A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[Anti-K]

Is that not the whole point of the jury system?



But not necessarily improved.



I KNOW what we saw with Wong and Epstein, Anti-K. So do they.



Damn right!



Apparently they DO, whether you can see it or not. Just to use Wong as an example, several courts accepted her before the Carnes case, and several have since. It's only THIS one that seemed to have any problems. Wonder why that might be...



Oh, of that, I have no doubt. I just don't think it for reasons as ethical as you think.



Actually, to hear Wong tell it, Alex Hunter had final say on that. (Her exact description was of him as "gatekeeper.) And Epstein hadn't even completed his analysis until right around the time ML took office. I know he took his findings to both Hunter and Lacy, who wouldn't give him the time of day. He even offered to consult with Lou Smit, but apparently, Mr Openmindedness himself wasn't in the mood. I'll let everyone form their own opinions about that.

This is incidental to my point. I'm getting sidetracked.



Beyond what I said earlier, that's true.


Not officially, for reasons I provided.



To say nothing of a defense attorney with no decency. (One Hal Haddon LEAPS to mind.)



That's fair to say. I was just going by what he said. I didn't apply it generally, but you could.

For my money, there's too much reliance on "expert" testimony in courts these days. I'm sure there are statisticians out there who can prove beyond any doubt that Mitt Romney actually won the last election. There's an accountant out in Hollywood who can show you that Avatar LOST money.

No, I don’t think that the whole point of the jury system is to decide how credible any expert might be, and, no, I don’t think jurors should be expected to form their own opinion on matters where an expert opinion is called for.

Daubert is one way of ensuring that the experts presented to the Court/Jurors are actually experts. And, more, that they are experts in an accepted field. Daubert aids the Court and the Jurors in this way. Of course (as Wong demonstrates) Daubert has not always been applied and sometimes it has not been applied properly; but, it is a means of combatting all this expert vs expert nonsense that has plagued the Courts and legal system. It is a good thing.

Kane wrote to Wong and told her that, “the methodology which you have used in reaching your conclusion does not meet the standards employed by the vast majority of forensic examiners in this country.” Kane is harsh in his criticism. He tells her that “it is not clear that your analytic methods would pass the test for admissibility in the courts of Colorado.” He tells Wong that her attempts to insinuate herself into the damages her credibility and wrote, “it would be pointless to utilize the services of an expert who is vulnerable in this regard, given that there are hundreds of other qualified document examiners who are not tinted this way.”

Even Epstein argued against Wong.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

For the record Dave, I wasn't really referring to experts in my post, but to normal people like you or me. Look at the note, look at Patsy's samples and historical writings and look at the character comparisons. Then consider the obvious deceptive tactics Patsy used, and finally, consider the odds that a random intruder in that house would have handwriting so similar to Patsy's that not one expert could exclude her.

I am not talking about expert opinion Dave, I am talking about people with an ounce of common sense. I doubt that there isn't a person on this planet, with the exception of predisposed Ramsey lovers like AK, that I could not convince that Patsy wrote that note. It's not about experts, it's about using your eyes and your own common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do you think the opinion of an untrained and inexperienced layperson should be preferable to that of a trained and experienced professional?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Are you insinuating the killer wrote the note before he entered the house? Are you also insinuating that this was a botched kidnapping?

I find it interesting that the note was well planned and the killer brought rope and tape with him.....yet didn't make the garrote. Was it his intention to kill anyone in the first place? Or was he making a money grab in a ransom attempt.

No, I’m not insinuating that the killer wrote the note before he entered the house.

However, the note could have been written before he entered the house. Some IDI think he wrote the note in advance, brought it to the house and once in the house copied it to the notepad. Or, he removed the notepad at an earlier time, wrote the note in advance and returned the notepad on the night of the crime. I don’t have a position here, except that I think the note was written before the assault.

