Defending against an intruder

Holdontoyourhat

Former Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
5,299
Reaction score
12
Did JBR defend herself against an intruder? Did she have injuries that suggested she fought back? Could she have defended herself, or was the intruder too prepared? Why was the intruder so prepared?

It was pointed out on another thread that screaming is only for movies, and that other victims of crimes or attempted crimes did not scream. Why didn't JBR scream if she was assaulted by an intruder? Well, there is a neighbor who thought they heard a scream.

Children can defend themselves, and screaming or raising attention is in fact a basic child defense technique.


http://www.selfdefenseresource.com/children/articles/12-tips.php

If someone starts touching or grabbing a child, the child should attract attention by kicking, yelling, and screaming. He can yell "He's not my dad!" "She's not my mom!" "Stranger, stranger!" and "He's attacking me!"
 
Did JBR defend herself against an intruder? Did she have injuries that suggested she fought back? Could she have defended herself, or was the intruder too prepared? Why was the intruder so prepared?

It was pointed out on another thread that screaming is only for movies, and that other victims of crimes or attempted crimes did not scream. Why didn't JBR scream if she was assaulted by an intruder? Well, there is a neighbor who thought they heard a scream.

Children can defend themselves, and screaming or raising attention is in fact a basic child defense technique.


http://www.selfdefenseresource.com/children/articles/12-tips.php

If someone starts touching or grabbing a child, the child should attract attention by kicking, yelling, and screaming. He can yell "He's not my dad!" "She's not my mom!" "Stranger, stranger!" and "He's attacking me!"

You make good points, Holdon. This stuff should be taught more widely. It might lessen the number of children who get victimized.

Let me also say this: when I was that young, there was one thing I sure would have done: BITE!

I would say that your third question should be categorized, since it depends on the answer to the first question.

But since you know where I stand, I won't answer them unless you want me to.
 
Teaching young kids how to act defensively is an excellent idea, and should be part of every schools' curriculum.
As far as we know, there were no defensive injuries on JBR, on her hands, etc. that would suggest she fought an intruder. The scream is about as much as we have right now, and her scream could have been in reaction to feeling the pain of either being sexually assaulted (enough to cause bleeding), or screaming in fear if she realized what was happening. Neighbor Melanie Stanton, when first mentioning the scream, is sure it was a child's scream. As a mother myself, I do know what she means; kids screams can be distinguished from adults pretty easily. However I don't rule out the possibility that the scream may have been PR's. A woman can have a higher pitched voice that can be mistaken for a child's, especially when the person that heard it was woken up from sleep by the scream.
 
Teaching young kids how to act defensively is an excellent idea, and should be part of every schools' curriculum.
As far as we know, there were no defensive injuries on JBR, on her hands, etc. that would suggest she fought an intruder. The scream is about as much as we have right now, and her scream could have been in reaction to feeling the pain of either being sexually assaulted (enough to cause bleeding), or screaming in fear if she realized what was happening. Neighbor Melanie Stanton, when first mentioning the scream, is sure it was a child's scream. As a mother myself, I do know what she means; kids screams can be distinguished from adults pretty easily. However I don't rule out the possibility that the scream may have been PR's. A woman can have a higher pitched voice that can be mistaken for a child's, especially when the person that heard it was woken up from sleep by the scream.

This is not true, according to what I've read. Scratching and clawing is a common defense, and supporting the idea that JBR scratched and clawed her attacker is the unknown male DNA found underneath JBR's fingernails. I believe this DNA matches the DNA that was found on her longjohns and in her underwear.
 
This is not true, according to what I've read. Scratching and clawing is a common defense, and supporting the idea that JBR scratched and clawed her attacker is the unknown male DNA found underneath JBR's fingernails. I believe this DNA matches the DNA that was found on her longjohns and in her underwear.

Yet another IDI inaccuracy. The DNA under her nails does NOT match any other DNA, and was degraded (meaning much older) than the other DNA profiles. There was NO evidence of blood or skin under her nails, so the scratching and clawing is unlikely. Also, the coroner did not follow proper sterile procedures for clipping JBR's nails; he used the SAME clipper for each finger, instead of the standard procedure of a clean clipper for each nail.
If JBR hadn't washed her hands in a few days (as her mother said, JBR disliked hand-washing and avoided it whenever she could) that DNA may not have been associated with the crime, or that day, at all. Her mother said that JBE did not have a bath that day and also could not remember whether she had a bath the previous day.
 
Yet another IDI inaccuracy. The DNA under her nails does NOT match any other DNA, and was degraded (meaning much older) than the other DNA profiles. There was NO evidence of blood or skin under her nails, so the scratching and clawing is unlikely. Also, the coroner did not follow proper sterile procedures for clipping JBR's nails; he used the SAME clipper for each finger, instead of the standard procedure of a clean clipper for each nail.
If JBR hadn't washed her hands in a few days (as her mother said, JBR disliked hand-washing and avoided it whenever she could) that DNA may not have been associated with the crime, or that day, at all. Her mother said that JBE did not have a bath that day and also could not remember whether she had a bath the previous day.

Are you simply calling this CNN news report a lie?


"Late last year, Lacy ordered a test using new methodology known as "touch" testing on genetic material found on a pair of long johns that had been pulled up over the girl's underwear. That material matched DNA that was found on the girl's underwear and under her fingernails in a test conducted in 1998. The DNA belongs to an unidentified man, Lacy said."

Maybe you can share with us your source that shares your view.
 
Yes. The DNA under her nails was too degraded to match conclusively with anyone. Remember this is Lacy saying this.
 
Are you a DNA expert?

