You, the jury

[madeleine]

If I understand correctly PR wasn't the only one some couldn't exclude as the RN writer.Why didn't we ever hear about the others,why.
And IMO she can't be excluded isn't = with she wrote it.
You know what,I am done with such "experts" since I found out how many said that JMK's handwriting matches.It's all about the blame&power game,nothing to do with justice or wanting to know the TRUTH.

 

[BBB167893]

If I understand correctly PR wasn't the only one some couldn't exclude as the RN writer.

The way I heard it was that some others couldn't be excluded very early on, during the preliminary examinations. By June-July of 1999, she was the only one. Like I said, that's how I heard it.

And IMO she can't be excluded isn't = with she wrote it.

Well, from what the examiners I've talked to have told me, very often (not always) it is. But I see your point, though.

You know what,I am done with such "experts" since I found out how many said that JMK's handwriting matches.It's all about the blame&power game,nothing to do with justice or wanting to know the TRUTH.

Now you're talking my language! This is just a suggestion, but maybe we should just scrap the handwriting experts altogether and use our own judgments?

 

[BBB167893]

I had to vote not guilty based on this evidence only because those fibers could have been on JB earlier in the night. Someone had to carry JB in from the car so fibers could have been transferred then.

But don't you think we'd have heard that those fibers were on her body and not just the areas I described? I've looked, and I can't find one source, pro- or anti- that says they were.

I do have a question though. Whats with the son and the 911 call? I don't remember any of that.

Okay. When the BPD reviewed the tape of the 911 call, they thought they could hear something in the background just before the hang-up. So, they had the tape digitally enhanced by an electronics firm. When the enhanced tape was played, the voice of a young boy could be heard asking, "what is it? What did you find?" It had to be Burke's voice, since no other children were present at that time. This was a direct contradiction to the Ramseys' claim that Burke had been asleep during the 911 call. Later, in 2000, the Rs changed their story to say that Burke was awake the whole time.

 

[madeleine]

I guess I'll have to go over them again. I hope you don't mind. Although, I'm a bit curious as to how you know what Smit's depo says, since it's sealed from public viewing.

Smit's depo is posted on webbsleuths.So is CW's.I didn't wanna say anything because someone might delete them before I manage to copy them.But what the heck

http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID79&mm=2&archive=

 

[madeleine]

You lost me there.

You were talking about fibers placing the murder weapon in PR's hands.I thought you meant the fibers entwined in the garrote?Doesn't this mean you implied that the garrote is the murder weapon?

 

[crangel]

But don't you think we'd have heard that those fibers were on her body and not just the areas I described? I've looked, and I can't find one source, pro- or anti- that says they were.



Okay. When the BPD reviewed the tape of the 911 call, they thought they could hear something in the background just before the hang-up. So, they had the tape digitally enhanced by an electronics firm. When the enhanced tape was played, the voice of a young boy could be heard asking, "what is it? What did you find?" It had to be Burke's voice, since no other children were present at that time. This was a direct contradiction to the Ramseys' claim that Burke had been asleep during the 911 call. Later, in 2000, the Rs changed their story to say that Burke was awake the whole time.

Thanks Dave. I'm assuming that we don't have access to this file like some of the other cases correct? I believe PR is guilty BUT not enough evidence to say without a doubt. I would also like to know why the police didn't do more checking into the sexual abuse allegations or Burke for that matter.

 

[madeleine]

If you can think of a different meaning, be my guest.

Even if she wrote the note and even if those are her fibers (even if those are her fibers ,their presence could have thousands of explanations) that doesn't mean she is the KILLER.Interesting,most RDI's agree with this.And the possibilities are many.She could have covered for the husband,one of the sons,the daughter,another relative,a friend,a lover,someone who was blackmailing them,someone who had threatened them,the list is LONG IMO

How you would vote guilty of MURDER BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt based on this is beyond my understanding.

 

[crangel]

OK what is RDI ?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well, then let me assuage your concerns, HOTYH. While you MAY have an argument against police interrogations, the people conducting the interview with PR are a different breed of animal. They're prosecutors, and as such, are forbidden by the CO Rules of Conduct from deliberately making false statements in order to produce a confession.

"we believe those are your fibers" could be said by anyone about any fibers. I, as a juror presented with this information, have doubts that the paint tote jacket fibers exist.

Just what I said: she had the right to keep her mouth shut. She made her statement of her own free will under no duress or coercion of any kind. That means that her statement(s) are admissable in court and could be used against her on the witness stand. And any prosecutor worth his/her salt would do exactly that. You can bet the house on that.


Are you kidding? She gave an explanation that is directly at odds with the statements of her own husband in a book that they co-wrote TWO FULL YEARS earlier. You wouldn't call that incriminating herself in a major way? I sure would.

PR didn't provide any testimony that suggested she had the will, the means, the opportunity, or the motive to murder her daughter. While you are expounding on the fantasy of PR's confession, of how PR majorly incriminated herself, I as a juror stand firm that the questioned testimony to investigators was and is irrelevant as to her guilt.

Gladly! You said that you would need a fiber expert to explain, quote:

how these fibers, on their own, are able to place the murder weapon in PR's hands or a motive in her mind.

My answer was that the state's fiber expert would very likely explain how the fibers place the murder weapon in PR's hands. I can explain it now! Here goes:

Because the fibers in question were not found on JB's clothing or body, it stands to reason that they wound up on the tape, in the knots, in the blanket in in the paint box because those items came into direct contact with PR's clothing during the course of the crime.

As a juror, I can plainly see that JBR's hair was glaringly omitted from this expert view. Further, I realize that JBR's head of hair would collect fibers. I also realize that her hair was in contact with the cord, the tape, and the paintbrush.

Further, I can plainly see that there is no way to sequence the depositing of fiber. The cord could've already been in JBR's hair, the jacket could've been handled or used for some purpose, and then the paintbrush broken at the tote. I believe we don't have enough information to be able to identify the sequence of events. We have to assume the sequence, AND THATS WHERE THE DOUBT STARTS.

Especially, I am strongly doubting the existence of paint tote fibers due to lack of exhibits. I also realize that PR's jacket is not exclusively and necessarily worn by PR. We would have to assume she did, and here we introduce still more doubt.

 

[Stephani]

OK what is RDI ?

I think it means Ramsey Did It (meaning one of the Ramseys), is that right or is it linked directly with Patsy? The other is IDI (I think), Intruder Did It...I could be way off, but after reading thread after thread that is what I have come up with!

 

[BBB167893]

Smit's depo is posted on webbsleuths.So is CW's.I didn't wanna say anything because someone might delete them before I manage to copy them.But what the heck

http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID79&mm=2&archive=

Thanks.

Listen, I was just going over Beckner's depo. It took a while, but it was worth it. And I did not see anything even close to him claiming that the experts said she didn't write it. In fact, the only thing I saw was when Wood said pretty much what I said: that there were, and I quote, "varying opinions" on Patsy.

I knew my memory wasn't slipping.

So, that leaves ST and Smit.

I won't say either man is lying. I won't do that. I think their knowledge is limited. Smit, for example, didn't even know that the accent "egou" appears in the ransom note. But on to business. In his depo he says that HE does not believe that she wrote it and that he's relying on experts to reach that conclusion. The problem is, the quotes he provides are outdated preliminary reports that were done early in the case, which he took when he left, and those quotes support what I said: that the experts did not say that she didn't write it. He also says that he doesn't believe in handwriting.

So that's two for me. (Incidentally, I should thank you. Smit's depo is a veritable fountain of good material!)

In other words, I was right. I'm not a fool, madeleine. And I'm not a liar. You know that better than most.

You were talking about fibers placing the murder weapon in PR's hands.I thought you meant the fibers entwined in the garrote?

Right.

Doesn't this mean you implied that the garrote is the murder weapon?

Have I ever said it wasn't? Although "murder" weapon isn't quite it. I should say that it was the weapon that eventually killed her.

Even if she wrote the note and even if those are her fibers (even if those are her fibers ,their presence could have thousands of explanations) that doesn't mean she is the KILLER.Interesting,most RDI's agree with this.And the possibilities are many.She could have covered for the husband,one of the sons,the daughter,another relative,a friend,a lover,someone who was blackmailing them,someone who had threatened them,the list is LONG IMOHow you would vote guilty of MURDER BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt based on this is beyond my understanding.

All good points.

 

[BBB167893]

"we believe those are your fibers" could be said by anyone about any fibers. I, as a juror presented with this information, have doubts that the paint tote jacket fibers exist.

I see.

PR didn't provide any testimony that suggested she had the will, the means, the opportunity, or the motive to murder her daughter.

I didn't say she DID provide any testimony like that.

While you are expounding on the fantasy of PR's confession, of how PR majorly incriminated herself, I as a juror stand firm that the questioned testimony to investigators was and is irrelevant as to her guilt.

Her statement wasn't made to investigators, HOTYH. And it was made two full years after the question was asked. It's relevant, all right.

