Intruder probability more, less, or same?

[Holdontoyourhat]

You asked if we had any proof that the DA was on a mission on the Rs' behalf. That's as good a jumping-off point as I can find!

OK, the DA was on a mission on the R's behalf. Somehow I'm not having a problem with that.

Its about time.

 

[BOESP]

OK, the DA was on a mission on the R's behalf. Somehow I'm not having a problem with that.

Its about time.

The DA's office is not to act as judge and jury, which is exactly how Mary Lacy presented herself when she made such a bold statement. Where I come from, it's called "over-stepping your bounds."

 

[BBB167893]

OK, the DA was on a mission on the R's behalf. Somehow I'm not having a problem with that.

The fact that you're not is, to be blunt, frightening. Think about what you're saying here.

Its about time.

My mind boggles at the implications of that.

 

[BBB167893]

The DA's office is not to act as judge and jury, which is exactly how Mary Lacy presented herself when she made such a bold statement. Where I come from, it's called "over-stepping your bounds."

Oh, it's far worse than that.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The fact that you're not is, to be blunt, frightening. Think about what you're saying here.



My mind boggles at the implications of that.

If the DA knows for a fact that an intruder did it, then it is their duty and responsibility to act on that knowledge wherever and whenever possible to serve justice.

It would be frightening to consider anything else.

 

[BOESP]

Oh, it's far worse than that.

Okay ... how 'bout "malfeasance?" (Or is it worser than that? )

 

[BOESP]

If the DA knows for a fact that an intruder did it, then it is their duty and responsibility to act on that knowledge wherever and whenever possible to serve justice.

It would be frightening to consider anything else.

And you're implying that your statement above is what Mary Lacy did by exonerating the Ramseys and that you base your opinion on what you read in the newspapers? :waitasec:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

And you're implying that your statement above is what Mary Lacy did by exonerating the Ramseys and that you base your opinion on what you read in the newspapers? :waitasec:

I believe the DA knows an intruder did it. I agree with the reasons stated. There is one and only one way this DNA could appear in these two places, contrary to RDI hype.

If you don't agree, tough. They have more access.

 

[BBB167893]

If the DA knows for a fact that an intruder did it, then it is their duty and responsibility to act on that knowledge wherever and whenever possible to serve justice.

It would be frightening to consider anything else.

Clever, but not remotely what I meant. You said that you didn't have a problem with the DA being on a mission on behalf of the Rs. I begged you to consider what you were saying. Clearly, you did not. If you had, you'd understand how terrifying it really is. So let me break it down for you:

1) You said it yourself: If the DA knows for a fact that an intruder did it. Well, I realize it's been a while since I looked over my high school civics book, but last I knew, it's not the DA's job to decide who did it. That's SUPPOSED to be up to a jury. That's why we have trials. Can you even IMAGINE what it would be like if prosecutors around the country took it upon themselves to act the way the Boulder DA's office has acted, not just in this case, but in others? I would not wish to live in such a society, and I suspect neither would you.

And that's just the general aspect of it. Let's get into specifics surrounding this case:

2) It's well-established by several sources (which I doubt you're familiar with) that ML already "knew for a fact" that an intruder did it from Day One, and she didn't need little details like "evidence" to get in her way. Steve Thomas in his book talks about her wanting to pursue Bill McReynolds as the killer long after everyone else had ruled him out.

2A) And that's just for openers. She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Tom Haney is one of the finest homicide detectives in the entire Rocky Mountain area, if not the country. His record speaks for itself. And here's this assistant DA, who at that time I don't think had ever tried a murder case in her entire career, and to my knowledge still hasn't, telling him he was too tough for using absolutely STANDARD interrogation techniques that the greenest rookie on the beat would know! Haney's general feeling was, "who the hell does she think SHE is?"

