1068 users online (226 members and 842 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 103
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223

    Challenge of the Masters

    I regard HOTYH and myself as great warriors for our respective causes, like dueling samurai or great masters of kung fu.

    The challenge was made and I accept. Today is a good day to die.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoldontoYourHat
    In the context of a witness, I said JR was the top expert. Your spin is that JR is the top expert because he is an accomplice. Thats interesting since he can't be linked to the RN or to the murder or to any imagined prior abuse in any way, shape, or form.
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave
    Just you watch me.
    Any time, let me know when you start.
    Right now!

    I had originally meant that I would take my case to the people and let them decide that once my book hit the stands, but this is just as good.

    1) I'll admit I'm iffy as to the RN. Either one of them could have come up with the foreign faction angle. But let's not forget that JR was stationed in the Phillipines during his Navy days. Then as now, the Phillipines were rife with revolutionary activity. Some groups were communist, like the New People's Army. Others were Islamist, like Abu Sayyef. It's not unthinkable that he would have had a passing familiarity with some of them.

    2) I'm not even sure about the actual killing. The cover-up afterwards, that I'm more sure of. His shirt fibers were found in her underwear and he cannot account for them. And since it was an expensive, exclusive make, I doubt very seriously that it was anything except dry-clean-only, which means that it's highly unlikely they just "mixed in the wash."

    3) As for the "imagined" prior abuse, I can honestly say with every damn fiber of my being that it WAS just imagined! No less than seven trailblazing experts--none of them associated with supermarket rags in any fashion--all agreed independently of each other that JB had suffered old and new vaginal injuries. These are the people who know what to look for. They're SUPPOSED to know what to look for. And they weren't "armchair, Monday morning" observers either. Each one of them was right in the trenches. Each of them examined microscopic slides of tissue taken from JB's vagina. That was the clincher in each instance.

    I mention JB's boundary issues, but that doesn't really do it justice.

    I'll let some excerpts from chapter four tell the rest of the story:

    Her toilet training regressed to that of an infant. She was a frequent bed wetter, and would even wet herself during the day, requiring a change of panties. She would often ask any nearby adult to change and wipe her. But even after Patsy recovered, it didn't get much better. JonBenet was reduced to wearing training pants like a toddler. By the time of her death, the regression had taken on a new dimension: soiling.

    SNIP

    Also, in an interview for the "National Enquirer" tabloid in 2000, Patsy confessed that she had considered the possibility of John molesting JonBenet during her cancer treatments, but wrote it off. Her reasoning for doing so was very odd. She didn't consider it, then dismiss it because "oh, he'd never do something like that." She dismissed it because her mother was sleeping inside the room like a guard dog. Why did she have to keep watch in the first place, I ask.

    SNIP

    Boulder Police Detective Linda Arndt, the one who let John and Fleet root around in the basement, was deposed in a civil suit she'd brought against the city. Here's what she had to say:
    Question: Which opinions were these?

    Answer: Incest, naming the Ramseys as suspects.

    Q: This is incest between John Ramsey and JonBenet?

    A: Yes, to the whole incest dynamic in the family.

    Q: But involving John Ramsey and JonBenet, any other members?

    A: Well, specifically because she's the one who's dead.

    Q: But when you refer again to incest, it could involve any number of
    family members. I'm just trying to identify the family members when you
    use that term.

    A: Well, there's a whole dynamic, because everybody's got a role in the
    family.

    Q: The incest has an effect on family members, does it not?

    A: Well, in general terms that covers it when you talk about an act, but
    I'm talking about the dynamic.

    Q: I understand about the dynamic, but I want to get the predicate first.
    The participants in the incest, when you refer to incest, you're
    referring to John Ramsey and JonBenet and no other family members?

    A: I refer to every member of the family. Every member has a role.

    Q: But in terms of the sexual act that's implicit in the term of
    "incest," you're referring to John Ramsey and JonBenet?

    A: Yes

    In an interview for "Good Morning America" on the ABC network in 1999, Arndt, who had been present at JonBenet's autopsy, said that the coroner told her that JonBenet was the victim of sexual molestation, but he wouldn't go on record unless called into court.


