Pseudonym intruder

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Holdontoyourhat, Jun 20, 2009.

  1. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The conversation is on a mock trial of a pseudonym intruder. The purpose is to show there can be IDI scenarios equally compelling as RDI.

    Disclaimer: Forum rules say no real people names. Not responsible for anything. Any similarity to real people living or dead is a coincidence. Its all just opinion.

    Having said that...

    Who will defend the pseudonym intruder?

    Any volunteers for the judge pool?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Roy23

    Roy23 New Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I will help as judge.
     
  4. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That's one.
     
  5. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is it Judge Roy?
     
  6. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One is OK with me, because then it doesn't matter if they lean IDI or RDI as long as it isn't reflected. That according to another poster.
     
  7. Roy23

    Roy23 New Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, I meant juror.

    You know what though, I don't want to rain on your parade here. I have already said that if you don't match the DNA with your unknown intruder that you win a trial. I stand by that unless we say no DNA is found.

    So, because I like you, you need to blackball me.
     
  8. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thats OK. Juror. Right.

    Uh, maybe I need to be more specific.

    Its a mock trial of a pseudonym defendant in absentia. Since the defendant is not present, there will be no DNA samples for comparison, no asking questions of the defendant, no handwriting samples taken from the defendant. The defendant is not available for arrest, questioning, trial, or sentencing.

    That doesn't mean the crime scene DNA or handwriting is not admissible.

    Is this making any sense?
     
  9. Roy23

    Roy23 New Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Aghh, now I see.

    Yeah, i will help as juror. That is a tough case to make but I think I see what you are doing. Your are just trying to show that you can make a compelling case with some clown we don't even know from the evidence. :crazy:
     
  10. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think there only needs to be an odd number of jurors. Maybe we can do a mock grand jury.
     
  11. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I'd be satisfied with three.
     
  12. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    He's certainly welcome to try.

    But someone has to ask it: how could the DNA or handwriting be admissable if there's nobody to compare it with? Kind of gives me the upper hand, doesn't it?
     
  13. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It IS admissible, thats for sure. In fact, its one of the cornerstones. Whether or not it gives you the upper hand...
     
  14. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Perhaps I should rephrase: It may be admissable, but I'm at a loss as to how you could use it in an affirmative manner.
     
  15. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe while we're waiting for a couple more jurors, we can agree on what admissible is?

    Reliability: An item of evidence, whether it be a quote, expert opinion, document, or object is admissible as long as it has a source. Gentlemens agreement means if its brought up, we each can assume the other has a valid source.

    Relevance: I think we should simply introduce any new item along with the claim or argument it is intended to bolster.
     
  16. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Very well. I'll hang back for now.
     
  17. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another approach is a mock grand jury of three. I don't have to prove anything, just show probable cause against the pseudonym intruder.
     
  18. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm in.
    And I was just thinking about this.
    IF there would be a trial and IF a R would be charged based on what we've seen so far ,my vote as a juror would be not guilty.
    Same would be regarding the alledged intruder.


    I just hope that there is more in those files,doesn't matter if it points to IDI,RDI,whatever.If that DNA will ever match I personally would be relieved.I don't care if I am right or wrong in my theories.I just want this case solved.
     
  19. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That makes two jurors. Roy and madeleine.
     
  20. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    No objections.
     
  21. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Holding out for a fence-sitter doesn't seem possible. Would you like to, say, choose the third juror? Coin toss?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice