Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Funny how the actual investigators don't agree, isn't it?

Funny how investigators get things wrong too. Do you know how many people have won their freedom after being exonerated with DNA? So many that there is an entire project that uses DNA to right the wrongs by investigators.
They are not infallible. These investigators are wrong. And eventually when they find the match to that DNA that will finally be the end of this case.

 

[BBB167893]

On prior abuse: sorry if you feel insulted, but none of what I stated originated with me; for example, the idea of corporal punishment comes from Steve Thomas. In fact, I don’t think that you will find any consensus on the issue of prior abuse amongst those associated with the investigation of this case, never mind amongst RDI posters!
.

You’ve raised far too many points for me to address at once, so I’m not going to try. However, I will take a moment to address the ransom note, absurdities and contradictions.

If the Ramseys (if RDI) had disposed of the body before recalling 911, than there would be some reason for the note’s existence, but they decided to keep the body (or, never even considered disposing of it). This presents no reason for them to even consider a fake kidnapping. Faking a kidnapping is the answer to a question that would not have been asked.

Within the context of what the Ramseys would have needed to do (explain dead body in house) the ransom note becomes an absurdity. It contradicts their intent (explain dead body in house).

The note itself presents another absurdity and contradiction of intent (if RDI).

The note is on paper easily traced to the house and to an individual. It’s Christmas with all manner of not-so-easily-traceable wrapping paper, envelopes, cards, cardboard, and scraps everywhere and only a scrap of something was needed.

In addition to the absurdity of using their own identifiable notepad we have the unnecessary length of the note with (supposed) “inside information” unnecessarily created almost as if they intentionally wanted to provide investigators with self-incriminating evidence.

Now, let’s say that the Ramseys disposed of certain items (as, if RDI, they must have). The intent would have been to prevent investigators discovery of incriminating evidence. Creating THIS ransom note contradicts that intent. Retaining the pen and the notepad (and, handing it to the police!) contradicts that intent. Unnecessarily incorporating the paint brush into the garrote, breaking it and putting the broken end in the paint tote contradicts that intent. Wiping (if wiped) the flashlight, but leaving it on the counter contradicts that intent.

But, the biggest contradiction and absurdity of all (if RDI) is the ransom note.

I don’t mean to ignore any of the other points you’ve raised. Feel free to ask me anything, if you want to. Just not so much at once, please.
...

AK

Frankly, Anti-K, the idea that the ransom note contradicted their intent is ludicrous. I've said it a million times: without the ransom note, there's no explanation for WHY JB was killed and WHO did it. Without it, all you have is a dead girl in her own house with sexual injuries. Ask Ron Walker sometime who LE would have looked at first. The RN gives the Rs any number of wildcard explanations AND the ability to claim victimhood. "Why are you cops bothering us. THIS person said they did it. Why aren't you looking for them?"

 

[BBB167893]

There is no way to know if she was conscious or not when she was duct taped.

Oh, yes, there is. No tongue marks, no marks of resistance of any kind, bloody mucous, etc. As Werner Spitz said, "after she was unconscious or dead."

DON'T use the term true sexual assault. This child was sexual assaulted and murdered.
You don't understand sexual assault and what it means to be sexually assaulted.

Damn right we'll say "true" sexual assault. Because this wasn't. Don't blame andreww for it.

 

[andreww]

That is not true. If the test provides the markers it shows who that is. The biggest challenge is finding the match. No matter what the DNA in this case matters. It would not matter if we had the arm of the killer and the R's still had all their limbs, People would still find a way to spin it back to RDI.