    SNIP

    Lastly, John's attitude toward the issue of molestation is troubling, to say the least. When Det. Thomas mentioned the expert panel on Larry King Live, I thought John was going to reach across the table and belt him, walk off the set, or both.

    As the old saying goes, "a hit dog barks."

    I have reasons for thinking what I think. I'm often ashamed of them, but I can't brush them off. May the gods forgive me one day.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    There is a huge difference between opinions and facts. Cases tend to be solved by the latter during a discovery process. Here are some examples of some real hard facts which led to convictions:

    "Most crucial was the matching of a bite mark on the buttock of victim Lisa Levy to the Bundy's distinctive, crooked and chipped teeth."

    "Tracking the circulation of the bills used in the ransom payment, authorities were led to Bruno Hauptmann, who was found with over $14,000 of the money in his garage."

    "In all, there were nearly 30 types of fiber linked to items from Williams' house, his vehicles and even his dog."

    "Irving was exposed and confessed before the book was published."

    "It had been abandoned, but police found a key piece of evidence inside: a fingerprint. Using new computer system, investigators quickly matched the print to 25-year-old Richard Ramirez and plastered his image in the media"

    "What truly linked Kelly and his gang to the kidnapping, though, was Urschel's fingerprints"

    "Forensic analysts traced the deleted data on the disk to a man named Dennis at the Christ Lutheran Church in Wichita. It didn't take long for the police to arrest Dennis Rader, who confessed"

    "Key evidence was provided by a forensic scientist who testified that the doctor's pajama top, which he claimed to have used to ward off the killers, had 48 smooth, clean holes -- too smooth for such a volatile attack. Furthermore, the scientist noted that if the top was folded, the 48 holes could easily have been created by 21 thrusts -- the exact number of times that MacDonald's wife had been stabbed. The holes even matched the pattern of her wounds"

    "In his belongings, they found a rope matching the unusual one used in the murder (which turned out to be Korean). Although DNA analysis technology was not yet an option, the extreme rarity of the rope was enough to lead to Joubert's confession. Furthermore, hair from one of the victims was found in Joubert's car."

    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    I'm sure that you believe JR abused JBR, PR got mad, JBR hit her head against something, PR wrote the note, JR helped write it, they owned the cord and tape, and the DNA is innocent. Trouble is, there are no facts here, only opinion.

    IMO, you're on a small boat named 'IMO'.

    P.S. Thread title's a little pretentious?
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 02-14-2010 at 07:41 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    There is a huge difference between opinions and facts. Cases tend to be solved by the latter during a discovery process.
    Trust me, HOTYH, no one appreciates that more than I do. But I'm of the mind that cases are not solved through facts alone. Before you say anything, hear me out. When dealing with crime, especially circumstantial cases (which I believe this is), facts have to be combined with a certain amount of psychology. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said in the persona of Sherlock Holmes, "it is in the imagination where crimes are solved, for it is in the imagination where crimes are conceived."

    Does that help?

    Here are some examples of some real hard facts which led to convictions:

    "Most crucial was the matching of a bite mark on the buttock of victim Lisa Levy to the Bundy's distinctive, crooked and chipped teeth."

    "Tracking the circulation of the bills used in the ransom payment, authorities were led to Bruno Hauptmann, who was found with over $14,000 of the money in his garage."

    "In all, there were nearly 30 types of fiber linked to items from Williams' house, his vehicles and even his dog."

    "Irving was exposed and confessed before the book was published."

    "It had been abandoned, but police found a key piece of evidence inside: a fingerprint. Using new computer system, investigators quickly matched the print to 25-year-old Richard Ramirez and plastered his image in the media"

    "What truly linked Kelly and his gang to the kidnapping, though, was Urschel's fingerprints"

    "Forensic analysts traced the deleted data on the disk to a man named Dennis at the Christ Lutheran Church in Wichita. It didn't take long for the police to arrest Dennis Rader, who confessed"

