Pseudonym intruder

New Posts

H

Holdontoyourhat

Former Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
5,299
Reaction score
12
SuperDave said:
I say we move this conversation to a new thread.
Click to expand...

The conversation is on a mock trial of a pseudonym intruder. The purpose is to show there can be IDI scenarios equally compelling as RDI.

Disclaimer: Forum rules say no real people names. Not responsible for anything. Any similarity to real people living or dead is a coincidence. Its all just opinion.

Having said that...

Who will defend the pseudonym intruder?

Any volunteers for the judge pool?
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
The conversation is on a mock trial of a pseudonym intruder. The purpose is to show there can be IDI scenarios equally compelling as RDI.

Disclaimer: Forum rules say no real people names. Not responsible for anything. Any similarity to real people living or dead is a coincidence. Its all just opinion.

Having said that...

Who will defend the pseudonym intruder?

Any volunteers for the judge pool?
Click to expand...


I will help as judge.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
One is OK with me, because then it doesn't matter if they lean IDI or RDI as long as it isn't reflected. That according to another poster.
Click to expand...

Actually, I meant juror.

You know what though, I don't want to rain on your parade here. I have already said that if you don't match the DNA with your unknown intruder that you win a trial. I stand by that unless we say no DNA is found.

So, because I like you, you need to blackball me.
 
Roy23 said:
Actually, I meant juror.

You know what though, I don't want to rain on your parade here. I have already said that if you don't match the DNA with your unknown intruder that you win a trial. I stand by that unless we say no DNA is found.

So, because I like you, you need to blackball me.
Click to expand...

Thats OK. Juror. Right.

Uh, maybe I need to be more specific.

Its a mock trial of a pseudonym defendant in absentia. Since the defendant is not present, there will be no DNA samples for comparison, no asking questions of the defendant, no handwriting samples taken from the defendant. The defendant is not available for arrest, questioning, trial, or sentencing.

That doesn't mean the crime scene DNA or handwriting is not admissible.

Is this making any sense?
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Thats OK. Juror. Right.

Uh, maybe I need to be more specific.

Its a mock trial of a pseudonym defendant in absentia. Since the defendant is not present, there will be no DNA samples for comparison, no asking questions of the defendant, no handwriting samples taken from the defendant. The defendant is not available for arrest, questioning, trial, or sentencing.

That doesn't mean the crime scene DNA or handwriting is not admissible.

Is this making any sense?
Click to expand...


Aghh, now I see.

Yeah, i will help as juror. That is a tough case to make but I think I see what you are doing. Your are just trying to show that you can make a compelling case with some clown we don't even know from the evidence. :crazy:
 
Roy23 said:
Aghh, now I see.

Yeah, i will help as juror. That is a tough case to make but I think I see what you are doing. Your are just trying to show that you can make a compelling case with some clown we don't even know from the evidence. :crazy:
Click to expand...

I think there only needs to be an odd number of jurors. Maybe we can do a mock grand jury.
 
Roy23 said:
Aghh, now I see.

Yeah, i will help as juror. That is a tough case to make but I think I see what you are doing. Your are just trying to show that you can make a compelling case with some clown we don't even know from the evidence. :crazy:
Click to expand...

He's certainly welcome to try.

But someone has to ask it: how could the DNA or handwriting be admissable if there's nobody to compare it with? Kind of gives me the upper hand, doesn't it?
 
SuperDave said:
He's certainly welcome to try.

But someone has to ask it: how could the DNA or handwriting be admissable if there's nobody to compare it with? Kind of gives me the upper hand, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It IS admissible, thats for sure. In fact, its one of the cornerstones. Whether or not it gives you the upper hand...
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
It IS admissible, thats for sure. In fact, its one of the cornerstones. Whether or not it gives you the upper hand...
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should rephrase: It may be admissable, but I'm at a loss as to how you could use it in an affirmative manner.
 
SuperDave said:
Perhaps I should rephrase: It may be admissable, but I'm at a loss as to how you could use it in an affirmative manner.
Click to expand...

Maybe while we're waiting for a couple more jurors, we can agree on what admissible is?

Reliability: An item of evidence, whether it be a quote, expert opinion, document, or object is admissible as long as it has a source. Gentlemens agreement means if its brought up, we each can assume the other has a valid source.

Relevance: I think we should simply introduce any new item along with the claim or argument it is intended to bolster.
 
Another approach is a mock grand jury of three. I don't have to prove anything, just show probable cause against the pseudonym intruder.
 
I'm in.
And I was just thinking about this.
IF there would be a trial and IF a R would be charged based on what we've seen so far ,my vote as a juror would be not guilty.
Same would be regarding the alledged intruder.


I just hope that there is more in those files,doesn't matter if it points to IDI,RDI,whatever.If that DNA will ever match I personally would be relieved.I don't care if I am right or wrong in my theories.I just want this case solved.
 
madeleine said:
I'm in.
And I was just thinking about this.
IF there would be a trial and IF a R would be charged based on what we've seen so far ,my vote as a juror would be not guilty.
Same would be regarding the alledged intruder.


I just hope that there is more in those files,doesn't matter if it points to IDI,RDI,whatever.If that DNA will ever match I personally would be relieved.I don't care if I am right or wrong in my theories.I just want this case solved.
Click to expand...

That makes two jurors. Roy and madeleine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 223 more.
Total: 4,023 (members: 224, guests: 3,799)

Online statistics

Members online
224
Guests online
3,799
Total visitors
4,023
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,698
Messages
17,957,731
Members
228,588
Latest member
cariboucampfire73
Back
Top