You, the jury

[BBB167893]

i agree, sd. That can be thought to mean that the only way to not have reasonable doubt is to see the crime being committed for yourself, as even eyewitness accounts (if there are any) can be deemed not reliable. If that were the case, only crimes that each and every member of each and every jury had actually seen for themselves would be deemed "beyond a reasonable doubt".
And in every jury there are different opinions about what reasonable doubt may mean to them as individual jurors.

exactly!

 

[madeleine]

Isn't that what I said? None of them would identify her as the writer with courtroom certainty

How do you want a prosecutor to charge them then?

 

[madeleine]

Well, I'm looking at the same photo you are, and it looks preety loose to me. I could get out of it.

I think you see what you WANNA see this time.

I doubt that. What reason would they have not to take the two photos one right after the other?

I could make a very long list.But lets start with INCOMPETENCE.

 

[madeleine]

exactly!

I am sure you know what it means but maybe it's worth repeating.


REASONABLE DOUBT

The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

 

[madeleine]

If you would be willing to send someone to prison for murder only based on experts for hire and 4 fibers then maybe you're not the right juror for a MURDER case.

 

[madeleine]

Like I said, Mama and Papa Super didn't raise any foolish children. They didn't raise any liars, either.

Neither did mine.And repeating this makes you sound pretty arrogant.I didn't call you a liar ,you are just twisting things sometimes so they fit your theory.

 

[BBB167893]

How do you want a prosecutor to charge them then?

How do you mean?

I think you see what you WANNA see this time.

That comment is beneath response.

I could make a very long list.But lets start with INCOMPETENCE.

But, madeleine, if what DD says is true, and those photos were taken at the autopsy, then what reason would anyone have to try to untie them?

 

[BBB167893]

I am sure you know what it means but maybe it's worth repeating.


REASONABLE DOUBT

The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

You're right, madeleine, I do know what it means. But that's my point. This isn't fifty years ago, where you stood a much better chance of getting an impartial jury. With all of our modern forms of communication, better access to education and a whole slew of other factors, people are much less circumspect in what they think they know. The law has to change with the times.

If you would be willing to send someone to prison for murder only based on experts for hire and 4 fibers then maybe you're not the right juror for a MURDER case.

You're right again; IF that were all I based it on, I probably am not the right juror for a murder case.

Neither did mine.

I didn't say they did.

And repeating this makes you sound pretty arrogant. I didn't call you a liar, you are just twisting things sometimes so they fit your theory.

You'd think I'd be used to this stuff by now.

 

[madeleine]

24 Wood: And without asking for names, there were

25 other individuals who were under suspicion whose

108


1 handwriting was analyzed that were not eliminated as

2 the author of the note; am I right?

3 Hunter: That's correct.

BUMP
So nobody wants to talk about these suspects?It's only important when it's about PR isn't it?

And I hate repeating myself BUT "she can't be ELIMINATED" is NOT the same with "she wrote it"

 

[DeeDee249]

BUMP
So nobody wants to talk about these suspects?It's only important when it's about PR isn't it?

And I hate repeating myself BUT "she can't be ELIMINATED" is NOT the same with "she wrote it"

To be fair, it's hard to talk about "these" suspects when we don't know who they are because LE won't name them. Some might be more plausible than others, but no other suspects can be considered (at least by me) unless I know who they are.
As for Patsy, well- of all the people tested, she is the only NAMED person that can't be eliminated. While it doesn't mean she wrote it, it means she could have. I feel the handwriting analysis is like the fiber analysis. You won't get an expert to say 100% -without-a-doubt link. So the RN has to be viewed the same way as the fiber analysis. The note is "consistent with" Patsy's handwriting and linguistics.

 

[madeleine]

To be fair, it's hard to talk about "these" suspects when we don't know who they are because LE won't name them. Some might be more plausible than others, but no other suspects can be considered (at least by me) unless I know who they are.

Ain't that convenient.And why am I not surprised LE won't name them?

As for Patsy, well- of all the people tested, she is the only NAMED person that can't be eliminated.

Yes ,by incompetent and biased detectives like ST.

While it doesn't mean she wrote it, it means she could have. I feel the handwriting analysis is like the fiber analysis. You won't get an expert to say 100% -without-a-doubt link.

This must be the reason why the BPD LOVES these kind of evidence.

So the RN has to be viewed the same way as the fiber analysis.

I disagree.Handwriting analysis is more an art,fiber analysis is pure science.

 

[madeleine]

It doesn't matter so much that we don't have the other suspects NAMES ,it matters that they EXIST.