    "Key evidence was provided by a forensic scientist who testified that the doctor's pajama top, which he claimed to have used to ward off the killers, had 48 smooth, clean holes -- too smooth for such a volatile attack. Furthermore, the scientist noted that if the top was folded, the 48 holes could easily have been created by 21 thrusts -- the exact number of times that MacDonald's wife had been stabbed. The holes even matched the pattern of her wounds"

    "In his belongings, they found a rope matching the unusual one used in the murder (which turned out to be Korean). Although DNA analysis technology was not yet an option, the extreme rarity of the rope was enough to lead to Joubert's confession. Furthermore, hair from one of the victims was found in Joubert's car."
    Did I dispute any of that? HOTYH, do not misunderstand me. You make an excellent argument. But the examples you list are not ones that I feel comfortable making to this case, for a multitude of reasons. In cases like this one, the hard facts are often only gathered by separating the two parties and interrogating them until one decides to give the other up. Don't take my word for that, either. That's how Joel Steinberg was convicted: his wife turned on him to save herself. We've been over that ground many times. Makes no difference now, no matter who did it.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    I'm sure that you believe JR abused JBR, PR got mad, JBR hit her head against something, PR wrote the note, JR helped write it, they owned the cord and tape, and the DNA is innocent.
    HOTYH, I may have been wrong about you, at least in the way that I didn't think you understood my position. That was an admirable summation, and if you don't mind, I'd like to save it.

    Trouble is, there are no facts here, only opinion.
    I would disagree with the "no facts" assertion. As I said, I have reasons for thinking what I think. You've known me a for a few years now. You know as well as anyone here that I would not take a stand on any issue unless I felt it pretty deeply, and that I don't take stands on issues based on trivial or whimsical perceptions.

    I guess it's symbolic of our divergent philosophies on how cases should be handled. You want the two or three big things; I go for the combinations of little things. Neither one is effective in 100% of cases, but both are absolutely valid approaches. I respect that.

    IMO, you're on a small boat named 'IMO'.
    With a crew of one, and that's just how I like it! And in the end, isn't it the same for all of us?

    P.S. Thread title's a little pretentious?
    LOL! Sorry. It was all I could think of.
    Last edited by SuperDave; 02-14-2010 at 08:13 PM.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    NO fibers found on JB got there because they got "mixed in the wash". In the case of the fibers found in the panties- they were NEW from the package and had not been laundered with anything. JR's shirt was wool, and while some wool can be washed (usually by hand) the panties had not been washed.
    In the case of Patsy's fibers - they were found on the INSIDE of the tape (the part actually against her skin) and wound into the garrote KNOT. The tape and garrote cord had not been laundered. Period.
    Last edited by DeeDee249; 02-14-2010 at 10:21 PM.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    Trust me, HOTYH, no one appreciates that more than I do. But I'm of the mind that cases are not solved through facts alone. Before you say anything, hear me out. When dealing with crime, especially circumstantial cases (which I believe this is), facts have to be combined with a certain amount of psychology. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said in the persona of Sherlock Holmes, "it is in the imagination where crimes are solved, for it is in the imagination where crimes are conceived."

    Does that help?
    Yes, I can understand downplaying the importance of facts in your case.

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post


    I would disagree with the "no facts" assertion. As I said, I have reasons for thinking what I think. You've known me a for a few years now. You know as well as anyone here that I would not take a stand on any issue unless I felt it pretty deeply, and that I don't take stands on issues based on trivial or whimsical perceptions..
    The "no facts" assertion isn't an assertion. Its an observation. For example, the idea that JR abused JBR is an idea, not a known fact. The idea that PR wrote the note or staged a kidnapping is an opinion, not a known fact. Compare these to Ramirez fingerprint on the inside of a car, which is a fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    I guess it's symbolic of our divergent philosophies on how cases should be handled. You want the two or three big things; I go for the combinations of little things. Neither one is effective in 100% of cases, but both are absolutely valid approaches. I respect that.

    Again, I understand why RDI would need to emphasize 'little things.' It should be pointed out that much of what you claim are 'little things' are really just opinions or interpretations and not facts.