2B) Later on, she had the unmitigated gall to tell the cops that because they were men, they couldn't understand a woman's mindset. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! I suppose one could be generous and say that ML's experiences as a sex-crimes prosecutor made her more likely to take PR's side, since at that level, you deal primarily with living victims and have to rely more on the say-so of those same victims. But I'm not feeling generous. I think Jeff Shapiro summed it up well: "It's no secret that in 1997, when Lacy was a sex-assault prosecutor under then-DA Alex Hunter, she was furious when he did not appoint her to work on the case. Because Hunter and the police shied away from the intruder theory, many law enforcement officials often wonder if Lacy's attempts to prove them wrong are driven more by her personal feelings than by the actual pursuit of justice."

3) Now, you mentioned the prospect of avoiding litigation. I said that was as good a jumping-off point as I could think of. The reason I say that is because that's HOW ML got to take over the case to begin with! In 2002, Lin Wood, the Ramseys' attorney, threatened to sue the police department if they didn't turn over the case to the DA's office, when he knew full well that Mary Lacy was sympathetic to his clients. He brags publically about it. What kind of sleazy backroom deal is THAT?! I've never even heard of such a thing: a suspect's lawyer deciding who can and cannot investigate a homicide case? I'm not a legal expert, so I don't know if that could be constituted obstruction of justice, or collusion, or not, but it damn well ought to be a disbarring offense.

4) And once it was turned over to her, she made absolutely no attempt to even contact any of the original investigators, many of whom had worked on it far more extensively than she had. She brought in a whole new team consisting of people totally loyal to her point of view, including several people who had been hired by the Rs. None of this in in dispute by any side. ALL of the information I've provided up to now comes from verifiable sources.

And you don't find any of this frightening? THIS is your idea of justice?! MY GOD, man. This scares the living hell out of me. If this is justice, I don't WANT it! HOTYH, even if nothing I've written here makes a dent, I'm pleading, on my knees PLEADING with you to consider just what you are proposing.

 

[BBB167893]

Okay ... how 'bout "malfeasance?" (Or is it worser than that? )

Read what I wrote to HOTYH, and then decide for yourself.

 

[madeleine]

If the DA knows for a fact that an intruder did it, then it is their duty and responsibility to act on that knowledge wherever and whenever possible to serve justice.

It would be frightening to consider anything else.

But she doesn't know for a fact that an intruder did it,THAT'S the whole problem!
She is exonerating people based on having a guess!

 

[madeleine]

There is one and only one way this DNA could appear in these two places,

There are more but you don't wanna listen.

 

[madeleine]

There's only one victim in the Ramsey case
By David Harsanyi


Despite what you may have heard, Patsy and John Ramsey have not been "cleared" of wrongdoing in any genuine sense. They were simply handed a legal pass by a staunch ally who has once again shortchanged the genuine victim in the case: JonBenét.

Mary Lacy, the district attorney of Boulder, has made it her mission to exonerate the Ramseys since her first day on the job. She has disregarded facts and played the media and the public for a bunch of suckers along the way. She is trying to do it again.

Relying on an advanced method of analyzing forensic evidence, Lacy claims an unidentified man was the likely murderer of JonBenét. Lacy stated the Ramsey family should now "be treated only as victims," and apologized to them in writing.

Lacy, as anyone who has followed this case knows, has little credibility to offer, much less any absolution to hand out — at least not until a killer is convicted. And without a confession, that's an exceedingly unlikely scenario.

The Ramseys, let's not forget, brought suspicion upon themselves with bizarre behavior during the investigation of the horrific Christmas night 1996 murder of their daughter.

Suspicious acts are not the equivalent of guilt, but they certainly provide authorities ample reason to be on alert.

Now, according to Lacy, an outside laboratory has found "previously undiscovered genetic material" of a male in three places on JonBenét's clothing. This leads investigators to believe that DNA could not have been left accidentally by an innocent party. It must have been an intruder.