I get what you are saying, but I really think you are exaggerating a little. Nobody here has ever dismissed the DNA. We all acknowledge that it was there. But we have a case here that is fairly straight forward, and all the evidence, with the exception of the DNA, points in one direction. The question becomes, is the DNA compelling enough evidence to stop pursuing the direction that all the other evidence is pointing? I'll have to admit that when I first started rediscovering this case a few years back, it did occur to me that maybe the Ramseys were innocent based on the very press friendly version of the Cellmark results. I did not simply just ignore the DNA. I began reading about it. I learned a lot of things about it and how reliable or unreliable it could be. I've learned how easily it can transfer. I also quickly realize that nearly every expert will say the same thing, that DNA in itself doesn't prove anything. It helps tell a story. After gaining a little bit of an understanding of the subject I asked myself again, should I pursue a different avenue than what the evidence is telling me because of the DNA? At this point the answer is no, because apparently foreign DNA is a pretty common occurrence, especially with tDNA. There are many cases out there that prove that the foreign DNA can be worthless and people have been convicted despite its presence.

 

[BBB167893]

Anyway, citing expert opinions on the handwriting is never going to convince anyone of anything. People are convinced by other factors: the note was written in the house; the note was written with materials from the house; etc.

Quite so.

It is your opinion, and the opinion of most (all?) RDI that the Ramseys “lied like thieves.”

I won't speak for other people, but you can count me in that. (Personally, I don't think it's fair to the thieves.)

Many of these lies appear to be solely in the imaginings of the beholder, IMO

Only in your opinion, Anti-K. I wrote down a list.

As far as being “extremely uncooperative,” that is at best an exaggeration. It would be more accurate to say that they did not cooperate in the way that BPD, or the general public, wanted them to

.

What's the difference? Does the name Brenda Van Dam mean anything to you?

All your doing here, Andreww, is giving us reasons why the Ramseys should have been on the suspect list and why they should have been investigated. I’m in complete agreement; but these people were investigated to death and there aint nothing left. The end result is zero.

Um, given what happened to PR, could you use a different metaphor, please?

Anyway, I think that the key behind the failure to act as innocent persons is that no one thought of them as innocent persons. BPD didn’t want to talk to them to clear them; they wanted to talk to them to nail them. Not in the first few days, but very early on. And, particularly if you have money, that changes everything.

Well, JR CLAIMS that, certainly.

 

[BBB167893]

Well thats very simply put, but what exact advancements in science allowed them to turn 9+ markers in to 10? Do you actually know the method? Because either its there or it isn't. Seems to me Lin Wood was pretty pleased with himself that they'd worked many months to get this sample in to CODIS, but everyone was pretty vague on how they did it. Just like Mary Lacy was very vague about the match on the waistband. Exactly how many markers matched Mary? Oh right, she refused to answer questions about it after she inexplicably cleared the Ramseys.

Truth is that nobody has proved that there is anything more than touch DNA here. And yes, im speaking about the comingled sample as well. You seem like a bright person, so you are probably aware that touch DNA can be spread very easily, both with direct contact and secondary contact. You are also aware that JB was wiped down with something, as reported in the autopsy. So it is very conceivable that the DNA was transferred from whatever was used to wipe her. Touch DNA is not as reliable as DNA from blood or saliva. So as a DNA case this one is weak at best, although team Ramsey has done a good job of convincing some people otherwise.

To paraphrase Josef Goebbels, tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth. (That's NOT a comparison, BTW)

 

[BBB167893]

The Ramseys (if RDI) didn’t need to explain why the child didn’t wake up alive in her bed. They needed to explain the dead body in the house. The body in the house and the ransom note are contradictions. One doesn’t explain the other.

AHEM!

Creating THIS ransom note is to unnecessarily create self-incriminating evidence to be handed over to investigators. Persons concerned with forensic evidence don’t do such things.

Oh, they DON'T? Boy, I'm sure glad no one else got that memo! Criminals do self-defeating things all the time. We're not dealing with master criminals here.

To dispose of the cord, but to use the paintbrush handle is contradictory. To want investigators to believe that someone entered your home but then tell them that all the doors were locked is contradictory.

Um, actually, it isn't. I've covered this extensively as well.

