983 users online (167 members and 816 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019

    The DNA - for RDI

    My good mate HOTYH thinks we are blaming science for proving Ramsey innocence and just blaming Lacy for being the messenger.

    Can I summarise this RDI's actual view of the DNA evidence in this case and why I think I think Mary Lacy made an appalling mistake:


    The DNA evidence may be that of the killer. It may not. Until you can definitively place the DNA holder in the Ramsey house on Christmas night, you can't know either way. It was short-sighted of Mary Lacy effectively to eliminate every body except the DNA-holder from suspicion. That is exactly what she has done.

    If the DNA is that of someone with guilty knowledge of the crime, then that, by itself, does not prove that the Ramseys had no knowledge or complicity before, during or after the crime. It just shows that someone else was involved, too. It was just plain wrong of Mary Lacy to ignore the circumstances of this crime and eliminate the possibility of any Ramsey knowledge of the crime.

    If the DNA is not that of the killer, then it actually doesn't increase the evidence against the Ramseys or make the case any more prosecutable in their regard so I don't know why IDI are so pig-headed about the issue.

    If the DNA is ever used in court proceedings, then you will have to have a lot of other evidence too, because a half-decent defence lawyer will make mincemeat of this DNA evidence on its own.


    However, as far as I am aware, no RDI is saying that the DNA cannot possibly be that of the killer.
    Last edited by Sophie; 10-25-2009 at 03:53 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    One of your fellow RDI posters wrote:

    "DNA won't put the killer in this case in jail,that's for sure....even IF it's IDI."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Its not a stretch to imagine the RN author and the DNA owner as being two differeng people. The RN said as much.

    After all is said and done, when we know what happened, and we find that the RN was 'spot on', we may look back and ask why we chose to create our own versions and apply our own ideas when the answers were right there under our noses.

    Its when you consider that the RN author never expected PR or JR to be suspects...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie
    However, as far as I am aware, no RDI is saying that the DNA cannot possibly be that of the killer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    One of your fellow RDI posters wrote:

    "DNA won't put the killer in this case in jail,that's for sure....even IF it's IDI."
    Don't twist it again,buddy!

    I DIDN'T SAY IT CAN'T BE THE KILLER'S IF(BIG FREAKING IF) IDI.I JUST SAID THAT IT WON'T BE ENOUGH,EVER,IN THIS CASE, TO PUT HIM IN JAIL.GO DO SOME DNA RESEARCH AND HOW IT CAN BE ARGUED IN COURT MR.KNOW IT ALL.


    I think you just wanna annoy me by twisting everything I say.
    I am not here to play stupid mind games with you,Team Ramsey.If this is all you got?
    The rice is already cooked...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    "DNA won't put the killer in this case in jail,that's for sure....even IF it's IDI."


    That isn't denying that the DNA isn't that of the killer. And I'm hard pushed to see how you could interpret it this way. It's just pointing out that, in and of itself, the touch DNA isn't something which a decent lawyer couldn't deal with in court. You'll need a heap of other evidence to get a conviction.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Its not a stretch to imagine the RN author and the DNA owner as being two differeng people. The RN said as much.

    After all is said and done, when we know what happened, and we find that the RN was 'spot on', we may look back and ask why we chose to create our own versions and apply our own ideas when the answers were right there under our noses.

    Its when you consider that the RN author never expected PR or JR to be suspects...

    No one can leave a dead child in a house and expect LE not to view the parents as suspects especially when they use materials from the home to write the ransom note. They simply couldn't imagine that the Ramseys wouldn't be looked at.
    Last edited by Sophie; 10-25-2009 at 06:07 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    "DNA won't put the killer in this case in jail,that's for sure....even IF it's IDI."


    That isn't denying that the DNA isn't that of the killer. And I'm hard pushed to see how you could interpret it this way. It's just pointing out that, in and of itself, the touch DNA isn't something which a decent lawyer couldn't deal with in court. You'll need a heap of other evidence to get a conviction.


    "DNA [by itself] won't put the killer in this case in jail,that's for sure....even IF it's IDI."

    We're arguing just about semantics. I'll show you.

    A killer is arrested on another charge. They submit his DNA to CODIS. His DNA matches JBR's 'unknown male DNA'. Bada bing... this guy now will very likely be arrested for JBR's murder. They will not...repeat not need 'a heap of other evidence'. This guy would need an alibi and his defense lawyers will need a solid explanation as to the presence of his genetic material all over the clothing JBR was wearing at the time she was murdered. That genetic material on the clothing IS the heap of evidence.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    No one can leave a dead child in a house and expect LE not to view the parents as suspects especially when they use materials from the home to write the ransom note. They simply couldn't imagine that the Ramseys wouldn't be looked at.
    Oh yes they could.

    Again you're not reading the RN. The author WANTED to be seen as a foreign faction and WANTED to instill fear over same. WANTED the reader to associate this bad thing that was happening with his status as fat cat, and his misguided company that was 'serving' the wrong country. WANTED to claim victory and leave the mark S.B.T.C.

    The RN author went to great lengths to develop a perpetrator-victim relationship with JR. YOU can't imagine the parents wouldn't be looked at, but the RN author COULD.

    I think RDI-on-the-brain prevents the actual reading of the note. Its as if the words and paper were transparent.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 10-25-2009 at 06:27 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Oz
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post

    A killer is arrested on another charge. They submit his DNA to CODIS. His DNA matches JBR's 'unknown male DNA'. Bada bing... this guy now will very likely be arrested for JBR's murder. They will not...repeat not need 'a heap of other evidence'. This guy would need an alibi and his defense lawyers will need a solid explanation as to the presence of his genetic material all over the clothing JBR was wearing at the time she was murdered. That genetic material on the clothing IS the heap of evidence.
    Two points. One: someone in LE (I don't have time to look up who, sorry) said "So what if Patsy wrote the note? It doesn't mean she killed her daughter" or words to that effect. Taking the same reasoning, the DNA does not prove the owner killed JBR. If he was involved at all, it only means he redressed her.