So, once again, the public is supposed to believe a murderer snuck into the house undetected, killed the girl undetected, wrote a ransom note and then snuck out undetected, never to be heard from again.

"It is, therefore, the position of the Boulder district attorney's office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide," Lacy contends.

Now, you may wonder:

How does Lacy know the unidentified male is the one who actually killed JonBenét? How does Lacy know that this person's hands weren't on JonBenét's clothes before or after the murder? How does she know that John Doe wasn't assisting the family in a cover-up of the crime?

And if this nameless individual was indeed the murderer, how does Lacy know that a family member did not assist him in covering up the crime?

She doesn't know.

But Lacy, one of the most incompetent officials working in Colorado law enforcement, has taken us on this ride before. There is neither the space nor the need to discuss Lacy's ham-fisted ineptitude here. She is, after all, an elected official, and Boulder voters get what they deserve.

We must, nonetheless, recall that this is the woman who two years ago conceded she had not a shred of credible evidence tying John Mark Karr to the death of JonBenét Ramsey. Yet, she still hauled this creepy child-sex fetishist back to United States from Thailand (a crime in itself, if you ask me) and let citizens foot the bill.

When Karr was brought back to Colorado, there were immediate calls for the media to ask for forgiveness from the Ramsey family for daring to cast suspicion on them all these years.

But, as is always prudent in this case, a healthy dose of skepticism about the Boulder police department, the DA and everyone involved was entirely justified — for the obvious reasons that no one wants to believe the unthinkable. No one wants to believe parents are capable of some dreadful act.

We should also remember there are plenty of other crimes to be solved. Plenty of other children — most of whom aren't involved in high-profile cases — are in need of justice.

But Lacy is in no position to offer apologies or to dictate how the public should view the Ramseys. Because in this case, there is still only one victim.





http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9839651


:clap: my thoughts exactly! :clap:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Clever, but not remotely what I meant. You said that you didn't have a problem with the DA being on a mission on behalf of the Rs. I begged you to consider what you were saying. Clearly, you did not. If you had, you'd understand how terrifying it really is. So let me break it down for you:

1) You said it yourself: If the DA knows for a fact that an intruder did it. Well, I realize it's been a while since I looked over my high school civics book, but last I knew, it's not the DA's job to decide who did it. That's SUPPOSED to be up to a jury. That's why we have trials. Can you even IMAGINE what it would be like if prosecutors around the country took it upon themselves to act the way the Boulder DA's office has acted, not just in this case, but in others? I would not wish to live in such a society, and I suspect neither would you.

And that's just the general aspect of it. Let's get into specifics surrounding this case:

2) It's well-established by several sources (which I doubt you're familiar with) that ML already "knew for a fact" that an intruder did it from Day One, and she didn't need little details like "evidence" to get in her way. Steve Thomas in his book talks about her wanting to pursue Bill McReynolds as the killer long after everyone else had ruled him out.

2A) And that's just for openers. She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Tom Haney is one of the finest homicide detectives in the entire Rocky Mountain area, if not the country. His record speaks for itself. And here's this assistant DA, who at that time I don't think had ever tried a murder case in her entire career, and to my knowledge still hasn't, telling him he was too tough for using absolutely STANDARD interrogation techniques that the greenest rookie on the beat would know! Haney's general feeling was, "who the hell does she think SHE is?"

2B) Later on, she had the unmitigated gall to tell the cops that because they were men, they couldn't understand a woman's mindset. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! I suppose one could be generous and say that ML's experiences as a sex-crimes prosecutor made her more likely to take PR's side, since at that level, you deal primarily with living victims and have to rely more on the say-so of those same victims. But I'm not feeling generous. I think Jeff Shapiro summed it up well: "It's no secret that in 1997, when Lacy was a sex-assault prosecutor under then-DA Alex Hunter, she was furious when he did not appoint her to work on the case. Because Hunter and the police shied away from the intruder theory, many law enforcement officials often wonder if Lacy's attempts to prove them wrong are driven more by her personal feelings than by the actual pursuit of justice."

