Every Day You Wait . . . Is One Day Longer

by Todd Matthews, Guest Contributor

If you have a missing loved one, not knowing what you can do about it is a huge challenge. Dealing with the situation on the usual day-to-day basis is overwhelming in itself. But not knowing what you can do to make sure all paths are being followed is another issue.

One thing you can do is to make sure your missing persons data is being properly reviewed.

Of course, the information contained in the missing person's NCIC case file is considered for law enforcement only. But rather than the usual phone call to the detective in charge of your missing loved one, maybe you can do some fact checking.

Normally the call consists of asking if there's any new info in regards to the investigation of the missing person. (More often than not, nothing has changed.) But since you may not have any idea of what is listed in the NCIC report, this might be a good time to do some fact checking. Ask the detective to confirm physical characteristics, height, weight, etc.

Do they have dental info listed? If not, do you have the dental info that you need to get to them for inclusion into the file? This is an extremely valuable piece of information! Have here been any DNA family reference samples taken? Mitochondrial and nuclear? Can you confirm the DNA has been included in the CODIS, the national DNA database?

Dates are important as well. There is no database in existence that is immune to human error. Why not double-check the dates involved such as date last seen and date of birth?. For example, numbers such as Social Security numbers are easy to mix up. Are there any birthmarks, tattoos, or other distinguishing characteristics that weren't noted? Do you have a photo that might be of value?

A simple-fact check review can't hurt anything, and might change everything. You are not asking for investigative information. You are asking to verify the very data you helped to provide. During the course of this conversation, it is a good time to ask your law enforcement contact to register as a NamUs user.

Now is the time when you yourself can get the ball rolling by entering your own loved one into NamUs. By doing this, a great deal of conversation in regards to your loved one's case begins.

I have seen simple human errors resolved in this manner. Some are minor and do not make an immediate difference, but they still affect the future. Some errors are fairly important and can have an immediate impact on resolution or on how the case is processed internally.

Once your loved one's case is in NamUs, you can work to help make sure all the gaps are filled with accurate information. The only thing worse that a lack of data is inaccurate data. Consider the tiniest details.

More resources:
http://missingpiecesshow.homestead.com/MissingPiecesEpisode74Archive.html

Todd Matthews' calling to be a voice for missing and unidentified persons began when he solved the identity of the "Tent Girl," Barbara Hackman-Taylor, after a ten-year journey that ended in 1998. He is also Media Director for the Doe Network, a consultant to Emmy-award winning producer Dick Wolf ("Law & Order"), and on the Advisory Panel for the U. S. Department of Justice NamUS (National Missing and Unidentified Persons System) database project. Todd also hosts a weekly radio show that publicizes unidentified and missing persons cases. A documentary featuring our guest contributor's work was recently broadcast on the BBC. A second documentary about his life is in post-production.

Tweet

Factual Evidence in JonBenét Ramsey Case Forgotten

by Stacy Dittrich

I have been commentating on the JonBenét Ramsey case over the past week on radio and television stations from coast to coast, and there seems to be quite a misunderstanding regarding the "new" evidence that was presented in the case. The misunderstanding? That the evidence is new or even reliable.

Perhaps this was Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's last-ditch effort to rid herself of the case once and for all. Since Lacy (pictured right) took office, it has been very apparent that this case was something she wanted no part of but conceded the parents needed to be looked at. Last week, Lacy issued a public letter exonerating John Ramsey of all suspicion in the murder investigation involving his daughter, JonBenét. Bad move, Mary.

The DA's logic when issuing this exoneration was that a newly developed form of DNA testing resulted in several skin cells on JonBenét's long johns matching a sample taken from her underwear at the time of the murder. Now, instead of having unknown DNA on one piece of the victim's clothing, the same DNA is on two.

Apparently, Lacy thought this was enough to disregard every other piece of evidence in the case. Imagine spilling out a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle on a table in front of you. Find two red pieces and match them together. Throw out the other 498 pieces and tell yourself, "I don't need to finish this, I know what it is, it's a picture of an apple!" When, in fact, the picture was a large, red, barn with horses out front. Mary Lacy is clearly not proficient in puzzle solving.

First, we must question how reliable the DNA testing that was recently performed is. It was done through a private lab and is fairly new. The FBI DNA database, CODIS, is compiled of DNA from local, state, and federal labs. As Atlanta District Attorney Eleanor Dixon pointed out, it is unknown if this could even be admissible in court.

Next, we have the initial DNA sample taken from the underwear at the time of JonBenét's murder. It was described by the Boulder DA's office as a significant blood sample. Not so, says forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee. The amount of the sample was so minute on the brand new underwear JonBenét was wearing, that it could have possibly come from the manufacturer itself. Did you take DNA samples from everyone at the manufacturing company, Mary?

The following is where I take the biggest issue. As we all know, the initial investigation into the murder was comparable to a street carnival. No sense of order or evidence preservation commenced in this "panic." Once the body of JonBenét was located by her father (pictured right), the body was handed off and touched by approximately three or four people before it was secured and evidence preserved. John and Patsy had two couples and their minister in the home by the time police arrived.