 

[Anti-K]

These DNA tests are so sensitive that you really have to be careful in the weight that you put on them. As Chief Kolar said, you have to take the results in context with the other evidence. In this particular case, all the evidence points to it being an inside job, so most likely that DNA got their by some other method than direct contact. Given the sloppy police work from day one and the negligence of the coroner for not using sterile nail clippers, it is not hard for one to imagine exactly how that DNA got there. My guess is that the DNA likely came from a towel or piece of clothing from one of the many people that had recently done renovation work in the Ramsey home. it was used to wipe her down and the DNA transferred from her skin to he clothing. But who knows? Thats the problem with touch DNA, people have the perception that it is beyond reproach and that if it exists it must belong to the perp. While that may be true with things like blood or semen, touch DNA is a little more tricky to deal with. More of a tool for investigation than a definitive proof of guilt.

Too many errors in the quoted post to correct with any brevity so I’m just picking a couple:
It is simply untrue that “all the evidence points to it being an inside job.”

But, let’s pretend that it is true. An “inside job” doesn’t necessarily implicate the Ramseys. Do you think when Mr Ramsey said it looked like an inside job that he was referring to himself, or the Mrs, or the son? Of course not.
.

I’m not aware of anyone who thinks that tDNA is “beyond reproach.”

In this case, the tDNA is simply corroboration of the CODIS sample, and the likelihood that these samples were deposited by the perpetrator.
..

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You interest me, Anti-K. Go on.



YOU say.



I'm puzzled as to how you can say a court decided who was credible, since the case never went to trial. Maybe you haven't heard, but JURIES decide who is credible.



Those things are not evidence. Murder doesn't NEED to make sense. It doesn't NEED motive. And it doesn't NEED prior history. I don't know how many MORE examples we need to show that.



You just nailed it, Anti-K: without a confession, who can tell which one did what and to what length?

If there is any dissension the Courts decide on whether an expert witness is credible. This is what happened with Wolf v Ramsey.
.

Prior history of violence, behavioral history, family dynamics, etc; these are all EVIDENCE, and it is evidence that speaks in the Ramseys favor. You can argue that they could have committed this crime regardless of that evidence, but it is still favorable evidence; and, discounting it is not as easy as saying, oh, so-an-so did this and they didn’t have any prior history.

I am skeptical of the claim that persons commit crimes such as this without any sort of behavioral or prior history. This favorable evidence tends to vanish upon closer investigation. Regardless, even if we accept the premise we must acknowledge that such instances are rare, and that they don’t tell us anything about the Ramseys or what happened in this case. It is not evidence against them, it is evidence for them.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Frankly, Anti-K, the idea that the ransom note contradicted their intent is ludicrous. I've said it a million times: without the ransom note, there's no explanation for WHY JB was killed and WHO did it. Without it, all you have is a dead girl in her own house with sexual injuries. Ask Ron Walker sometime who LE would have looked at first. The RN gives the Rs any number of wildcard explanations AND the ability to claim victimhood. "Why are you cops bothering us. THIS person said they did it. Why aren't you looking for them?"

If the intent was to explain why their daughter was dead in the house, than, yes, the ransom note is a contradiction. The ransom note explains why the body is NOT in the house. It’s the very definition of the word.
.

I think that, as a Ramsey ruse, the ransom note lasted up until the time that the body was discovered, after which it turned into evidence that pointed inside the house and towards them. it is only by fluke that the ruse lasted the few hours that it did!

The Ramseys (if RDI) could have done anything that they wanted. They wouldn’t have to go for a murder, or any kind or assault, or even call the police over to the house. Fake an accident, call an ambulance and your lawyers or just the lawyers and drive the body to the hospital. And, in the bizarroland in which Kolar and his ilk think we must be living, wherein people fake kidnappings but don’t dispose of bodies, there is still no reasonable explanation for them to create the note in such a blatantly self-incriminating fashion!
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I get what you are saying, but I really think you are exaggerating a little. Nobody here has ever dismissed the DNA. We all acknowledge that it was there. But we have a case here that is fairly straight forward, and all the evidence, with the exception of the DNA, points in one direction. The question becomes, is the DNA compelling enough evidence to stop pursuing the direction that all the other evidence is pointing? I'll have to admit that when I first started rediscovering this case a few years back, it did occur to me that maybe the Ramseys were innocent based on the very press friendly version of the Cellmark results. I did not simply just ignore the DNA. I began reading about it. I learned a lot of things about it and how reliable or unreliable it could be. I've learned how easily it can transfer. I also quickly realize that nearly every expert will say the same thing, that DNA in itself doesn't prove anything. It helps tell a story. After gaining a little bit of an understanding of the subject I asked myself again, should I pursue a different avenue than what the evidence is telling me because of the DNA? At this point the answer is no, because apparently foreign DNA is a pretty common occurrence, especially with tDNA. There are many cases out there that prove that the foreign DNA can be worthless and people have been convicted despite its presence.

