1128 users online (285 members and 843 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299

    Subtle but key evidence waived

    Some DNA traces were found that could be attributed to a male not living in the house. Somehow this DNA made its way onto more than one article of clothing that JBR was wearing at the time she was murdered. That was big news in 2008. The DA used this evidence to support the argument that the R's should be treated as victims and not suspects.

    JMK admitted to the murder of JBR. That was also big news. He didn't match the DNA and couldn't place himself in Boulder on the date in question, so LE ruled him out as a suspect. But not before he made the news, and made at least one or two handwriting analysts believe he had written the note.

    Despite these IDI media bombshells, RDI would stay its course. If a IDI bombshell can't cause RDI to waiver, how then would a very subtle but key piece of evidence get any attention?

    It wouldn't now and probably didn't then.

    Presuming RDI was the thought for the day back in 1996, subtle but key evidence was likely waived.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    I think the problem with JMK was that the Michael Tracey link was exposed pretty early on so any RDI worth his or her salt would immediately be put on guard. Similarly, JMK's story unravelled very quickly.

    If the multi-agency task force came up with a suspect who ticked a few more evidentiary boxes than Karr, I think you'd find RDIs would listen. I maintain that most RDIs would actually prefer an intruder to have committed this crime.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    We'd LOVE the evidence to conclusively point to someone OTHER than the Ramseys. Karr is not the one. If there is someone out there who can be unequivocally linked to the CRIME (not just the crime scene) we'd be thrilled. It would be over.

    I take no pleasure in thinking that JB was killed by her family, even if it was an accident covered up. It wasn't even that- it was the whole thing- the death, the staging, the lies, the official misconduct and blundering. That's why this crime touches so many when other similar crimes have not.
    Kids die every day- often at the hands of their loved ones.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    I maintain that most RDIs would actually prefer an intruder to have committed this crime.
    THIS one would!
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Of course we would. Who would LIKE to have parents kill their kids? I mean, we see enough of it in the news anyway. It's sickening. It's right up there with men killing their pregnant wives or girlfriends because they don't want to be responsible for a child. God knows, that happens all too often as well.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    I think the problem with JMK was that the Michael Tracey link was exposed pretty early on so any RDI worth his or her salt would immediately be put on guard. Similarly, JMK's story unravelled very quickly.

    If the multi-agency task force came up with a suspect who ticked a few more evidentiary boxes than Karr, I think you'd find RDIs would listen. I maintain that most RDIs would actually prefer an intruder to have committed this crime.
    It may interest you to know that despite being IDI, I never climbed on the JMK bandwagon.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    We'd LOVE the evidence to conclusively point to someone OTHER than the Ramseys. Karr is not the one. If there is someone out there who can be unequivocally linked to the CRIME (not just the crime scene) we'd be thrilled. It would be over.

    I take no pleasure in thinking that JB was killed by her family, even if it was an accident covered up. It wasn't even that- it was the whole thing- the death, the staging, the lies, the official misconduct and blundering. That's why this crime touches so many when other similar crimes have not.
    Kids die every day- often at the hands of their loved ones.
    Unequivocally linking an intruder to the crime would be an IDI media bombshell, would it not? I guess that means you'll be needing an IDI bombshell in the form of an unequivocal link before you would be 'thrilled'?

    I just got thru saying how subtle, key IDI evidence is going to be overlooked and I think you summed it up right there.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Unequivocally linking an intruder to the crime would be an IDI media bombshell, would it not? I guess that means you'll be needing an IDI bombshell in the form of an unequivocal link before you would be 'thrilled'?

    I just got thru saying how subtle, key IDI evidence is going to be overlooked and I think you summed it up right there.
    Yes, the link has to be proven. Actually, this case cannot be considered solved no matter HOW certain RDI are that the parent(s) committed the crime. It has to be proven before the case can be closed. Either side, IDI or RDI, the case needs proof. Now, we RDI feel there is enough evidence that we are sure someone in the family is responsible. But even among us, no one can say with absolute certainty exactly who did what. BUT I believe JR knows. He may or may not be responsible for the death, he may have helped with the staging. But one thing I am SURE about- he knows what happened.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Yes, the link has to be proven. Actually, this case cannot be considered solved no matter HOW certain RDI are that the parent(s) committed the crime. It has to be proven before the case can be closed. Either side, IDI or RDI, the case needs proof. Now, we RDI feel there is enough evidence that we are sure someone in the family is responsible. But even among us, no one can say with absolute certainty exactly who did what. BUT I believe JR knows. He may or may not be responsible for the death, he may have helped with the staging. But one thing I am SURE about- he knows what happened.
    IMO in 1997-2007 there was so much R umbrellaing going on that crucial intruder evidence was lost forever. The current investigation might think they've got this DNA but that isn't going to help if the RN author was telling the truth about the foreign faction part.

