Unknown male DNA and the panties discussion

[Kimster]

I've removed some personal attack posts. I hope I don't see any more after this.

 

[Tricia]

Let me jump in and say I agree with Kimster.

Next time this happens a TO or ban. Won't put up with this at all.

 

[marge_rita]

10-11 years after JBR's murder and the discussion is still on going. From the moment I heard about this on national news, my gut told me someone in the home did it.

Years later after reading every book I could get my hands on or audio books I could get my ears on, I still believe PR did it and JR covered it up.

I know PR wrote the rn, there's just too much proof of that. I know there is nothing that proves an intruder entered that house and killed JBR.

I've hoped for years that BR would talk when he became an adult.
I'm sad he won't.

imo

 

[BBB167893]

No more than a murder without kidnapping.

I disagree. The ransom note provides a criminal with motives. Without it, the suspect pool is very narrow.

It doesn't work so well without the entry point.

I guess they must have agreed, because once they ran out of "inside job" suspects, they went with Smit's ideas. Moreover, I answered that already:

Not only that, but their story hinges on the idea that whomever did this was some super-intelligent master criminal who could enter and exit a house without leaving any sort of evidence, like a ghost. Someone who would put BATMAN's enemies to shame.

Why do I read all the time from RDI, "no evidence of an intruder"?

Is this a non-sequitur? I don't see what you're saying.

No, he may have left DNA. Possibly the unidentified brown fibers as well.

You don't get what I mean. I'm speaking of how the Ramseys characterized this person. I'm just guessing here, but I don't think you're familiar with the SECOND break-in.

Sure, but then it still means we don't have the info.

I have no reason not to trust these men.

Yes, and we are at a disadvantage about it all.

True enough. Back in 2004, when the Ramseys' lawsuit against Fox News was coming up before Judge Figa, FOX was determined not to make the same mistakes Darnay Hoffman made. They made a serious attempt to obtain the actual police file on the case. It didn't get that far, because the judge threw the suit out. While I agree that he SHOULD have thrown the suit out, I almost wish it had gone forward, because it would have been educational to see Mary Lacy have to go into a court of law and give an actual legal justification for refusing to hand over that file to the lawyers for FOX.

Please don't if it involves grand conspiracies lacking any discernible motivation or plausibility.

You can just STOP all that, Squirrel. I'm not alleging any kind of conspiracy, and neither is KoldKase. KK is merely pointing out the simple fact that the Ramseys benefitted from the DA's largesse. I chalk it up to their general incompetence and political agenda, not some under-the-table agreement (which, in fairness, Alex Hunter had done before). KK is right about one thing: I'm hard-pressed to believe that the DA would have given the Rs the kind of breaks he did if they HADN'T had money and connections!

No, the reasons why the Rs were never prosecuted are many, and none of them involve conspiracies.

1) Perhaps most importantly, is what is known as the cross fingerpointing defense. Now, pay close attention, because for some unknown reason, a lot of IDIs have trouble understanding this concept. Speaking plainly, this refers to the fact that you cannot charge two people for the same crime. Indeed, the answer is implicit in our language: "why the Ramseys are never prosecuted." Legally speaking, "the Ramseys" do not exist. A prosecutor cannot go into court without being able to say which person was the actual killer and which one was merely an accomplice. And that's the key here. They were never able to tell which one did the actual killing and which one was just along for the ride. The evidence just wasn't that specific. As ADA Hofstrom said, proving Patsy wrote the note doesn't prove she was the killer.

And in case you think I'm kidding around here, Squirrel, several veteran prosecutors have spoken about this very topic and how it affected this case specifically. Just off the top of my head, Vincent Bugliosi and Wendy Murphy have spoken about it.

That leads me into 2) The DA's general incompetence. Leaving aside their cozy business relationships with the Ramseys' attorneys, this was not a fighting prosecutors office. This was an outift that did not take cases to trial, preferring to plea-bargain everything. Alex Hunter hadn't taken a case to trial in TEN YEARS. He did not have the skills to mount a circumstantial case against the kind of legal talent the Ramseys bought. His own staff had no experience with circumstantial cases or with Grand Juries. Taking on the Haddon law firm with such weak material would be like shooting at Godzilla with a BB gun!

And that's not even counting Mary Lacy, who made it her life's mission to clear the Rs based on her feminist beliefs. And if you think I'm kidding around about that, ask some of the people who worked for her. They've stated publically that Lacy felt that Patsy Ramsey was being bullied by the male cops and that she was incapable of committing this crime, even going so far as to chastise Tom Haney for being "too tough" on Patsy in 1998 when he was using STANDARD interrogation techniques that the greenest rookie on a BEAT would know! Haney's general feeling about her was, "who the hell does she think SHE is?" (This is not the last time Lacy has acted this way. Her conduct in the Midyette case was nothing short of staggering.)