I'm curious. Did each and every one of these people submit DNA samples? Patsy admittedly pulled up JonBenét 's long johns prior to the arrival of law enforcement.

The DNA found in JonBenét's underwear only consisted of 9 DNA "markers." The FBI once used 13 to make comparisons. According to DNA expert Brent Turvy, 9 markers is enough nowadays. But comparing this small amount of markers to the new "spot DNA" is really pushing it.

As Mr. Turvy stated, "DNA alone is not going to tell you who committed the crime in a case like this." Are you listening, Mary Lacy? Has the District Attorney ever heard the term "totality of the evidence?"

Let's take a look at that evidence, shall we? I'll put it together in a simple timeline:

December 25, 1996 10:00 p.m. - John Ramsey is the last person in the family to see JonBenét alive. She was "on her bed."

December 26, 1996 05:52 a.m. - Patsy Ramsey wakes up, walks downstairs and finds a ransom note claiming to have kidnapped her daughter. The note claims she is being watched and not to call the police or JonBenét would be killed. Without hesitation, Patsy calls the police.

06:10 a.m. - The first officers from the Boulder Police Department arrive on scene. One of the first priorities in a missing child investigation is to search the house. They do not search the house at this point. Instead, they wait on a promised 10:00AM phone call from the kidnappers as stated in the ridiculous ransom note. They do, however, check the exterior of the residence and find it is completely locked, no signs of forced entry, and there are no footprints in the thin layer of snow and frost that covers the Ramsey lawn. An incredible feat for any experienced criminal to pull off.

01:00 p.m. - Officers in the home inform John Ramsey they are going to get a search warrant, and request that he check the inside of the home for JonBenét, and to see if any of JonBenéts clothing, toys, or items are missing. What does John do? He immediately heads to the basement, followed by his friends Fleet White and John Fernie.

(Apparently, JonBenét's bedroom slipped his mind. It also must have slipped the officers' minds to escort him to every room since it was becoming increasingly clear he or someone present was a "person of interest.")

01:03 p.m. - Fleet White comes screaming up the stairs for someone to call an ambulance while he goes to the back office to get on the phone (???). Female detective Linda Arndt ran to the basement door and sees John Ramsey running up the stairs holding the body of JonBenét. (No mention of what John Fernie was doing.)

John had found JonBenét in an obscure room off the basement underneath two blankets. In a monstrous house with a gazillion rooms in it I'd say that's damn good luck, John! (Now there's a guy that should play the lottery.)

Oh, did I mention he pulled off the tape that was covering her mouth? (evidence contamination #3,456) The autopsy report showed that JonBenét's pelvic area was most likely wiped off with a wash cloth as well. Did he do that too? (evidence contamination #3,457)

01:03 p.m. - John Ramsey lays JonBenét on the floor where she is moved by Det. Arndt and Patsy pulls up her long johns (contaminatecontaminatecontaminate).

Det. Arndt notes green garland wrapped in JonBenéts hair is most likely from the garland decoration wrapped around the staircase where the note was found. Funny, Patsy must have missed the shambled decorations on her way down to make pancakes—or write a ransom note.

Ah, the ransom note. Another key factor in the investigation. Granted, I'm not a profiler, but I've talked to enough barbaric child molesters to know that they wouldn't know what the word "attache'" means—let alone how to spell it.

I find it "off the beaten" path that a highly organized group of kidnappers seeking money would resort to low-grade child rape and murder. Or, on the flip side, a low-grade child rapist who has the "kahunas" to perform the rape and murder inside the home taking a high and probable risk of getting caught.

Most would be "out of their element" and transport the body to an outside location where they wouldn't be bothered. Most of whom wouldn't bother locking doors on their way out. Which leads me to my most prized theory:

JonBenét's body was hidden inside an obscure room underneath blankets where a "suspect" would assume she wouldn't be found. But, his plan fell through. Assuming law enforcement would be out of the home searching for the victim, would allow him plenty of time to grab his "stash" and go dump it somewhere. But when officers indicated they would search the house, the panicked "suspect" ran to his "stash" first. A likely scenario? Maybe.

The time of death is also a questioning factor. The autopsy showed rigor mortis in lower extremities and joints only, an effect that occurs five to eight hours after death. This would put JonBenét's death around the early morning hours.

Did Patsy Ramsey walk in on something? Giving all the benefit of the doubt, I contacted my most favorite and respected coroner's assistant. Since the body was in the basement, the cooler temperatures easily could have delayed the process. Still, it's another question.

The end result is that there are entirely too many unanswered questions in this case to exonerate anybody, especially John Ramsey. Whether his own hand was a factor or someone else's, I truly believe he has knowledge of what happened to his daughter.

If my child were brutally murdered, I couldn't comprehend flipping through the yellow pages four days later in search of a defense attorney. Actions and emotions are some of the largest factors of evidence in any investigation; something Mary Lacy clearly missed.

Oh, and the fact that the autopsy showed JonBenét had previous sexual trauma PRIOR to the night of her death is a clue. To exonerate a suspect in which the majority of evidence points to him is premature at best, and completely irresponsible at worst. Yes, there is always the possibility of an "intruder." But at this point, all of the options should have stayed open.

Tweet