I’d like to see a believable explanation for the innocent transfer of this DNA that goes beyond “DNA is easily transferred.”
.

I also have done a fair amount of reading on the subject, including several scholarly and technical papers (mostly purchased because generally only abstracts are available online). And, yes, DNA transfers routinely and sometimes through intermediaries. But, this case presents concerns that do not lend themselves very well to innocent explanations.

Here are a few of the issues (there are too many to address without going into length; I’ll bring up others in future posts):
One sample is commingled in blood and is (probably) saliva. The other two samples are dry and (probably) skin cells. So, the panty DNA and the leggings DNA didn’t transfer one to the other or from the same source.

The commingled sample is on the inside crotch of the panties while the tDNA is on the outside hip area of the leggings. Compounding the problem is that the tDNA on the leggings is on both sides (transfer by two hands, not one).

The tDNA is not a mixed sample (usually person A transfer Person B + Persons A’s DNA.) The tDNA is not associated with anyone compared and if we were to see innocent transfer it would – should – be from one of those persons.

It takes some imagination (and, a very good one at that) to develop a believable theory of innocent transfer that allows for all these conditions (there are other!), but no imagination at all to come up with an intruder explanation. If this was the only evidence that existed there would be virtually no dissension on this point. Occam’s Razor slashes theories of innocent transfer to ribbons.
.

Foreign DNA may be “a pretty common occurrence,” but it’s always about the location found. Location, location, location...
...

AK

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Like every other IDI you overestimate the value of DNA. It may have been on her clothing prior to the murder, it could have been deposited after the murder, or it may have been transferred via whatever was used to wipe her down.

Yes it could have come from the murderer but that definitely isn't a fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So they just have enough random body fluid DNA around that belongs to no one in the Ramsey house to be able to find a puddle to wipe her down and get some on her?
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
Of course the murderer left the DNA.

And of course if that DNA pointed to a Ramsey it would be all about how obvious it is that it was left at that time of the murder. There is no case ever ever that I have ever seen where DNA is found in the underwear of the victim and people try so hard to act like it is not at all a part of this case.
IT is almost completely delusional.

 

[Anti-K]

AHEM!



Oh, they DON'T? Boy, I'm sure glad no one else got that memo! Criminals do self-defeating things all the time. We're not dealing with master criminals here.



Um, actually, it isn't. I've covered this extensively as well.

Yes, criminals do self-defeating things all the time. As a general statement, this is true. But, it isn’t a meaningful objection to the point I’ve raised.

If the argument is that the Ramseys removed certain items out of forensic concern (wiped batteries, etc), then the ransom note – THIS ransom note – contradicts that concern. Someone wise enough to wipe the genital area AND dispose of the material used for the wiping, dispose of cord and tape so they’re not traced back to the house (wipe batteries!) is the sort of person who is going to at least minimize their forensic footprint when creating the note.

Essentially, if we are to accept RDI, we must accept that the Ramseys disposed of potentially incriminating evidence while unnecessarily creating self-incriminating evidence. We’re not talking about accidental, oops, I didn’t meant to do that sort of things. We’re talking about intent, and, we’re talking about intent within a specific context.
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

Do we know absolutely it's bodily fluid DNA?

 

[Anti-K]

Do we know absolutely it's bodily fluid DNA?

According to BODE, the tDNA was PROBABLY skin cells. In scientific terms “probably” means “more likely than not.” according to various sources, the panty (CODIS) sample is probably skin cells (flashed blue). Once again, probably = more likely than not.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

If there is any dissension the Courts decide on whether an expert witness is credible. This is what happened with Wolf v Ramsey.