No, I’m not insinuating that this was a botched kidnapping. Although, it could have been. I just don’t think that it was. it could have been a kidnapping wherein the killer planned to hide the body in the house believing that it would not be found before he collected the ransom, but I don’t really believe that, either.

I don’t understand what you mean by, “the killer brought rope and tape with him.....yet didn't make the garrote.”
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The killer never brought anything, it was all in the house already. The note is a diversion tactic and nothing more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The cord, the tape and a brown, cotton object (possibly, gloves) have never been sourced to the house or to the Ramseys which implies that these were items brought into the home by the killer.
...

AK

 

[CorallaroC]

No, I don’t think that the whole point of the jury system is to decide how credible any expert might be, and, no, I don’t think jurors should be expected to form their own opinion on matters where an expert opinion is called for.

Daubert is one way of ensuring that the experts presented to the Court/Jurors are actually experts. And, more, that they are experts in an accepted field. Daubert aids the Court and the Jurors in this way. Of course (as Wong demonstrates) Daubert has not always been applied and sometimes it has not been applied properly; but, it is a means of combatting all this expert vs expert nonsense that has plagued the Courts and legal system. It is a good thing.

Kane wrote to Wong and told her that, “the methodology which you have used in reaching your conclusion does not meet the standards employed by the vast majority of forensic examiners in this country.” Kane is harsh in his criticism. He tells her that “it is not clear that your analytic methods would pass the test for admissibility in the courts of Colorado.” He tells Wong that her attempts to insinuate herself into the damages her credibility and wrote, “it would be pointless to utilize the services of an expert who is vulnerable in this regard, given that there are hundreds of other qualified document examiners who are not tinted this way.”

Even Epstein argued against Wong.
...

AK

AK hello,
There is much more to "DAUBERT" than (yes THAN) you are posting about here. More recent decisions, more up-to-date than twenty years ago, OK? Go study Law and come back later with such opinions ok? Im sorry to sound harsh to you, but these back and forth discussions get on my nerves. Posters wanting everyone to do the proverbial "throw the baby out with the bathwater" type of thing. Or the exact opposite.

Frustrating to me, JMO

 

[BOESP]

The cord, the tape and a brown, cotton object (possibly, gloves) have never been sourced to the house or to the Ramseys which implies that these were items brought into the home by the killer.
...

AK

It's just as possible that the items were taken out of the home by the killer.

 

[Anti-K]

AK hello,
There is much more to "DAUBERT" than (yes THAN) you are posting about here. More recent decisions, more up-to-date than twenty years ago, OK? Go study Law and come back later with such opinions ok? Im sorry to sound harsh to you, but these back and forth discussions get on my nerves. Posters wanting everyone to do the proverbial "throw the baby out with the bathwater" type of thing. Or the exact opposite.

Frustrating to me, JMO

I’m sorry, but I don’t really understand your objection.

But, if you don’t like my posts, maybe you can just stop reading them? Also, I think there is an Ignore feature.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

It's just as possible that the items were taken out of the home by the killer.

Of course.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

The cord, the tape and a brown, cotton object (possibly, gloves) have never been sourced to the house or to the Ramseys which implies that these were items brought into the home by the killer.
...

AK

Doesn't imply anything of the sort. All it implies is that those items were removed by the killer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OliviaG1996]

I have a question some here may know the answer to: Was duct tape or cord of any kind found inside the Ramsey home?

 

[Anti-K]

Doesn't imply anything of the sort. All it implies is that those items were removed by the killer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Items, or at least a single item (tip of paint brush) was removed from the house, presumably by the killer.
Since we know that this item originated in the house, we know it must have been removed from the house because it was never found, despite effort.

But, we don’t know that the tape and the cord, or the gloves (if gloves they were) originated in the house because attempts to trace them to the house failed. That means something. If these items didn’t originate in the house then we can say that they were probably brought into the house.