3) Now, you mentioned the prospect of avoiding litigation. I said that was as good a jumping-off point as I could think of. The reason I say that is because that's HOW ML got to take over the case to begin with! In 2002, Lin Wood, the Ramseys' attorney, threatened to sue the police department if they didn't turn over the case to the DA's office, when he knew full well that Mary Lacy was sympathetic to his clients. He brags publically about it. What kind of sleazy backroom deal is THAT?! I've never even heard of such a thing: a suspect's lawyer deciding who can and cannot investigate a homicide case? I'm not a legal expert, so I don't know if that could be constituted obstruction of justice, or collusion, or not, but it damn well ought to be a disbarring offense.

4) And once it was turned over to her, she made absolutely no attempt to even contact any of the original investigators, many of whom had worked on it far more extensively than she had. She brought in a whole new team consisting of people totally loyal to her point of view, including several people who had been hired by the Rs. None of this in in dispute by any side. ALL of the information I've provided up to now comes from verifiable sources.

And you don't find any of this frightening? THIS is your idea of justice?! MY GOD, man. This scares the living hell out of me. If this is justice, I don't WANT it! HOTYH, even if nothing I've written here makes a dent, I'm pleading, on my knees PLEADING with you to consider just what you are proposing.

Dramatic, heartfelt, and perhaps 'over the top'?

What does all this hype have to do with ML finding more DNA that matched the CODIS DNA? And why is this not the most significant development, RDI or IDI, in recent years on this case? How come ST, TH, or any of your other HEROES have not done anything SIGNIFICANT like THIS??

Please, oh please I'm begging you dont avoid this question: If ML is so bad, why is she the only person who has made measurable advancement in the case in recent years?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

There are more but you don't wanna listen.

Give me one. Prima facie will obviously not like it, and it will be easy to find problems.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

There's only one victim in the Ramsey case
By David Harsanyi


Despite what you may have heard, Patsy and John Ramsey have not been "cleared" of wrongdoing in any genuine sense. They were simply handed a legal pass by a staunch ally who has once again shortchanged the genuine victim in the case: JonBenét.

Mary Lacy, the district attorney of Boulder, has made it her mission to exonerate the Ramseys since her first day on the job. She has disregarded facts and played the media and the public for a bunch of suckers along the way. She is trying to do it again.

Relying on an advanced method of analyzing forensic evidence, Lacy claims an unidentified man was the likely murderer of JonBenét. Lacy stated the Ramsey family should now "be treated only as victims," and apologized to them in writing.

Lacy, as anyone who has followed this case knows, has little credibility to offer, much less any absolution to hand out — at least not until a killer is convicted. And without a confession, that's an exceedingly unlikely scenario.

The Ramseys, let's not forget, brought suspicion upon themselves with bizarre behavior during the investigation of the horrific Christmas night 1996 murder of their daughter.

Suspicious acts are not the equivalent of guilt, but they certainly provide authorities ample reason to be on alert.

Now, according to Lacy, an outside laboratory has found "previously undiscovered genetic material" of a male in three places on JonBenét's clothing. This leads investigators to believe that DNA could not have been left accidentally by an innocent party. It must have been an intruder.

So, once again, the public is supposed to believe a murderer snuck into the house undetected, killed the girl undetected, wrote a ransom note and then snuck out undetected, never to be heard from again.

"It is, therefore, the position of the Boulder district attorney's office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide," Lacy contends.

Now, you may wonder:

How does Lacy know the unidentified male is the one who actually killed JonBenét? How does Lacy know that this person's hands weren't on JonBenét's clothes before or after the murder? How does she know that John Doe wasn't assisting the family in a cover-up of the crime?

And if this nameless individual was indeed the murderer, how does Lacy know that a family member did not assist him in covering up the crime?

She doesn't know.