 

[2goldfish]

please guys in the future if you're going to want to show autopsy pics of any kind PLEASE use tinyurl or something linking it elsewhere and not directly here cause some of us just cant handle looking at them, thank you!


I had no warning and I never wanted to see any of these, let alone her poor little hands, never mind who put her in that state!

 

[madeleine]

please guys in the future if you're going to want to show autopsy pics of any kind PLEASE use tinyurl or something linking it elsewhere and not directly here cause some of us just cant handle looking at them, thank you!


I had no warning and I never wanted to see any of these, let alone her poor little hands, never mind who put her in that state!

I apologize if I broke any rule by posting them without a warning but this is a crime forum,we discuss horrible things,not fairy-tales.I just thought it would be easier for those who are interested in what I was talking about.Quick access.

 

[BBB167893]

BUMP
So nobody wants to talk about these suspects?

If they're not named, what's to talk about?

It's only important when it's about PR isn't it?

Yes it is, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, I have my doubts about the other people not being eliminated. Alex Hunter mentions that he was aware of the reports from Rile and Cunningham, the two Ramsey-hired experts. Given what I can gather from other sources, they were the only ones who put the bead on other people. And the context of Hunter's answer suggests that's what he was going by. Madeleine, you said it yourself: you don't trust experts who are hired just to provide someone with a defense. I can't think of a better example.

Secondly, and even more importantly, even IF what Hunter says is true, she's still the only one who can be proven to have been there that night. If memory serves, she was also the only one whose left-handed samples bore any resemblance to the note writing.

And I hate repeating myself BUT "she can't be ELIMINATED" is NOT the same with "she wrote it"

True. But in court, the two are sometimes synonymous.

There was something else, too. I was reading PMPT last night and I came upon something interesting. Page 536, paperback version:

"Hofstrom may have been happy with Beckner, but the CBI wasn't pleased with how he was handling things. Chet Ubowski, the CBI's handwriting expert learned from Detective Trujillo that Beckner had requested - and the DA's office had authorized- another handwriting analysis of the ransom note. Hofstrom and the police had looked for an expert who would testify that Patsy had written the note. They turned to the U.S. Secret Service and got an opinion less conclusive than Ubowski's. The UPSHOT was that the CBI's CONCLUSIONS were now COMPROMISED. Under the process of discovery, the Ramseys would have the right to use the second analysis in the defense. The police had never bothered to ask Ubowski if he had put his entire analysis of the ransom note into his report and whether it was his final report. Either way, Ubowski was prepared to say, "Patsy wrote the note." The CBI saw this as one more example of the MISSED OPPORTUNITIES in the investigation."

The "UPSHOT?" How could that possibly be an UPSHOT? Is it just me, or is there something rotten about this? Like maybe the examiners were being pressured NOT to say flat-out that PR wrote the note? To me, it's worth discussing, either way.

 

[madeleine]

If they're not named, what's to talk about?

The fact that other suspects who can't be eliminated exist IS important,no?Or does it get important only if their named?Why,makes no sense.
This means PR isn't the only one in the bucket.

 

[BBB167893]

The fact that other suspects who can't be eliminated exist IS important,no?Or does it get it important only if their named?Why,makes no sense.

Okay, let's play it your way.

This means PR isn't the only one in the bucket.

Sure, if you remove all the context.

 

[madeleine]

Okay, let's play it your way.

Aww don't do that.
I don't need any favors.
Fine,I understand,the fact that there are other suspects who can't be eliminated is NOT important to you.I am not surprised,you already know who killed JB.Why are you here then,to fight with people like me who have no idea who it was but would like to find out?That's why I am here.

 

[madeleine]

Sure, if you remove all the context.

Funny.It's ME who doesn't see the big picture and takes things out of the context.

 

[BBB167893]

Aww don't do that.
I don't need any favors.

Who's doing any favors? If there is something to be found, we'd better find it now.

Fine,I understand,the fact that there are other suspects who can't be eliminated is NOT important to you. I am not surprised,you already know who killed JB.

Don't go putting words in my mouth! Do you really understand me? I don't think you do.

Why are you here then,to fight with people like me who have no idea who it was but would like to find out?

Why am I here? Because I still believe that victims like JonBenet deserve a voice. I'm not looking to fight anybody. But a lot of people want to fight me.

That's why I am here.

And for what it's worth, I think that's admirable.

Funny.It's ME who doesn't see the big picture and takes things out of the context.

Say what you mean, madeleine.