The cord, the tape – the killer, if IDI, may have used the entirety of what he brought with him. In this case, there would be nothing to remove. If we’re talking about gloves, then they would have been removed from the house in the same sense that his shoes, his coat, his shirt, socks, pants, his underwear, himself, was removed from the house.

The paintbrush was used for the garrote and a piece of it left in the paint tote thus creating a connection between murder weapon and home, and since the so-called practice note was left in the notepad thus creating a connection between the ransom note and the home. So, if the killer removed items from the home it must have been for some reason other than trying to hide the connection between the home and those items removed.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I have a question some here may know the answer to: Was duct tape or cord of any kind found inside the Ramsey home?

Yes, there was tape found on the back of picture frames. IIRC, there was a tape drawer, or a drawer where tape was typically kept. There was the bag of rope under the bed. LHP, iirc, said that she saw that type of cord tied around a package (or, something. I forget. &#61516.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Items, or at least a single item (tip of paint brush) was removed from the house, presumably by the killer.
Since we know that this item originated in the house, we know it must have been removed from the house because it was never found, despite effort.

But, we don’t know that the tape and the cord, or the gloves (if gloves they were) originated in the house because attempts to trace them to the house failed. That means something. If these items didn’t originate in the house then we can say that they were probably brought into the house.

The cord, the tape – the killer, if IDI, may have used the entirety of what he brought with him. In this case, there would be nothing to remove. If we’re talking about gloves, then they would have been removed from the house in the same sense that his shoes, his coat, his shirt, socks, pants, his underwear, himself, was removed from the house.

The paintbrush was used for the garrote and a piece of it left in the paint tote thus creating a connection between murder weapon and home, and since the so-called practice note was left in the notepad thus creating a connection between the ransom note and the home. So, if the killer removed items from the home it must have been for some reason other than trying to hide the connection between the home and those items removed.
...

AK

Flawed logic. Just because they didn't find any trace of the tape or cord in the house, it doesn't mean it was never there. They didn't find the HiTeks there either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Flawed logic. Just because they didn't find any trace of the tape or cord in the house, it doesn't mean it was never there. They didn't find the HiTeks there rather.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
Nor the size-12's, but they popped up conveniently, allegedly in a packing crate, in another state!

What about the size-6 underwear JonBenet was wearing to the White's, where did that go?

The missing piece of the paintbrush might have been deliberately left inside JonBenet, and for forensic reasons this has not been publicly disclosed?

What was used to wipe down JonBenet that would be bloodstained, alike her pink barbie nightgown?

.

 

[Anti-K]

Flawed logic. Just because they didn't find any trace of the tape or cord in the house, it doesn't mean it was never there. They didn't find the HiTeks there either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, but Andreww, I never said that since they didn’t “find any trace of the tape or cord in the house” then these items were “never there.”

I said (quote, emphasis added) “IF [if, if, if...] these items didn’t originate in the house then we can say that they were PROBABLY brought into the house.” NOTE the use of “IF” and “PROBABLY.”

There’s nothing wrong with that logic.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Ah, but Andreww, I never said that since they didn’t “find any trace of the tape or cord in the house” then these items were “never there.”

I said (quote, emphasis added) “IF [if, if, if...] these items didn’t originate in the house then we can say that they were PROBABLY brought into the house.” NOTE the use of “IF” and “PROBABLY.”

There’s nothing wrong with that logic.
...

AK

Now you are just playing with words. And if that is what you actually meant, thanks for pointing out the obvious.

IF IF IF the Rs never brought those items into their home, that PROBABLY means someone else did.

Can you explain how you arrived at that earth shattering conclusion Captain Obvious?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

andreww,
Nor the size-12's, but they popped up conveniently, allegedly in a packing crate, in another state!

What about the size-6 underwear JonBenet was wearing to the White's, where did that go?

The missing piece of the paintbrush might have been deliberately left inside JonBenet, and for forensic reasons this has not been publicly disclosed?

