Challenge of the Masters

[BOESP]

God, another incredible post! Honestly, after a couple of days off and starting to read with a slightly fresher eye, I am amazed all over again at the debate on here! BOESP_ that was literally World Class.

ETA: BOESP, that last point is so true and it goes to the very heart of the role of DNA in 'beyond reasonable doubt.' I know I'm dull on the subject, but I really think massive changes have to be afoot in our mutual legal systems as the current way they operate coupled with the recent advances in science mean that getting a conviction will become nigh-on impossible. I am working on not going off onto one of my mad tangents so I'll keep this brief. Just this morning, I read about a couple of brothers who were challenging their conviction since triny traces of unknown DNA were found on the victim. They had beaten the man seven times before, their DNA was all over him and they had threatened to kill him times without number - but they have every chance of having their conviction over-turned.

A "hired gun" whose job is keeping a Defendant out of prison is pretty transparent to most jurors. I think most citizens, as potential jurors, would see the problems with the DNA in JonBenet's case.

Yes, the advancements in science are going to let a lot of potentially guilty parties walk free. Trace amounts of DNA from many, many sources are going to be found all over the bodies of one human to the next, with self-transfer muddying the waters even further.

Also, thank you for your kind words. I have more problems with John Q. Public not wanting to accept the fact that parents abuse and/or kill their children every day than I do worrying about whether a jury will be fair or not.

I'm still waiting for HOTYH to inform us of the instructions given to the Grand Jury. He's made a lot of statements of fact (according to him) based on the GJ not indicting one or more Ramseys. My understanding is their instructions were to independently see if they could find additional evidence, not to make a decision to indict or not. Since they found no additional evidence, Hunter chose not to indict.

 

[BBB167893]

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 even without any murder ever having happened.

Except they WEREN'T! That's what I've been trying to explain to people for years now. They were only in or on places they should not have been, places the Rs and their acolytes claim they had no contact with. Not to mention that the Rs have not been able to account for these phenomena, and that their attempts to do so have only produced more inconsistencies in their stories. None of that seems to make any nevermind to you.

But in a general sense, you're right. That's WHY domestic homicides where more than one suspect exists are not solved through forensic means. They are solved by throwing the different parties in jail and letting them sweat until one sells out the other, just like the police in Boulder WANTED to do. I'm convinced 120% that if they HAD, the Rs would have confessed and we wouldn't be HAVING this conversation right now!

It wasn't RDI that kept THAT from happening, HOTYH. It was the DA's office, which you hold in such undeserved high regard. It's at THEIR feet. And the more people who know it, the better.

Yeah, it's absurd, ridiculous and tiresome all right. It's absurd, ridiculous and tiresome that I have to keep repeating these things to no discernible effect.

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.

There is no REASON that there would be! I don't know how to put that in any simpler terms.

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

In good time.

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.

Opinions formed through extensive study. I'll thank you to remember that.

You want a fact? Okay! The Rs were indisputably in the house that night. There is no way to put anyone else there as yet. Don't count your intruders before they're caught.

These facts are significant, indisputable, and they obviously indicate an intruder did it.

That in and of itself, is an opinion. Indeed, in this instance, I'm tempted to remember the story of the chicken and the egg.

Fortunately for JBR now there have been more action based on the facts of the case, and less based on the opinion.

That's funny: I see it the exact opposite way.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

:clap:

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

I was just going to ask that!

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.

Beautiful.

 

[BBB167893]

Further, a 'totality of evidence' is an abstract concept that doesn't really exist.

I'm damn glad cops, FBI agents and prosecutors across the country don't know that!

Is that why we need these abstract terms?

Because that's how circumstantial cases are solved.

 

[BBB167893]

God, another incredible post! Honestly, after a couple of days off and starting to read with a slightly fresher eye, I am amazed all over again at the debate on here! BOESP_ that was literally World Class.

Damn straight!

ETA: BOESP, that last point is so true and it goes to the very heart of the role of DNA in 'beyond reasonable doubt.' I know I'm dull on the subject, but I really think massive changes have to be afoot in our mutual legal systems as the current way they operate coupled with the recent advances in science mean that getting a conviction will become nigh-on impossible. I am working on not going off onto one of my mad tangents so I'll keep this brief. Just this morning, I read about a couple of brothers who were challenging their conviction since triny traces of unknown DNA were found on the victim. They had beaten the man seven times before, their DNA was all over him and they had threatened to kill him times without number - but they have every chance of having their conviction over-turned.

I have a better one for you, Sophie. There's a man in Maine serving a life sentence for murder. His name is Dennis Dechaine. In 1988, he murdered a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Cherry. Eyewitnesses put him near the scene of the crime and he confessed. Despite that, there is a movement to release him from prison. Why? Because Sarah had DNA under her fingernails that does not match his.

As one of my favorite political pundits said, "DNA can only exclude suspects in cases of rape (and even then if there was only one rapist and the victim was not sexually active). In virtually all other cases, DNA can only include suspects, not exclude them."

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, the advancements in science are going to let a lot of potentially guilty parties walk free. Trace amounts of DNA from many, many sources are going to be found all over the bodies of one human to the next, with self-transfer muddying the waters even further.

A very real and profoundly terrifying prospect, BOESP.

I have more problems with John Q. Public not wanting to accept the fact that parents abuse and/or kill their children every day than I do worrying about whether a jury will be fair or not.

I just might use that for my signature!

I'm still waiting for HOTYH to inform us of the instructions given to the Grand Jury. He's made a lot of statements of fact (according to him) based on the GJ not indicting one or more Ramseys. My understanding is their instructions were to independently see if they could find additional evidence, not to make a decision to indict or not. Since they found no additional evidence, Hunter chose not to indict.

All in all, a gold-standard post.

 

[Tadpole12]

I will repeat this until I drop dead

If the Ramsey's are innocent....the handwriting is the ONLY piece of evidence that could help find the killer.Why did they NEVER make it public on their websites or during their tv appeals?????????????????????They wanna catch "him",right???????????There are pretty good chances that someone might recognize it,even after so many years,RIGHT?????

So tell me HOTYH,why do you think they NEVER used THE piece of evidence that would help them find the killer?So maybe LE didn't "help" them,maybe the public would have.

Hi Madeleine.

That's a notable observation.

IDI wise, PR had the capability to better disguise her handwriting, she could have made it indistinguishable.
The uncanny resemblance between the rn and her examplars would not be considered coincidental to a layman .... and the conceprt that PR score
as "cannot be eliminated as writer" may in effect be the result of a close to successful forgery of her 'stylistics' would be an alternative that draws attention back to the Ramseys and their inner circle ......

(best I could come up with)
Hotyh?

 

[BBB167893]

The uncanny resemblance between the rn and her examplars would not be considered coincidental to a layman ....

That pretty much says it all right there.

 

[BOESP]

... The uncanny resemblance between the rn and her examplars would not be considered coincidental to a layman .... and the conceprt that PR score as "cannot be eliminated as writer" may in effect be the result of a close to successful forgery of her 'stylistics' would be an alternative that draws attention back to the Ramseys and their inner circle ......

I understand what you are saying Tadpole but Occam's Razor would also apply to document examination. The examiners meant that Patsy couldn't be excluded else they would have worded it differently. If it were a forgery, and they suspected it as such, they would have eliminated her and commented on that possibility.

Sophie and SuperDave, thank you for your kind words. SD, please feel free to use whatever you like if you think it helps.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm damn glad cops, FBI agents and prosecutors across the country don't know that!

Would those be the same ones that invented the umbrella of suspicion?

While RDI is looking for totalities under umbrellas (LOL), the DA's office has been operating on a somewhat more pragmatic level. Fact driven, that is. And its preventing innocents from being tried and convicted, unlike some other cases.

DNA is a fact and it is driving the case. Ignoring the press and downplaying the DNA is to RDI's own embarrassment.

Adding to the DNA is the missing cord and tape. Where is it? Where did it go? Why isn't it there? If RDI then the cord and tape require some explanation, and that explanation is not available. Why isn't it available? All RDI has on that is OPINION.

(pounding fists on table) WHERE IS THE MISSING CORD??

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Except they WEREN'T! That's what I've been trying to explain to people for years now. They were only in or on places they should not have been, places the Rs and their acolytes claim they had no contact with. Not to mention that the Rs have not been able to account for these phenomena, and that their attempts to do so have only produced more inconsistencies in their stories. None of that seems to make any nevermind to you.

Your post: "They were only in or on places they should not have been..."

Sorry SD but I think this is bunk. Do you have a source that states PR and JR fibers were not found in places they should have been found?

 

[DeeDee249]

You know VERY well where those places are. They should NOT have been in the knot of the garrote, the INSIDE of the panties (this could not have happened from her sitting on his shoulders in her panties) and the INSIDE of the tape.

 

[BBB167893]

Would those be the same ones that invented the umbrella of suspicion?

Actually, I was speaking in general. In fact, the ONLY place that the concept of totality of evidence is NOT understood is among the RST. And I ought to know!

While RDI is looking for totalities under umbrellas (LOL), the DA's office has been operating on a somewhat more pragmatic level. Fact driven, that is. And its preventing innocents from being tried and convicted, unlike some other cases.

That's a laugh. Or it would be, if it weren't indicative of the problems plaguing our system of "justice."

DNA is a fact and it is driving the case. Ignoring the press and downplaying the DNA is to RDI's own embarrassment.

Don't worry about my embarrassment. I'm beyond petty concerns like that.

(pounding fists on table) WHERE IS THE MISSING CORD??

I could suggest a place.

Your post: "They were only in or on places they should not have been..."

Sorry SD but I think this is bunk.

Yeah, I know you think that.

Do you have a source that states PR and JR fibers were not found in places they should have been found?

I would suggest the 2000 interview transcripts to start with.

 

[BBB167893]

You know VERY well where those places are. They should NOT have been in the knot of the garrote, the INSIDE of the panties (this could not have happened from her sitting on his shoulders in her panties) and the INSIDE of the tape.