    The new IDI investigation should ask itself: If it was an intruder, why would an intruder stage a foreign faction?

    The old RDI investigation should ask itself: Did we really miss something? Did we really @#$#% up the investigation that badly?

    I only say the 'new IDI' investigation because thats the only investigation producing media bombshell stories. RDI is silent.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 05-30-2009 at 04:01 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    IMO in 1997-2007 there was so much R umbrellaing going on that crucial intruder evidence was lost forever. The current investigation might think they've got this DNA but that isn't going to help if the RN author was telling the truth about the foreign faction part.

    The new IDI investigation should ask itself: If it was an intruder, why would an intruder stage a foreign faction?

    The old RDI investigation should ask itself: Did we really miss something? Did we really @#$#% up the investigation that badly?

    I only say the 'new IDI' investigation because thats the only investigation producing media bombshell stories. RDI is silent.


    In all fairness, though HOTYH, I think you are maybe overlooking the fact that the Ramseys and DA's office were investigating this case too - from an IDI point of view. And they came up with pretty much zilch, too. It took ten years for the 'new' DNA evidence to come to light, largely on the basis of new DNA-testing techniques. This is fine as far as it goes, but the DNA experts themselves will tell you that the more advanced a DNA test, the more likely that the DNA will have an innocent explanation and that the criminal justice system isn't using DNA evidence properly.

    The most damaging thing in this whole case was DA Lacy clearing the Ramseys on the basis of that DNA. She was effectively clearing anyone whose DNA didn't match. In years to come, you might find someone who confesses, can prove he was in the Ramsey home, handwriting matches etc, and a defence lawyer will make mincemeat out of the prosecution because a DA has said that, absent DNA, he couldn't possibly have done it.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Of course we would. Who would LIKE to have parents kill their kids? I mean, we see enough of it in the news anyway. It's sickening. It's right up there with men killing their pregnant wives or girlfriends because they don't want to be responsible for a child. God knows, that happens all too often as well.


    That is exactly right, DeeDee. I think many IDIs think that RDIs actively want the Ramseys to have done this just to be proven right.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    In all fairness, though HOTYH, I think you are maybe overlooking the fact that the Ramseys and DA's office were investigating this case too - from an IDI point of view. And they came up with pretty much zilch, too. It took ten years for the 'new' DNA evidence to come to light, largely on the basis of new DNA-testing techniques. This is fine as far as it goes, but the DNA experts themselves will tell you that the more advanced a DNA test, the more likely that the DNA will have an innocent explanation and that the criminal justice system isn't using DNA evidence properly.

    The most damaging thing in this whole case was DA Lacy clearing the Ramseys on the basis of that DNA. She was effectively clearing anyone whose DNA didn't match. In years to come, you might find someone who confesses, can prove he was in the Ramsey home, handwriting matches etc, and a defence lawyer will make mincemeat out of the prosecution because a DA has said that, absent DNA, he couldn't possibly have done it.
    Nah, the DA was looking at the whole case, everything. Used the DNA as part of the argument to clear the R's.

    Probably the most damage was done when the FBI said 'look at the parents' before any forensics were even done, and when one or two handwriting experts said 'she could've written it, but we're not sure'.

    My whole point is that RDI biased investigators needed 'unequivocal linkage' of an intruder to the crime, therefore they were insensitive to subtle but key evidence. That evidence is gone now.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    The new IDI investigation should ask itself: If it was an intruder, why would an intruder stage a foreign faction?
    Agreed!

    The old RDI investigation should ask itself: Did we really miss something? Did we really @#$#% up the investigation that badly?
    I'm sure they ask that every day.

    I only say the 'new IDI' investigation because thats the only investigation producing media bombshell stories. RDI is silent.
    Okay. Because we really don't know which direction the new task force is going to go. If it moves at all.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Nah, the DA was looking at the whole case, everything. Used the DNA as part of the argument to clear the R's.
    Pardon my butting in, but I have to balk on that idea. According to Kane, Lacy never even read the whole case file.

    Probably the most damage was done when the FBI said 'look at the parents' before any forensics were even done, and when one or two handwriting experts said 'she could've written it, but we're not sure'.
    I think that deserves its own thread.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Given IDI, why do you think an intruder would claim to be SFF?

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Privilege Waived (new book by Dominic Casey)
    By rpgman in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-28-2016, 01:49 PM
  2. Scent Evidence ... Reliable Evidence Or Junk Science?
    By Wudge in forum General Information & Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-13-2009, 11:55 AM
  3. BC Waived Conflict re: Mark NJ repping TES- what does this mean?
    By pirate in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 02-02-2009, 11:50 AM