    We'll all be needing just one big fact ultimately. And it is the only valid approach.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 02-15-2010 at 03:24 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Yes, I can understand downplaying the importance of facts in your case.
    You understand nothing about me. Facts are extremely important to me. I could hardly arrive at my conclusions without them. I'm sick of this playground BS.

    The "no facts" assertion isn't an assertion. Its an observation. For example, the idea that JR abused JBR is an idea, not a known fact. The idea that PR wrote the note or staged a kidnapping is an opinion, not a known fact. Compare these to Ramirez fingerprint on the inside of a car, which is a fact.
    I'll give you that. I have quite a list in my book. Maybe I should have just gone with that from the start.

    Again, I understand why RDI would need to emphasize 'little things.'
    Somehow I DOUBT that.

    It should be pointed out that much of what you claim are 'little things' are really just opinions or interpretations and not facts.
    That's nonsense.

    We'll all be needing just one big fact ultimately. And it is the only valid approach.
    I've learned not to tempt fate.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Quote Originally Posted by HoldontoYourHat
    We'll all be needing just one big fact ultimately. And it is the only valid approach.
    If that's the way you want it...

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    NO fibers found on JB got there because they got "mixed in the wash". In the case of the fibers found in the panties- they were NEW from the package and had not been laundered with anything. JR's shirt was wool, and while some wool can be washed (usually by hand) the panties had not been washed.
    In the case of Patsy's fibers - they were found on the INSIDE of the tape (the part actually against her skin) and wound into the garrote KNOT. The tape and garrote cord had not been laundered. Period.
    I reckon that will do for now!
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Many cases have been broken by DNA, fibers, and fingerprints being discovered in a neutral location, e.g. victim's car or house. If the suspect lives in the same house as the victim, and especially if the suspect has close contact e.g. a parent, then DNA, fibers, and fingerprints are expected to be prevalent. Its absurd, ridiculous, and tiresome for RDI to repeatedly claim they could only be criminally significant when its obvious a boatload of this material would be scattered all over eveb without any murder ever having happened.

    Its too bad for RDI that criminally significant traces of JBR were NOT found on JR or PR or their clothing. Its too bad for RDI that traces of PR or JR were NOT found underneath JBR's fingernails. Instead DNA from an unknown donor WERE found.

    I think it might help show the contrast between opinion and fact.

    RDI deals largely in opinion:

    JBR was previously abused.
    PR wrote the note.
    JR helped PR think it up.
    PR and/or JR staged a crime scene.
    The DNA is a mix of two or more DNA's.

    While IDI is clearly settled in the facts:

    Unidentified male DNA was found mixed with blood in JBR's underwear
    Unidentified male DNA was found in two places on long johns.
    These DNA samples taken from these three locations match each other.
    The DNA does not belong to anyone tested so far.
    The DNA is submitted to CODIS.
    Cord has not been sourced to the house. We don't know how the cord came to the house.
    Tape has not been sourced to the house. We don't know how the tape came to the house.



    Downplaying these facts doesn't make them go away. These facts are significant, indisputable, and they obviously indicate an intruder did it. It is only when we introduce opinion that we override what the facts have been trying to tell us over and over again.

    Fortunately for JBR now there have been more action based on the facts of the case, and less based on the opinion.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 02-15-2010 at 10:49 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Fact- the clothing the Rs wore that day was never turned over to the police before they left the house that night, in an absolutely astounding breach of protocol in a murder case. For this I blame the DA, who refused to allow the police to treat them like the suspects they HAD to be considered at that time. Anyone in a house at the time one of the others also there has been murdered MUST be considered a suspect, unless they are of such a young age as to make it impossible (as in an infant or toddler). It took over a year to get the clothing they wore- and even LE said there was no way to know if it was the same clothing- some of looked new, and some had been laundered obviously, as would be expected with items that had continued to be worn.
    That pretty much eliminates any chance of trying to find trace blood on the clothing.
    BOTH sides (IDI and RDI) are adversely affected by the sloppy police procedure in this case, and also by the obstruction that occurred on the part of the DA's office. The defense team was just the icing on a very vile cake.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Fact- the clothing the Rs wore that day was never turned over to the police before they left the house that night, in an absolutely astounding breach of protocol in a murder case.

