Subtle but key evidence waived

New Posts

H

Holdontoyourhat

Former Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
5,299
Reaction score
12
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Sophie said:
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.
Click to expand...

It may interest you to know that despite being IDI, I never climbed on the JMK bandwagon.
 
DeeDee249 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DeeDee249 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
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.
Click to expand...



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.
 
DeeDee249 said:
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.
Click to expand...



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.
 
Sophie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
The new IDI investigation should ask itself: If it was an intruder, why would an intruder stage a foreign faction?
Click to expand...

Agreed!

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

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.
Click to expand...

Okay. Because we really don't know which direction the new task force is going to go. If it moves at all.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Nah, the DA was looking at the whole case, everything. Used the DNA as part of the argument to clear the R's.
Click to expand...

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'.
Click to expand...

I think that deserves its own thread.
 
Sophie said:
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.
Click to expand...


When RDI makes stuff up thats creative, like 'deliberately misspells words' or 'misspells when under pressure' or 'DNA is from a factory worker,' or 'JBR has prior abuse' or 'the cord was purchased by the R's at McGulkins', thats actively pursuing the R's in my book.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
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.
Click to expand...


Well, you have to look at the family first. Partly because they are normally culpable but also because they are the only people on the planet who can give you a real insight into the victim. I'm not sure where else you should look first - certainly before forensics, and in the absence of any lengthy interviews with family to establish a list of other suspects.


The point about evidence cuts both ways. The initial treatment of the Ramseys as victims means that a fair bit of evidence that was damning to the Ramseys could have been lost as well as evidence that was exculpatory. Who knows what DNA was on the stuff Pam hauled away? As with AH's stubborn approach to subpoenas and Mary Lacy's DNA exoneration, those wanting to prove the Ramseys innocent did more damage than any RDI investigation. IOW, maybe John carted away proof of another's guilt with his golf bag. Nothing subtle or specifically RDI about that loss...
 
Sophie said:
The point about evidence cuts both ways. The initial treatment of the Ramseys as victims means that a fair bit of evidence that was damning to the Ramseys could have been lost as well as evidence that was exculpatory. Who knows what DNA was on the stuff Pam hauled away? As with AH's stubborn approach to subpoenas and Mary Lacy's DNA exoneration, those wanting to prove the Ramseys innocent did more damage than any RDI investigation. IOW, maybe John carted away proof of another's guilt with his golf bag. Nothing subtle or specifically RDI about that loss...
Click to expand...

Let me add to that. like 'deliberately misspells words' or 'misspells when under pressure' or 'DNA is from a factory worker,' I MIGHT (strong emphasis) agree with some of that. But, 'JBR has prior abuse' or 'the cord was purchased by the R's at McGulkins', is NOT mythmaking. There's considerable reason to believe those DID happen.
 
SuperDave said:
Let me add to that. like 'deliberately misspells words' or 'misspells when under pressure' or 'DNA is from a factory worker,' I MIGHT (strong emphasis) agree with some of that. But, 'JBR has prior abuse' or 'the cord was purchased by the R's at McGulkins', is NOT mythmaking. There's considerable reason to believe those DID happen.
Click to expand...

OK not 'mythmaking.' How about 'claims with dubious support that seem to not be reflected in any current LE thinking' instead.

I'm going to start a new thread all about claims & opinions vs. information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 237 more.
Total: 4,095 (members: 238, guests: 3,857)

Online statistics

Members online
238
Guests online
3,857
Total visitors
4,095
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,562
Messages
17,955,127
Members
228,538
Latest member
brittinvestigates4u
Back
Top