What was used to wipe down JonBenet that would be bloodstained, alike her pink barbie nightgown?

.

Investigators probably missed the panties, or saw them but didn’t bother to collect them because they were new (and packaged?), or didn’t specifically look for them, etc.

It is not a fact that jbr wore size 6 toe the White’s and I am not aware of any evidence that she was wearing anything other than the panties that she was found dead in. As far as I can recall (I’ve looked), only certain RDI posters believe that the killer (or an accomplice, etc) changed jbr’s panties. This is simply not factual and I don’t remember anyone associated with the investigation making such a claim. It is merely forum speculation.

By all accounts the missing tip is missing.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Now you are just playing with words. And if that is what you actually meant, thanks for pointing out the obvious.

IF IF IF the Rs never brought those items into their home, that PROBABLY means someone else did.

Can you explain how you arrived at that earth shattering conclusion Captain Obvious?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not playing with words, now. As a matter of fact I used the same words as before, I copied and pasted. Same words, same meaning. And, yes, what I’m saying is obvious. I’m glad that you agree. “IF [if, if, if...] these items didn’t originate in the house then we can say that they were PROBABLY brought into the house.”

So, did these items come from the house? Investigators tried to trace them to the house, but they failed. So, maybe they didn’t come from the house. They might have, but there is no evidence to show that they did and anyone who wishes to claim that they did makes this claim without evidence. Which brings us back to the obvious: IF [if, if, if...] these items didn’t originate in the house then we can say that they were PROBABLY brought into the house.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

I’m not playing with words, now. As a matter of fact I used the same words as before, I copied and pasted. Same words, same meaning. And, yes, what I’m saying is obvious. I’m glad that you agree. “IF [if, if, if...] these items didn’t originate in the house then we can say that they were PROBABLY brought into the house.”

So, did these items come from the house? Investigators tried to trace them to the house, but they failed. So, maybe they didn’t come from the house. They might have, but there is no evidence to show that they did and anyone who wishes to claim that they did makes this claim without evidence. Which brings us back to the obvious: IF [if, if, if...] these items didn’t originate in the house then we can say that they were PROBABLY brought into the house.
...

AK

As I recall there was an un-itemized credit card purchase in the exact amount as the tape from a hardware store that was one of the few places in the area that sold it. Then there was the odd call from John to that very store seeking information about that very purchase.

So there is evidence that it might have been there. If they had not yet used that tape, what other evidence would there be?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

As I recall there was an un-itemized credit card purchase in the exact amount as the tape from a hardware store that was one of the few places in the area that sold it. Then there was the odd call from John to that very store seeking information about that very purchase.

So there is evidence that it might have been there. If they had not yet used that tape, what other evidence would there be?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andreww, the call to McGuckins by John, was not made by Mr Ramsey. It was made by someone pretending to be Mr Ramsey. IIRC, the call was made by James Rapp, a private investigator who was later charged and sentenced for illegally gathering private information on the Ramseys.

So, throw that one out.

Here’s what Thomas had to say about the receipts (EMPHASIS added):

“Among the items on Patsy’s December 9 receipt was an item from the builder’s hardware department. The price was $1.99. On the December 2 slip, there was an item from the garden department. It was $1.99. Duct tape also sold for $1.99. WE HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT SHE HAD BOUGHT.” ~ Thomas; p. 120

I’ll repeat that: WE HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT SHE HAD BOUGHT.

We don’t even know which department the tape was sold in. Nor, how many other items were sold at that price (a busload, I bet).

So, throw that one out, too.

What other evidence might there be? Well, the roll of tape. Obviously. Or, a piece of that tape used on something. Same with the cord. No evidence that it came from the house. Same as the object that transferred fibers to the genital area, to the tape, to the ligatures....

No evidence that these items came from the house means exactly that: there is no evidence that these items came from the house. This means, yes, obviously, that they may not have come from the house which, further, obviously, means that the killer may have brought them with him.
...

AK