But Lacy, one of the most incompetent officials working in Colorado law enforcement, has taken us on this ride before. There is neither the space nor the need to discuss Lacy's ham-fisted ineptitude here. She is, after all, an elected official, and Boulder voters get what they deserve.

We must, nonetheless, recall that this is the woman who two years ago conceded she had not a shred of credible evidence tying John Mark Karr to the death of JonBenét Ramsey. Yet, she still hauled this creepy child-sex fetishist back to United States from Thailand (a crime in itself, if you ask me) and let citizens foot the bill.

When Karr was brought back to Colorado, there were immediate calls for the media to ask for forgiveness from the Ramsey family for daring to cast suspicion on them all these years.

But, as is always prudent in this case, a healthy dose of skepticism about the Boulder police department, the DA and everyone involved was entirely justified — for the obvious reasons that no one wants to believe the unthinkable. No one wants to believe parents are capable of some dreadful act.

We should also remember there are plenty of other crimes to be solved. Plenty of other children — most of whom aren't involved in high-profile cases — are in need of justice.

But Lacy is in no position to offer apologies or to dictate how the public should view the Ramseys. Because in this case, there is still only one victim.





http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9839651


:clap: my thoughts exactly! :clap:

Sour grapes. Again I ask, where is the big RDI discovery? Don't be jealous just because IDI has the only case development in years. This is essentially a rant--a high opinion adding zero new information.

Isn't there anything RDI has that can be rebutted? At least ML astutely provided more DNA matching the original CODIS DNA that the FBI accepted. RDI: what have you done for JBR lately besides get all defensive and paranoid?

 

[BBB167893]

Dramatic, heartfelt, and perhaps 'over the top'?

Hey, this isn't about me. The kind of "investigative" techniques I mentioned may be the rule of the land in places like Zimbabwe or North Korea, but this is America, and we're supposed to be better than that. You're talking about the subversion of the Constitution. What the he** am I SUPPOSED to say?

Nice job avoiding the issue, BTW.

What does all this hype have to do with ML finding more DNA that matched the CODIS DNA?

Hype, my eye. As for what it has to do with it, isn't it obvious? ML was on her way out as DA. She'd been on a mission to clear the Rs for years (which I'm glad you don't dispute, BTW) and she'd been made to look like a fool in the wake of the JMK incident. She needed SOMETHING that would justify it. So, already with her own biases at work, she turns to a new, controversial method of DNA testing--apparently without understanding that the more sensitive DNA testing methods get, the more likely they are to pick up slag DNA--that, by the technician's own admission, eliminates all samples that don't match what you're looking for, and she lucks out. Meanwhile, she's got a 40,000-page file which she never uses. And NONE of this bothers you?

And why is this not the most significant development, RDI or IDI, in recent years on this case?

Because, as madeleine and I have tried desperately to explain over the last two days, without a suspect to match it to who can be placed inside the house that night by other evidencethe DNA itself is just one more piece of the gigantic puzzle. It's ML's own BIASES that give it its power, which you seem to have no problem with.

How come ST, TH, or any of your other HEROES have not done anything SIGNIFICANT like THIS??

1) Please tell me how you got the idea that these men are somehow my "heroes." While your at it, explain why you capitalized the word "heroes." Everything I've said about them has already been said by people much more knowledgable about them than me.

2) To answer the question as to why, that answer is simple: they never exercised the kind of unrivaled power that ML had over this case. That's one of the points that I've been trying to make, for all the good it's done me: if the DA's office had worked WITH the police instead of trying to undercut them from Day One, they just might have accomplished some pretty big things. Don't take my word for that. Read PMPT. Read ST's book. Read Mark Fuhrman's book. It's not a big secret. BUT, when ML took over the case, she made it a point to exclude anyone who even remotely disagreed with her viewpoint so that no one COULD challenge any move she made. Who could stop her? Reminds me of a bratty child who won't let anyone else play with her toys.