    Two: The prosecution are the ones who have to prove their case, not the defense. His lawyers would not need "a solid explanation" at all - any reasonable explanation that provides reasonable doubt would be sufficient.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by TinaD View Post
    Two points. One: someone in LE (I don't have time to look up who, sorry) said "So what if Patsy wrote the note? It doesn't mean she killed her daughter" or words to that effect. Taking the same reasoning, the DNA does not prove the owner killed JBR. If he was involved at all, it only means he redressed her.

    Two: The prosecution are the ones who have to prove their case, not the defense. His lawyers would not need "a solid explanation" at all - any reasonable explanation that provides reasonable doubt would be sufficient.
    The location, type, and amount of genetic material found on JBR places the defendant at the crime scene in a criminal role. This can be established beyond reasonable doubt to most people who have not already been predisposed to RDI.

    What 'reasonable explanation' would the defendant have for being at the crime scene, and his genetic material being found only in places that are relevant to the crimes that were committed? Underneath fingernails, in underwear, and on longjohn waistband.

    Its just not a good thing for RDI, this DNA.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 10-26-2009 at 12:28 AM.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    You miss the point, HOTYH:

    1. You don't know when the DNA was deposited or whether it's one of the many non-crime-related things that are part of every crime scene. The reasonable explanation may be that it is there innocently. It is touch DNA - any specks of unknown DNA on the coroner could account for the DNA in this case especially given what we know of the procedures used for clipping the fingernails. It is only those pre-disposed to IDI (especially those who don't believe the DNA will ever be matched because the owner is a part of an SFF who is now abroad and in a hostile country so they don't expect the matter to be anything other than academic anyway) who will not accept that this DNA evidence is not infallible.


    2. As TinaD points out, it's for the prosecution to prove that the DNA was part of the actual crime and you can depend that the defence will have experts who will refute every aspect of the DNA in this case.


    3. The DNA-owner having a rock solid alibi would put a spanner in the works for the prosecution. At this point, neither you, I or Mary Lacy knows that he doesn't have one: it is really that simple.

    4. This all proves my original point magnificently, though, about IDI and this DNA. They are happy to wait around til kingdom comes for a DNA match and the thing that would be funny if it weren't so tragic, is that if a suspect came up who matched all the other criteria beautifully but didn't match the DNA, they'd be the first to start in on how unreliable touch DNA can be.
    Last edited by Sophie; 10-26-2009 at 05:06 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    ST says in his book that the DNA beneath her fingernails is not skin nor blood.Means she didn't scratch anyone.
    Last edited by madeleine; 10-26-2009 at 05:05 AM.
    The rice is already cooked...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Quote Originally Posted by TinaD View Post
    Two points. One: someone in LE (I don't have time to look up who, sorry) said "So what if Patsy wrote the note? It doesn't mean she killed her daughter" or words to that effect. Taking the same reasoning, the DNA does not prove the owner killed JBR. If he was involved at all, it only means he redressed her.

    Two: The prosecution are the ones who have to prove their case, not the defense. His lawyers would not need "a solid explanation" at all - any reasonable explanation that provides reasonable doubt would be sufficient.
    THANK YOU.
    That's what I've been saying all along but I guess I can't express myself or some just chose to pretend they don't get what I am saying.
    The rice is already cooked...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    "DNA won't put the killer in this case in jail,that's for sure....even IF it's IDI."


    That isn't denying that the DNA isn't that of the killer. And I'm hard pushed to see how you could interpret it this way. It's just pointing out that, in and of itself, the touch DNA isn't something which a decent lawyer couldn't deal with in court. You'll need a heap of other evidence to get a conviction.
    Exactly.
    Imagine our "intruder" hires Barry Scheck.
    The rice is already cooked...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Oh yes they could.

    Again you're not reading the RN. The author WANTED to be seen as a foreign faction and WANTED to instill fear over same. WANTED the reader to associate this bad thing that was happening with his status as fat cat, and his misguided company that was 'serving' the wrong country. WANTED to claim victory and leave the mark S.B.T.C.

    The RN author went to great lengths to develop a perpetrator-victim relationship with JR. YOU can't imagine the parents wouldn't be looked at, but the RN author COULD.

    I think RDI-on-the-brain prevents the actual reading of the note. Its as if the words and paper were transparent.

    You know, HOTYH, your rudeness is going to cause it to kick off on here soon.

    The RN was written on materials from the home, references were made to matters that were personal to the Ramseys, some would even have you think that the perp wandered around the house in Patsy's clothing: a dead amoeba would realise that this would point to Patsy and John even if the body hadn't been left in the house. You attribute all sorts of devilish bits of cunning to the perp but you overlook the stupid mistakes they made if they were attempting what you suggest.

    Your points about fat cats, socialists and foreign factions certainly weren't taken on board by the ultimate IDI - ie, the Ramseys - so you'll have to forgive us for wondering why.

    The problem with your literal (and I might say, unsubtle) approach is that you are using comic book notions of what socialists etc are. If you'd refine your thinking a bit, you might find a perp who could reasonably be found. But I have come to think that you don't necessarily want this.
    Last edited by Sophie; 10-26-2009 at 05:25 AM.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast