DA's objectivity

[BBB167893]

I don't believe the case was entirely circumstantial. Prior to charging the Midyette's, expert witnesses outside of Boulder were called in to review the medical evidence in the baby's death, and they came up with a pretty good case that the baby did not have the brittle bone disease.

And it STILL took one of Bill O'Reilly's people to get any action.

Coincidentally, Jason Midyette's father (or is it grandfather?) was expanding Access Graphics space on Pearl Street at the time JBR was murdered. He is one of the largest developer's of Pearl Street, an architect, and quite wealthy. Yes, the DA's office knew what they were up against---Jason Midyette lawyered up early.

Exactly my point.

 

[BBB167893]

We'll see.

That we will.

I don't see how you can rule out the intruder evidence......

I'd be more than happy to explain it to you. In fact, I show how in the book. I walk the reader through how I got to where I am.

You seem to be doing a fine job of dismissing evidence yourself.

or how you can publish any book where you could be sued for slander/libel.

I'm not afraid, not in the least. For one thing, I don't think there would be any grounds. Everyone involved is either a public figure or dead.

More to the point, even if I AM, I'd welcome the opportunity. They might not find it worth the effort. I take to threats like a shark to blood. How does that hit you?

 

[BBB167893]

Ain't that the truth.

Don't worry about me, fellas. I can take care of myself.

I also imagine that some of his sources would not want some of their statements publicized again considering the 2008 DNA homerun.

I'd say I've made it pretty clear that I don't think of it as a home run at all, wouldn't you?

And if they don't like it, they can tell me at any time.

 

[Roy23]

Don't worry about me, fellas. I can take care of myself.



I'd say I've made it pretty clear that I don't think of it as a home run at all, wouldn't you?

And if they don't like it, they can tell me at any time.

Dave,

I would love to read your book but I think you will encounter some major problems. Much of your information comes from other books and sources before the new DNA technology. And many of those sources are not now privy to all of the evidence that has not been shared. Before you use information that you learned from them, I would like to see if they would allow you to source them and if their thoughts have changed with what they know now.

You can talk tough but any publisher will make sure they are not liable and whomever may come at you. That includes you best sources. You should be scared to get sued because you can't prove the case, none of us can. The case has changed and it is a lot more than us here know. I think your book should offer the experts that you will quote a little reflection of the recent past. And I would not put too much emphasis on handwriting experts. Especially since 3 experts right now claim to have matched handwriting in the Zodiac case.

I would even buy your book if they stand by their original thoughts on the case. I personally believe that those in the know are certain that someone outside the family did the act of killing Jon Benet.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

I would love to read your book but I think you will encounter some major problems. Much of your information comes from other books and sources before the new DNA technology. And many of those sources are not now privy to all of the evidence that has not been shared. Before you use information that you learned from them, I would like to see if they would allow you to source them and if their thoughts have changed with what they know now.

Well, my feeling is that very little has really changed. If you want to argue that that new findings outweigh the previously gathered evidence, you're certainly free to make that argument. But I cannot in good conscience say that it automatically makes the previously gathered evidence non-existant.

From what I've seen, not too many people have changed their minds. Or if they have, they certainly haven't said so. Michael Kane even said that it would eventually bounce back. Moreover, if you go onto Youtube.com, you will see that some IDIs are ready to push the panic button due to the BPD taking back the case.

But then, I wouldn't mind myself. But I've always been a maverick.

You can talk tough but any publisher will make sure they are not liable and whomever may come at you. That includes you best sources.

Oh, I see. You think that my sources might come after me, is that it? That's a wrinkle I hadn't thought of.

You should be scared to get sued because you can't prove the case, none of us can.

I don't HAVE to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I just have to prove that the majority is on my side and that I didn't knowingly lie. And I can guarantee you one thing: I'm not going to make the mistakes the last idiot did.

The case has changed and it is a lot more than us here know. I think your book should offer the experts that you will quote a little reflection of the recent past.

Be more specific, Roy. How should I do that?

And I would not put too much emphasis on handwriting experts. Especially since 3 experts right now claim to have matched handwriting in the Zodiac case.

I don't put as much emphasis in the book as you might think, actually.

I would even buy your book if they stand by their original thoughts on the case.

I'll hold you to that.

I personally believe that those in the know are certain that someone outside the family did the act of killing JonBenet.

Well, to me, there's a substantial difference between those actually in the know and those who until recently were in charge. That was largely my point in starting this thread: to show that the previous administration cannot be trusted.

 

[Roy23]

Yeah, I understand that you believe a major conspiricy with some administration figures. And you make some good points about not knowingly lying. I also know that you would not do that. Make sure it is okay for you to use their conclusions or suggestive comments that they made.

And I really do think the recent expansion of DNA is the biggest smoking gun in the case. But that is me and science. I feel the BPD really messed up and the only way to deflect their screwups were to follow that in high percentage of these cases, the parents are responsible. Jobs and careers were on the line and they ended up begging the Ramsey's to lawyer up and become recluse.

I believe that the Ramsey's could have already sued and won against many individuals but I think they know that those individual that slandered them will be needed in court when and if the real killer is found. That is what sucks about this case. Any defense lawyer will have a field day, no matter whom would end up on trial. And that is truth is you are RDI or IDI.

Well, my feeling is that very little has really changed. If you want to argue that that new findings outweigh the previously gathered evidence, you're certainly free to make that argument. But I cannot in good conscience say that it automatically makes the previously gathered evidence non-existant.

From what I've seen, not too many people have changed their minds. Or if they have, they certainly haven't said so. Michael Kane even said that it would eventually bounce back. Moreover, if you go onto Youtube.com, you will see that some IDIs are ready to push the panic button due to the BPD taking back the case.

But then, I wouldn't mind myself. But I've always been a maverick.



Yeah, I understand that you believe a major conspiricy with some administration figures. And you make some good points about not knowingly lying. I also know that you would not do that. Make sure it is okay for you to use their conclusions or suggestive comments that they made.

And I really do think the recent expansion of DNA is the biggest smoking gun in the case. But that is me and science. I feel the BPD really messed up and the only way to deflect their screwups were to follow that in high percentage of these cases, the parents are responsible. Jobs and careers were on the line and they ended up begging the Ramsey's to lawyer up and become recluse.

I believe that the Ramsey's could have already sued and won against many individuals but I think they know that those individual that slandered them will be needed in court when and if the real killer is found. That is what sucks about this case. Any defense lawyer will have a field day, no matter whom would end up on trial. And that is truth is you are RDI or IDI.



I don't HAVE to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I just have to prove that the majority is on my side and that I didn't knowingly lie. And I can guarantee you one thing: I'm not going to make the mistakes the last idiot did.



Be more specific, Roy. How should I do that?



I don't put as much emphasis in the book as you might think, actually.



I'll hold you to that.



Well, to me, there's a substantial difference between those actually in the know and those who until recently were in charge. That was largely my point in starting this thread: to show that the previous administration cannot be trusted.

 

[Ravyn]

I thought the DNA was in 2006 with then DA Lacy....

 

[BBB167893]

Yeah, I understand that you believe a major conspiricy with some administration figures.

Obviously you don't. I'm not alleging any kind of conspiracy. It's more a combination of naivete and incompetence. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but don't mischaracterize what I have to say.

And you make some good points about not knowingly lying. I also know that you would not do that.

You're darn right.

Make sure it is okay for you to use their conclusions or suggestive comments that they made.

Why wouldn't it? It's all been said, published, etc. and to my knowledge they've never had to change it.

And I really do think the recent expansion of DNA is the biggest smoking gun in the case. But that is me and science.

I feel the BPD really messed up and the only way to deflect their screwups were to follow that in high percentage of these cases, the parents are responsible. Jobs and careers were on the line and they ended up begging the Ramsey's to lawyer up and become recluse.

Who's alleging conspiracy now?

I believe that the Ramsey's could have already sued and won against many individuals but I think they know that those individual that slandered them will be needed in court when and if the real killer is found.

No comment.

That is what sucks about this case. Any defense lawyer will have a field day, no matter whom would end up on trial. And that is truth is you are RDI or IDI.

That one I won't argue.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

But you don't want to be that defense lawyer?

I find it interesting you want to be prosecutor of the R's by name, but don't want to defend a pseudonym intruder. Prosecuting the R's and defending an intruder are practically the same thing. If you're doing one, your doing the other as a by-product.

 

[BBB167893]

But you don't want to be that defense lawyer?

I find it interesting you want to be prosecutor of the R's by name, but don't want to defend a pseudonym intruder.

I didn't say I didn't want to, HOTYH. I just felt that for you to prosecute someone who can't be named didn't seem fair. If you still have the notion, I can do it.

Prosecuting the R's and defending an intruder are practically the same thing. If you're doing one, your doing the other as a by-product.

That's true. But as the defense lawyer, the deck is stacked in my favor. I just wanted to be sure you knew that.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I didn't say I didn't want to, HOTYH. I just felt that for you to prosecute someone who can't be named didn't seem fair. If you still have the notion, I can do it.



That's true. But as the defense lawyer, the deck is stacked in my favor. I just wanted to be sure you knew that.

A mock trial in absentia. All the testimony & evidence will be hearsay. Doesn't get any more constitutional than that. Need a judge. A fence-sitter or at least a moderate RDI or IDI.

 

[BBB167893]

A mock trial in absentia. All the testimony & evidence will be hearsay. Doesn't get any more constitutional than that. Need a judge. A fence-sitter or at least a moderate RDI or IDI.

That last part might be hardest of all. Same deal with jurors.

I have an idea, though. Perhaps we could ask some of the people from other forums who don't frequent this one.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That last part might be hardest of all. Same deal with jurors.

I have an idea, though. Perhaps we could ask some of the people from other forums who don't frequent this one.

I'll let you pick. I think we need a judge first, and then decide if its a mock trial in absentia by judge or by jury.

 

[BBB167893]

I'll let you pick. I think we need a judge first, and then decide if its a mock trial in absentia by judge or by jury.

I'd prefer a jury. Three would do. But I'll settle for one judge.

As for me picking, since I don't know too many folks on other threads, I think it would be better if a third party made the invite.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'd prefer a jury. Three would do. But I'll settle for one judge.

As for me picking, since I don't know too many folks on other threads, I think it would be better if a third party made the invite.

Looking for a volunteer judge and three volunteer jurors, that are needed for a mock trial of a pseudonym intruder. Only really need the judge first because I think there's a hearing before the trial.

Is this too pretentious?

 

[BBB167893]

Looking for a volunteer judge and three volunteer jurors, that are needed for a mock trial of a pseudonym intruder. Only really need the judge first because I think there's a hearing before the trial.

Is this too pretentious?

I'd just as soon skip the hearing.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'd just as soon skip the hearing.

No arraignment, no preliminary hearing? OK.

 

[BBB167893]

No arraignment, no preliminary hearing? OK.

If you've got any ideas on how we'd be better served by having them, I am listening.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If you've got any ideas on how we'd be better served by having them, I am listening.

Not necessary if you just want to know what the charges are, what evidence will or will not be allowed, and don't need a judge to decide.

 

[BBB167893]

Not necessary if you just want to know what the charges are, what evidence will or will not be allowed, and don't need a judge to decide.

Tell you what, HOTYH. To show that I'm an easy guy to get along with, we'll play it your way.