Hot Off the Press:Doubtful DNA

An anonymous poster (thank you) just linked us to an article titled DNA in doubt: New analysis challenges DA's exoneration of Ramseys, from the Boulder Daily Camera of Oct. 27. The lead author is Charlie Brennan, the reporter who sued to get the GJ indictment made public, and a long term student of the case -- he assisted Lawrence Schiller in the writing of PMPT. At first glance this looks like nothing new. The presence of multiple DNA samples at the crime scene was reported some time ago in James Kolar's book. (Interesting that Kolar is not mentioned.) What makes it important is its thoroughness. Brennan digs deeply into many details of this evidence, consulting with and quoting several DNA experts (though fans of Dr. Henry Lee may be disappointed).


For a newspaper article this is unusually long and detailed, but it doesn't take much reading to make the point abundantly clear: the Ramsey case is NOT a DNA case -- the DNA evidence is highly questionable and it was most certainly a mistake for DA Mary Lacey to exonerate the Ramseys on that basis. Since those tiny morsels of microscopic "touch DNA" have been the cornerstone of the intruder theory for years, and indeed the basis for all those many media reports, solemnly reminding us that "the Ramseys have been exonerated and are no longer considered suspects," this one article could make a huge difference. Evidence buried in Kolar's book has now taken center stage in a newspaper article that will (hopefully) be widely quoted in the mainstream media.

What is not mentioned is the reason why Lacey decided to exonerate the Ramseys, despite being warned by her own investigators that the then new DNA evidence was not definitive. I long suspected that Ramsey lawyer and chief bulldog, Lin Wood, must have had something to do with this decision -- and sure enough, if you were paying attention during the Dr. Phil show, you'd have seen Wood proudly admitting that he had threatened her with a lawsuit at the time, unless she took the Ramseys off the suspect list. In other words, Wood essentially blackmailed a sitting District Attorney into exonerating his clients out of fear that she could be sued, and her reputation destroyed in the process. A more sensible attorney would have refrained from trumpeting such an outrageous threat, but Wood's pride got the better of him. It was more important to take credit for getting his clients off than run the risk of admitting to highly unethical behavior. Of course, I seem to have been the only one who noticed, so maybe it doesn't matter.