We've been over that.

Prior history of violence, behavioral history, family dynamics, etc; these are all EVIDENCE, and it is evidence that speaks in the Ramseys favor. You can argue that they could have committed this crime regardless of that evidence,

Damn skippy!

but it is still favorable evidence; and, discounting it is not as easy as saying, oh, so-an-so did this and they didn’t have any prior history.

I've found it to be just that easy. So did Marc Klaas.

I am skeptical of the claim that persons commit crimes such as this without any sort of behavioral or prior history. This favorable evidence tends to vanish upon closer investigation.

Whether you're skeptical about it or not doesn't affect me. I'm not sure it even applies in this case, but that's a whole other pot of coffee.

Regardless, even if we accept the premise we must acknowledge that such instances are rare, and that they don’t tell us anything about the Ramseys or what happened in this case. It is not evidence against them, it is evidence for them.

Even if I accept that it is rare (and not rare enough for my taste), there's nothing stopping this from being one of the rare ones.

 

[BBB167893]

If the intent was to explain why their daughter was dead in the house, than, yes, the ransom note is a contradiction. The ransom note explains why the body is NOT in the house. It’s the very definition of the word.

I get the feeling that either you didn't really read what I said, or if you did, you didn't get the idea I was trying to get across.

The Ramseys (if RDI) could have done anything that they wanted. They wouldn’t have to go for a murder, or any kind or assault, or even call the police over to the house. Fake an accident, call an ambulance and your lawyers or just the lawyers and drive the body to the hospital.

No good, for a couple of reasons.

And, in the bizarroland in which Kolar and his ilk think we must be living, wherein people fake kidnappings but don’t dispose of bodies, there is still no reasonable explanation for them to create the note in such a blatantly self-incriminating fashion!

One, I just gave you the reason. Now I KNOW you either didn't read it or didn't get it.

Two, I'll take that "Bizarroland" crack as a compliment. YOU say Bizarroland; I say facing the unpleasant fact that when people are backed into a corner, you don't know WHAT they'll do.

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, criminals do self-defeating things all the time. As a general statement, this is true. But, it isn’t a meaningful objection to the point I’ve raised.

Like hell, it isn't! I've been hearing that line for years, but I have YET to hear an intelligent argument for it. Specifically, just WHAT is it that makes the Ramseys so different from everyone else. Because I got news for ya: every murderer, every child molester, every rapist, has one big thing in common, both with each other and with the rest of us: they come from the human race. They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another dimension. They're our parents, siblings, children and friends. That's a hard lesson for a hard world. And I'm a hard man because of it.

If the argument is that the Ramseys removed certain items out of forensic concern (wiped batteries, etc), then the ransom note – THIS ransom note – contradicts that concern. Someone wise enough to wipe the genital area AND dispose of the material used for the wiping, dispose of cord and tape so they’re not traced back to the house (wipe batteries!) is the sort of person who is going to at least minimize their forensic footprint when creating the note.

Ah, but that's what I'm getting at: the note was not minimizing THEIR forensic footprint. It was maximizing the "BAD PERSON'S" presence.

Essentially, if we are to accept RDI, we must accept that the Ramseys disposed of potentially incriminating evidence while unnecessarily creating self-incriminating evidence.

NO! You've mischaracterized it. Allow me to correct the record:

Essentially, if we are to accept RDI, we must accept that the Ramseys disposed of potentially incriminating evidence while creating ultimately self-incriminating evidence in an attempt to point elsewhere.

We’re not talking about accidental, oops, I didn’t meant to do that sort of things. We’re talking about intent, and, we’re talking about intent within a specific context.

That's what I'm telling you.

Let me leave you with a few bits of wisdom as well.

One, the Ramseys didn't have to fool the cops. They didn't have to fool the DA or the experts or the forensic pathologists or the FBI. They don't have to fool SuperDave or Anti-K or Mama2JML. They have to fool one person out of twelve. THAT'S IT. And it's not that hard. 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 supposedly said, "there's a sucker born every minute." And I'm sorry to say that a lot of those suckers end up on juries!