FINALLY! Someone's got it right!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I would suggest the 2000 interview transcripts to start with.

Interviews aren't very good sources for reliable information. They are used to provoke or intimidate and contain lies on purpose.

Is this your way of saying there is no source that validates your claim, that PR and JR fibers were NOT found in places they SHOULD be?

 

[BBB167893]

Interviews aren't very good sources for reliable information. They are used to provoke or intimidate and contain lies on purpose.

I had a feeling you'd say that. So, I'll just remind you that Bruce Levin is a prosecutor, and as such, is bound by the laws concerning propriety and is FORBIDDEN by law from lying to the subject.

Is this your way of saying there is no source that validates your claim, that PR and JR fibers were NOT found in places they SHOULD be?

Tell you what, HOTYH: if you can find a source that mentions their fibers in any place OTHER than where DeeDee and I have mentioned, don't hesitate to bring it to my attention.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Tell you what, HOTYH: if you can find a source that mentions their fibers in any place OTHER than where DeeDee and I have mentioned, don't hesitate to bring it to my attention.

Except they WEREN'T! That's what I've been trying to explain to people for years now. They were only in or on places they should not have been, places the Rs and their acolytes claim they had no contact with. Not to mention that the Rs have not been able to account for these phenomena, and that their attempts to do so have only produced more inconsistencies in their stories. None of that seems to make any nevermind to you.

I'll assume then that this is merely a claim presented as a fact. IOW 'saying stuff'.

PR and JR fibers could very well be in places where you would expect them to be. There is no reason to believe they weren't. You just claimed they weren't.

And now you're asking me to find proof that shows your claim to be invalid, a claim you yourself can't prove?

 

[nobull]

Ok, HOTYH...

I would like to hear your version of how the fibers could have been found:

1) In the underwear
2) Tied into the cord
3) On the back of the duct tape.

If you say it's reasonable, it follows you must have a reasonable theory.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Ok, HOTYH...

I would like to hear your version of how the fibers could have been found:

1) In the underwear
2) Tied into the cord
3) On the back of the duct tape.

If you say it's reasonable, it follows you must have a reasonable theory.

I have no idea about the fibers. Unlike the unknown male DNA that is frequently reported in the news, I can't find anything in the news about PR or JR fibers in the underwear, tied into the cord, or on the duct tape. Its an RDI myth, as far as I'm concerned.

IOW I have to accept your premise that these fibers exist and they belong to PR or JR, and aren't other foreign fibers that are merely consistent with PR or JR fibers.

It doesn't follow that I have a theory on PR and JR fiber because they are not even known to exist. Its BS. Whereas the unknown male DNA is widely reported, these PR and JR fibers are not. If PR or JR underwear fibers were ranking as high as the DNA they'd be in the news but they're not.

Presuming the fibers exist, then we would also need a theory on the unknown, unsourced fibers that were also claimed to exist.

 

[madeleine]

I have no idea about the fibers. Unlike the unknown male DNA that is frequently reported in the news, I can't find anything in the news about PR or JR fibers in the underwear, tied into the cord, or on the duct tape. Its an RDI myth, as far as I'm concerned.

IOW I have to accept your premise that these fibers exist and they belong to PR or JR, and aren't other foreign fibers that are merely consistent with PR or JR fibers.

It doesn't follow that I have a theory on PR and JR fiber because they are not even known to exist. Its BS. Whereas the unknown male DNA is widely reported, these PR and JR fibers are not. If PR or JR underwear fibers were ranking as high as the DNA they'd be in the news but they're not.

Presuming the fibers exist, then we would also need a theory on the unknown, unsourced fibers that were also claimed to exist.

Wood did, however, tell cable talk-show host Larry King last fall that he "knows for a fact" that black fibers were not found in JonBenet's underwear (he didn't say how he knows this). And he said "there's any one of many innocent explanations for why the fibers (found in the paint tray, on the brush, and in the ligature) might be consistent with something Patsy was wearing." He offered only one such explanation: that Patsy had put JonBenet to bed the previous night. But that couldn't account for the fibers in the paint tray, and they couldn't account for the fibers on the brush used in the ligature and "tied into" the ligature, unless the fibers somehow transferred from Patsy's sweater to JonBenet's clothing and then to the brush and "tied into" the ligature.

Patsy also tried to provide an innocent explanation for the fibers when she spoke to CBS' "48 Hours." She said she had hugged her daughter's body after John discovered it in the basement of their home and brought it upstairs. Fibers from the sweater she was wearing at the time could have transferred to JonBenet's clothing, she suggested.

But the fibers weren't found on JonBenet's clothing. They were found, among other places, in the paint tray, which was in the basement when Patsy hugged her daughter's body upstairs.

In her 1998 interview, Patsy tried to explain why she wore the same sweater the day after Christmas that she had Christmas Day. "I do that (wear the same clothes two days in a row) a lot," she said. "I don't like to do laundry."


http://www.crimemagazine.com/solving-jonbenet-case-0



Why would a lawyer try so hard to find an "innocent" explanation for something that doesn't exist?(the red ones).Why bother?Maybe because they DO exist and that's a problem?