It is easier, but then you're trying to say what is the likely behavior. I'm hearing that they "had to" do it in such and such way, when that's not really the case.

Look, I don't know necessarily what they "had" to do. I'm just trying to understand WHY they would do it.

The kidnapping story makes them leave behind more evidence traceable to them, plus the incongruous discovery of the body in the house.

Same answer. That's easy to SAY when you're at the comfort of your keyboard. It's another thing altogether to actually be IN that position. I'd like to see how any of US would have done in their position! See, this is what I love about my old IDI comrades: they all talk as if there was some kind of instruction manual on murder and crime-scene staging!

Look, Squirrel, I'm going to put this as simply as possible. What you say MAY be true, but even then it changes nothing, because you're forgetting one crucial thing, a crucial thing that the Ramseys did NOT forget: they didn't HAVE to fool the police, or the FBI, OR the pathologists, OR the analysts. They didn't even have to fool you or me. They had to fool ONE person out of twelve. That's IT. The sad fact is, no matter how ridiculous your story is, SOMEONE out there will believe you. Ask OJ Simpson if you don't believe me. As PT Barnum is supposed to have said, "there's a sucker born every minute." And, sadly, a LOT of those suckers find their way onto juries and give us OJ Simpson "justice." And they knew that. They watched the Simpson trial. There's your how-to manual right there. And they followed it to the letter!

I love all these mindreaders on the board. You should all be in Vegas at the poker tables.

Oh, I'm no mindreader, Squirrel. Never claimed to be. And if I WERE, I can guarantee you I'd be doing better things than THIS right now! No, I'm not claiming to be a mindreader. I'm merely making an observation, one that many people before me have already made: she did NOT act like so many of the innocent parents we've seen, but that doesn't seem to make a damn bit of difference to IDI. Maybe it's evidence, maybe it isn't, but I damn sure can't ignore it!

Dave, what are these ridiculous things? And how are they much more ridiculous than for RDI?

Well, in response to BOTH of those questions, Squirrel, all I can ask is how much time have you got?

As to what these ridiculous things are, just off the top of my head, in order to believe that an intruder did this, you have to believe:

1) That this was some kind of hybrid killer we've never seen up to now;

2) Who came into this crime TOTALLY unprepared.

2a) rather than BRING a ready-made ransom note with him, he decided to HANDWRITE one inside the house with PR's pen and paper, even remembering to put the pen back where he found it;

2b) then had to go searching around until he found some cord and tape he could use;

2c) then he had to root around in Patsy's art supplies for a handle.

3) He chose a method of killing that was totally inefficient for his supposed needs and he tied her up in a way that would not restrain an infant;

4) And perhaps most notably, this stumblebum managed to evade the combined efforts of the FBI and an ARMY of LE experts AND manage never to kill again. I realize that several IDIs have tried to tie this murder to other incidents, but every time they've tried they've had to stretch farther than a giraffe's neck.

Whereas all RDI requires you to believe is that two socialites (or maybe one) had a moment of weakness, made a terrible mistake, then decided to compound it out of fear of what the consequences would be. Not unlike a child who lies because they're afraid of being punished.

 

[vlpate]

10-11 years after JBR's murder and the discussion is still on going. From the moment I heard about this on national news, my gut told me someone in the home did it.

Years later after reading every book I could get my hands on or audio books I could get my ears on, I still believe PR did it and JR covered it up.

I know PR wrote the rn, there's just too much proof of that. I know there is nothing that proves an intruder entered that house and killed JBR.

I've hoped for years that BR would talk when he became an adult.
I'm sad he won't.

imo

Hi Marge_rita,
It's actually been 14 years! Most people with common sense and comprehension do believe the R's were the only people involved. Of course the argument, the one and only argument is the DNA - left, apparently by a person who took their gloves off to lower and raise JBR's underwear and longjohns. I can't tie a shoe lace, much less a garotte with gloves on...imagine tearing duct tape with gloves on....I mean, come on, really?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Hi Marge_rita,
It's actually been 14 years! Most people with common sense and comprehension do believe the R's were the only people involved.

Circular, self-serving, empty statement.

 

[vlpate]

Circular, self-serving, empty statement.

Point?

 

[BBB167893]

Oh, there's one other thing I'd say. Just something to reflect on.

It always amuses me when IDI start talking about "tinfoil hats" and "grand conspiracies," because the entire premise of the IDI argument is based on the idea of a HUGE conspiracy: that the police and FBI somehow agreed in secret to "gang up" on the Ramseys.

GIVE. ME. A. BREAK. That 1960s, Black-Panther BS sounded ridicuolus enough when OJ tried it. People like THIS using is is just nonsense.