No, but Henry Lee is. In A documentary made by Larry Schiller in 2006, he said that the DNA under her nails only had three identifiable markers, and they had to use amplification just to get that many.

The CNN report is repeating an old lie that was started by the Ramseys and their legal machine that has been repeated without challenge for so long it's been accpeted as truth. Tom Bennet, the DA's investigator at the time, said that the DNA under her nails was of no value.

How's that?

Actually, Holdon, I'm kind of surprised that you would take a media report on this case at face value. You're always telling us not to believe anything I read, see or hear about this case. But that's neither here nor there.
 
No, but Henry Lee is. In A documentary made by Larry Schiller in 2006, he said that the DNA under her nails only had three identifiable markers, and they had to use amplification just to get that many.

The CNN report is repeating an old lie that was started by the Ramseys and their legal machine that has been repeated without challenge for so long it's been accpeted as truth. Tom Bennet, the DA's investigator at the time, said that the DNA under her nails was of no value.

How's that?

Actually, Holdon, I'm kind of surprised that you would take a media report on this case at face value. You're always telling us not to believe anything I read, see or hear about this case. But that's neither here nor there.

The test referred to in the CNN article wasn't even ordered until 'late last year', or late 2007. Your 2006 documentary, and your claim that CNN is 'repeating an old lie' seem to be ignorant to, or in denial of, the recent news events of the case.
 
The test referred to in the CNN article wasn't even ordered until 'late last year', or late 2007. Your 2006 documentary, and your claim that CNN is 'repeating an old lie' seem to be ignorant to, or in denial of, the recent news events of the case.

Wrong, Holdon. I am not ignorant of anything. And the only person in denial is Mary Lacy.

Look at that CNN report again. The test you speak of happening in 2007 was the new test, but it was only on the longjohns. The idea that the fingernail DNA matches that comes from much earlier. Since 2002, the Ramseys and their legal team have tried to claim that the fingernail DNA matches the underwear DNA, even though it has so few markers it can't be worth anything. That's the old lie that CNN was repeating, because they took that old lie at face value and just added this on to it. The fingernail DNA is a dead end.
 
Wrong, Holdon. I am not ignorant of anything. And the only person in denial is Mary Lacy.

Really? Are you sure?

Look at that CNN report again. The test you speak of happening in 2007 was the new test, but it was only on the longjohns. The idea that the fingernail DNA matches that comes from much earlier. Since 2002, the Ramseys and their legal team have tried to claim that the fingernail DNA matches the underwear DNA, even though it has so few markers it can't be worth anything. That's the old lie that CNN was repeating, because they took that old lie at face value and just added this on to it. The fingernail DNA is a dead end.

Who took that old lie? CNN?

I think you're getting confused between CNN 'adding' things onto other things, and actual conclusions from a test that was ordered in late 2007.
 
The original topic, did JBR defend herself? Lets forget about that pesky unknown male DNA under her fingernails, because thats not a defending injury anyway.

JBR doesn't really have any clear defending injuries, like bruises to her forearms, hands, knees, feet, etc. that would show she struggled. I think that is because the intruder was too prepared.

Its clear JBR was attacked (to IDI anyway), but had little or no opportunity to fight back or scream.

The idea that JBR was unable to wake neighbors or her parents (remember, I'm IDI, so her parents are sleeping at the time) with a scream or yell is supported by evidence: the garrote.

The idea that JBR had no opportunity to fight back is also supported by evidence: she had extra injuries to her backside, suggesting her attacker stayed behind her the whole time.
 
Really? Are you sure?



Who took that old lie? CNN?

I think you're getting confused between CNN 'adding' things onto other things, and actual conclusions from a test that was ordered in late 2007.

Damn sure. I've been at this case a long time. I know these things.

I'm not the one who's confused. Though, from the way it's worded, one could get the impression you are trying to give. No, the test on the longjohns was conducted last year. The fingernail test was back in 1997-1998.
 
Damn sure. I've been at this case a long time. I know these things.

I'm not the one who's confused. Though, from the way it's worded, one could get the impression you are trying to give. No, the test on the longjohns was conducted last year. The fingernail test was back in 1997-1998.

There's no ambiguity, SD. The conclusion from the 2007 test was that the DNA found in the longjohns matched the DNA found under her fingernails AND the DNA mixed with blood in JBR's underwear.
 
There's no ambiguity, SD. The conclusion from the 2007 test was that the DNA found in the longjohns matched the DNA found under her fingernails AND the DNA mixed with blood in JBR's underwear.

The conclusion of the 2007 test was that it matched the underwear DNA, as much as they could match it because it was incomplete. But CNN was just being lazy on the fingernail angle. They were just repeating the story that Team Ramsey has been telling. Two PIs working for them came up with that. Like I said, it only had three markers and they barely got that much out of it.
 
The conclusion of the 2007 test was that it matched the underwear DNA, as much as they could match it because it was incomplete. But CNN was just being lazy on the fingernail angle. They were just repeating the story that Team Ramsey has been telling. Two PIs working for them came up with that. Like I said, it only had three markers and they barely got that much out of it.

I know that DNA is and has been a thorn in the side of RDI for years. But there's just no way to read into the CNN article what you've stated here. I tried, but I get nothing about PI's or R lawyers in the article.

Maybe with some other media sources, you can further your cause that the 2007 test did not find the fingernail DNA to match the longjohn DNA. I believe there was a ranting, somewhat rambling article I read from an obvious RDI follower who went on and on about how the 2007 test was meaningless.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
1,217
Total visitors
1,348

Forum statistics

Threads
589,182
Messages
17,915,220
Members
227,746
Latest member
nmdigital
Back
Top