Two, as shocking as this might come to some people, there was a time, and it wasn't even that long ago, when we didn't HAVE DNA testing or any of these other seemingly magical forensic techniques, and yet the police and prosecutors were STILL able to make arrests and win convictions, and there was NOT an epidemic of wrongly-imprisoned people.

 

[andreww]

I’d like to see a believable explanation for the innocent transfer of this DNA that goes beyond “DNA is easily transferred.”
.

I also have done a fair amount of reading on the subject, including several scholarly and technical papers (mostly purchased because generally only abstracts are available online). And, yes, DNA transfers routinely and sometimes through intermediaries. But, this case presents concerns that do not lend themselves very well to innocent explanations.

Here are a few of the issues (there are too many to address without going into length; I’ll bring up others in future posts):
One sample is commingled in blood and is (probably) saliva. The other two samples are dry and (probably) skin cells. So, the panty DNA and the leggings DNA didn’t transfer one to the other or from the same source.

The commingled sample is on the inside crotch of the panties while the tDNA is on the outside hip area of the leggings. Compounding the problem is that the tDNA on the leggings is on both sides (transfer by two hands, not one).

The tDNA is not a mixed sample (usually person A transfer Person B + Persons A’s DNA.) The tDNA is not associated with anyone compared and if we were to see innocent transfer it would – should – be from one of those persons.

It takes some imagination (and, a very good one at that) to develop a believable theory of innocent transfer that allows for all these conditions (there are other!), but no imagination at all to come up with an intruder explanation. If this was the only evidence that existed there would be virtually no dissension on this point. Occam’s Razor slashes theories of innocent transfer to ribbons.
.

Foreign DNA may be “a pretty common occurrence,” but it’s always about the location found. Location, location, location...
...

AK

The problem here is that you say the commingled DNA is saliva. I've seen reports that disagree with that, specifically because no saliva was indicated from the swabs of various areas on her body. So it is quite likely that all we have is touch DNA, and that could have easily been transferred from whatever was use to wipe her down.

The Team Ramsey plan was very clever. First the exaggerated the importance of the DNA, then they worked their asses off to get it in CODIS. By offering up sacrificial lambs like John Karr and others, knowing they would be cleared by DNA (actually by evidence, but that didn't suit their needs) they set a president. If you are going to eliminate suspects based on DNA, why not eliminate the Ramseys? Their ruse worked and Mary Lacy made it official.

You say LE failed to consider any other suspects than the Ramsey's. I say the DAs office failed to consider any other explanations for the presence of the DNA. They have ruined this case by buying in to the idea that the DNA must have come from the killer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

We've been over that.



Damn skippy!



I've found it to be just that easy. So did Marc Klaas.



Whether you're skeptical about it or not doesn't affect me. I'm not sure it even applies in this case, but that's a whole other pot of coffee.



Even if I accept that it is rare (and not rare enough for my taste), there's nothing stopping this from being one of the rare ones.

“We’ve been over that.” Is that your way of admitting that you’ve once again been proven wrong on a point (something that’s happened quite a bit lately!); because that’s what just happened. When expert witnesses are challenged, the Court decides on credibility (who the Court will hear, who the jurors will hear).

The fact that you, or others, find it easy to discount favorable evidence such as Behavioral History isn’t exactly favorable to your position!
To be skeptical of a claim is to be unpersuaded one way or the other. I am unconvinced. By either position. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong. Show me.

It is rare (if ever). And, yes, there are several things stopping this from being one of the rare ones: reality.

Regardless, just because you think something can happen, doesn’t mean that it did happen and it isn’t evidence that it did happen. If it is a common thing, then it becomes probable and the evidence required to establish it, or believe it may be small; however if it is something rare then it is something unlikely and it takes a greater amount of evidence (here, you have none) to establish it. It becomes, essentially, an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don’t really have a leg to stand on here.
...

AK