As a juror, I can plainly see that JBR's hair was glaringly omitted from this expert view. Further, I realize that JBR's head of hair would collect fibers. I also realize that her hair was in contact with the cord, the tape, and the paintbrush.

How was it omitted? We KNOW that her hair picked up fibers, because it picked up pieces from the Christmas garland. But there's no mention of anything else.

 

[Tadpole12]

That's funny, because that's the path Alex Hunter wanted to take: just forget the experts and show the jury the side-by-side comparison charts.

Hey SD.

That would have been visually quite dramatic.

 

[BBB167893]

Hey SD.

That would have been visually quite dramatic.

You bet your tailfin it would!

 

[DeeDee249]

I had to vote not guilty based on this evidence only because those fibers could have been on JB earlier in the night. Someone had to carry JB in from the car so fibers could have been transferred then. I do have a question though. Whats with the son and the 911 call? I don't remember any of that.

JB wasn't wearing the longjohns OR the tape and garrote when she was carried in from the car, and actually, according to her brother (who was there) she wasn't carried from the car. She walked in.

The 911 call has been discussed for years, as has the son's presence during it. Acandyrose has an archive on the case with tons of information.

 

[DeeDee249]

RDI argument is so weak there's nothing BUT doubt.

So IDI knows for SURE? Please- name names!

 

[DeeDee249]

The existence of the fiber in the paint tote is doubted because I can't tell if the investigators were simply claiming there was a fiber case already built, in order to induce a confession from PR.

I'm told that this type of interrogation is illegal by posters here, while I can clearly read that veteran FBI special agents simply 'discourage' it.

It is not illegal. ONLY during disclosure, which is after a suspect has been arrested/indicted is LE required to present ALL evidence against a suspect with absolute honesty.
It is fairly common for LE to tell a suspect they have certain evidence or that an accomplice has ratted on them, etc. They hope to get a confession or at least cooperation that way. Is it ethical? Maybe, maybe not. But it is not illegal at that stage of an investigation.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Even if she wrote the note and even if those are her fibers (even if those are her fibers ,their presence could have thousands of explanations) that doesn't mean she is the KILLER.Interesting,most RDI's agree with this.And the possibilities are many.She could have covered for the husband,one of the sons,the daughter,another relative,a friend,a lover,someone who was blackmailing them,someone who had threatened them,the list is LONG IMO

How you would vote guilty of MURDER BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt based on this is beyond my understanding.

I know you're asking yourself: How could anyone believe PR is guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' when the case is overflowing with doubt and uncertainty.

There is this time period between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Nobody knows what happened exactly during that time. There is no way to sequence the events or fill in the gaps with anything but assumption. That is why there is reasonable doubt.

We believe some things happened, though.

We believe PR ate pineapple. How did JBR eat pineapple? Was she fed or did she eat it herself? Did she eat it in the kitchen, bedroom, or basement? Did she do it willingly? We are very uncertain as to the circumstances for the pineapple.

We believe JBR was strangled while alive. Was she strangled manually or by garrote? Did the person handling the garrote not know JBR was alive? While applying the garrote, did they intend to kill JBR? Although there is not much doubt in my mind, RDI is able to present another viewpoint that cannot be disproven because of the general uncertainty. RDI casts uncertainty and doubt on the most obvious and fundamental aspect of the murder charge, the strangulation.

We know there was a 2nd ligature applied to the wrists. We notice it has three (3) loops and slipknots, and we believe it came from the same roll as the garrote ligature. What was its purpose? We are told by RDI it left no marks (source requested). Was JBR too numbed from stun gun, or too sleepy and it all happened too fast for her to resist with any force? Did she choose not to resist? How do we KNOW it was applied post-mortem?

My point is that the most basic things that happened aren't known with certainty. That means there is still a lot of doubt. According to the poll some voters believe there is no reasonable doubt. I'd like to know how is that? I mean, the case is literally overflowing with doubt and uncertainty.

Was there something I missed? Like maybe PR's DNA on the leggings and inside crotch area of JBR's underwear?

 

[DeeDee249]

Which is damned impressive considering this forum is about 80-20 RDI! It just means the rest of RDI haven't chimed in.

Right. I haven't because neither of the options fit, for me. I am not PDI exclusively, so being RDI, this poll is too limiting.
If there was a third option- say....Patsy KNOWS what happened to her daughter, but was not herself the killer. Then I'd possibly vote.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Since when do RDI's agree that the garrote is the murder weapon?

IMO garrote was staging