the FBI, Wood said.

Phone lines at the district attorney’s office were continuously busy Friday and no one could be reached for comment.

“I do believe the single most important evidence in the case is the DNA,” Wood said in a telephone interview from his office in Atlanta, where John and Patsy Ramsey now live.

The DNA will be compared with other samples in the FBI’s national databank to see if it matches men convicted of violent crimes or samples from other unsolved crimes, Wood said.

Wood accused Boulder police of not aggressively pursuing the DNA because it appeared to have been from someone outside the Ramsey family. The Ramseys have long contended that an outsider killed their daughter, and they have accused police of ignoring that possibility.

Police declined to comment, referring questions to the district attorney’s office.

District Attorney Mary Keenan took over the case this year after a five-year investigation by police failed to result in arrests or indictments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just want to bump this - - this certainly does appear to be shaping up as a DNA case.