    Maybe you missed the point.

    Your fact doesn't make the fact of the unknown male DNA or the unsourced cord AND tape go away. These are actually real facts that exist.

    You're fact is merely suggesting that other facts may exist. How abstract is that? Please let me know when you have a real fact.

    IMO if you had JR's shirt with JBR's underwear fibers all over it, you would hold it high while ignoring the DNA and the unsourced cord and tape.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 02-15-2010 at 11:17 PM.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Maybe you missed the point.

    Your fact doesn't make the fact of the unknown male DNA or the unsourced cord AND tape go away. These are actually real facts that exist.

    You're fact is merely suggesting that other facts may exist. How abstract is that? Please let me know when you have a real fact.

    IMO if you had JR's shirt with JBR's underwear fibers all over it, you would hold it high while ignoring the DNA and the unsourced cord and tape.
    My understanding is the DNA recovered from the blood spot in the panties was degraded. That lowers its evidentiary value.

    Touch DNA, as already discussed here, is questionable to begin with. Mary Lacy has demonstrated that her opinions are not always correct (as in the John Mark Karr fiasco) and a quick review in the archives here casts doubt on this DNA evidence being truly related to the crime. Repeating this stuff over and over doesn't make it so or more convincing.

    What evidence do you have that connects this DNA to the killer?

    Finding shirt fibers in her panties means as much to me, as a potential juror, as the degraded DNA in minute, barely detectable quantities.

    Finding fibers intertwined in the ligature and underneath the duct tape used on her mouth mean as much to me as degraded DNA and touch DNA.

    The totality of the evidence can not be ignored just to make the DNA seem more significant than it actually is.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    1,040
    Hotyh,you said you consider JR an expert here....Now since JR was there,explain why,he would say in the interview with his buddy,LS that he believed JonBonet died at 11:30 pm that night....Now this is putting it pretty close to the pineapple that she may have or may not ate...It takes 2 hours to digest..And they return home at 9:15pm...He is a true expert,to make people wonder about his innocence....
    Knowledge of time is precious.Wisdom of truth is more precious than time..Opinions I write are mine..

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    The totality of the evidence can not be ignored just to make the DNA seem more significant than it actually is.
    Absolutely.
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    1,040
    Now here is something else JR said....In the interview once again with LS...Discussing the binnoculars...

    June 1998 And is she in the closet or in the refrigerator or behind the curtain.


    Strange,with a RN this is running though his mind....Now we have FW thinking she might be hinding...What? Now excuse me,I might be seeing a SFF going on here....This very well can show the RN for what it is,,,FAKE..Now didn't JR say the morning of the 26th that he checked the refrigerator...
    Last edited by Ravyn; 02-16-2010 at 02:41 AM. Reason: Added
    Knowledge of time is precious.Wisdom of truth is more precious than time..Opinions I write are mine..

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    My understanding is the DNA recovered from the blood spot in the panties was degraded. That lowers its evidentiary value.

    Touch DNA, as already discussed here, is questionable to begin with. Mary Lacy has demonstrated that her opinions are not always correct (as in the John Mark Karr fiasco) and a quick review in the archives here casts doubt on this DNA evidence being truly related to the crime. Repeating this stuff over and over doesn't make it so or more convincing.

    What evidence do you have that connects this DNA to the killer?

    Finding shirt fibers in her panties means as much to me, as a potential juror, as the degraded DNA in minute, barely detectable quantities.

    Finding fibers intertwined in the ligature and underneath the duct tape used on her mouth mean as much to me as degraded DNA and touch DNA.

    The totality of the evidence can not be ignored just to make the DNA seem more significant than it actually is.
    ITA.
    If we can't trust the sources in this case in the first place why would we take as facts what they are stating and I mean the whole gang here Hunter,Lacy and the REST.

    Reminds me of a movie I saw recently ,can't forget one quote in it(Edge of Darkness) : "It's not what it is,it's what they make it look like!"
    The rice is already cooked...

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. 5yr Old prodigy masters Beethoven in 3 weeks
    By SyraKelly in forum News that makes you smile!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-10-2013, 09:26 PM