Please, oh please I'm begging you dont avoid this question:

Oh, I have no intention of avoiding it.

If ML is so bad, why is she the only person who has made measureable advancement in the case in recent years?

First of all, I take issue with the use of the word "advancement." That implies that the case is on-track. I dispute that very much. More importantly, even incompetent people can accomplish big things. History is full of those. Trouble is, "significant" does not always mean "positive." If someone gave a five-year-old the keys to an arsenal of nuclear weapons, the resutls would be significant, but they would NOT be good!

Better than that, HOTYH; let me lay this illustration on you:

Put ME in charge of this case with unlimited power and taxpayer money to decide which seed of investigation will be watered and which one will not. I guarantee you I would accomplish some very big things, but I'm pretty sure you and the other IDIs wouldn't like them!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hey, this isn't about me. The kind of "investigative" techniques I mentioned may be the rule of the land in places like Zimbabwe or North Korea, but this is America, and we're supposed to be better than that. You're talking about the subversion of the Constitution. What the he** am I SUPPOSED to say?

This is the generalization and paranoia I think I was referring to.

Nice job avoiding the issue, BTW.

Thanks.

...and she lucks out.

LOL. Never trade in your luck.

More importantly, even incompetent people can accomplish big things.

LOL. This is right. As I have said before, professionals can work on this case for years, and some shmuck walks along, looks down, and says:

Whats this?

Truth is fickle, it doesn't care who finds it.

Trouble is, "significant" does not always mean "positive." If someone gave a five-year-old the keys to an arsenal of nuclear weapons, the resutls would be significant, but they would NOT be good!

I would accept anything "significant" RDI has provided over the recent years to match ML's accomplishment. Right or wrong, it was an accomplishment, and at least you have given her credit for it.

Put ME in charge of this case with unlimited power and taxpayer money to decide which seed of investigation will be watered and which one will not. I guarantee you I would accomplish some very big things, but I'm pretty sure you and the other IDIs wouldn't like them!

I would like them if they are the truth.

 

[BBB167893]

This is the generalization and paranoia I think I was referring to.

Trouble is, it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you. By that I mean that you can't view the actions of the Boulder DA in a vacuum. Granted, it's an extreme example, but to me, it's only one manifestation of many of the trend of taking the handcuffs off the slimes and putting them on the cops that's been going on since the halcyon days of the Warren Court. That's how I look at it.

Thanks.

ANYTIME.

LOL. Never trade in your luck.

"Better to be lucky than good," I believe the saying goes. That could be said for a LOT of people in this case!

LOL. This is right. As I have said before, professionals can work on this case for years, and some shmuck walks along, looks down, and says:

Whats this?

I can't help but wonder if you'd still say that if the shoe was on the other foot. Still, we're dangerously close to agreeing!

Truth is fickle, it doesn't care who finds it.

That's what I'm counting on...

I would accept anything "significant" RDI has provided over the recent years to match ML's accomplishment. Right or wrong, it was an accomplishment, and at least you have given her credit for it.

I acknowledge it. I'm not sure "credit" is the word I'd use. Other than that, I guess you and I differ on the meaning of "significant." I tend to take more of a "one brick is nothing; 1,000 bricks make a wall" approach. But you knew that.

I would like them if they are the truth.

Like my late dad used to say, "talk is cheap."

 

[DeeDee249]

Mary Lacy is the biggest disgrace in this case. Bigger than Hunter and Smit. She knows NOTHING about who killed JB. She has NO proof the donor of the DNA killed her, NO proof the donor was even there at the time, and NO proof the donor was alone. NO proof the parents were not there as well. Quite the contrary. The parents' fibers found on items SPECIFIC to the crime indicate they were THERE. THAT night, with JB as she was being garroted, taped, redressed. Parental fibers found on all three items directly associated with the crime. Tape, garrote knot, re-dressed panties.