DA's objectivity

[Tadpole12]

I want to let you know how much I appreciate your posts. The IDIs --two in particular, we all know who I mean--seem to want to deflect the arguments away from the evidence and out into the stratosphere where they feel safer, apparently. And I want to tell everyone who posts on this thread that one of the moderators recently gave me a "time out" for simply being sarcastic toward a high strung (female) poster who ran crying that I was being "rude." Let me give you all a hint: I ain't Miss Marple and this ain't a tea party. If you get hit on the chin, take it like an adult. We don't need "time outs" from big brother, we need to accapt the fact that conflict can be healthy. (That's what a difference of opinion is, in case any mods out there happened to misplace their dictionaries while scrutinizing each and every word in each and every post.) Now wtach me get banned forever.:behindbar

Hi mysterymax.

Yes your posting style is rude and abrasive and inconsiderate.
Something I consider when reading your posts.

But why finger point?
Why bother to make someone feel uncomfortable. Why the need?

"And I want to tell everyone who posts on this thread that one of the moderators recently gave me a "time out" for simply being sarcastic toward a high strung (female) poster who ran crying that I was being "rude." - M

 

[Tadpole12]

Dave,

I would like to see your major points in this investigation that I would have to decide as judge to take this to trial. And I would even limit my knowlege to pre 2006 before the touch DNA on the leggings. Anything having to do with the Ramsey's lawyering up, I would not base my decision on either. I would also have to minimize handwriting analysis experts to AN EXTENT.

Are you game? :crazy:

Hi Roy 23.

"And I would even limit my knowlege to pre 2006 before the touch DNA on the leggings." - Roy23

Why would you apply this restriction to the dna evidence? For what purpose?

 

[DeeDee249]

I want to let you know how much I appreciate your posts. The IDIs --two in particular, we all know who I mean--seem to want to deflect the arguments away from the evidence and out into the stratosphere where they feel safer, apparently. And I want to tell everyone who posts on this thread that one of the moderators recently gave me a "time out" for simply being sarcastic toward a high strung (female) poster who ran crying that I was being "rude." Let me give you all a hint: I ain't Miss Marple and this ain't a tea party. If you get hit on the chin, take it like an adult. We don't need "time outs" from big brother, we need to accapt the fact that conflict can be healthy. (That's what a difference of opinion is, in case any mods out there happened to misplace their dictionaries while scrutinizing each and every word in each and every post.) Now wtach me get banned forever.:behindbar

Don't feel bad. I got suspended from an eBay DOLL discussion board for telling someone that I thought their head would look good on a stick.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Dave,

I would like to see your major points in this investigation that I would have to decide as judge to take this to trial. And I would even limit my knowlege to pre 2006 before the touch DNA on the leggings. Anything having to do with the Ramsey's lawyering up, I would not base my decision on either. I would also have to minimize handwriting analysis experts to AN EXTENT.

Are you game? :crazy:

Whaddaya say, SD, does Roy want to be a judge? This is the preliminary hearing I was talking about.

R's lawyering up is irrelevant to this case. Handwriting analysis in the form of comparison isn't being done because the pseudonym intruder's handwriting is not available.

There's no reason why it can't be pre-2006. I wasn't going to use anything later than that anyway.

 

[Roy23]

Hi Roy 23.

"And I would even limit my knowlege to pre 2006 before the touch DNA on the leggings." - Roy23

Why would you apply this restriction to the dna evidence? For what purpose?

I really don't want to Tadpole but it wouldn't be fair otherwise. Dave has studied this case a lot. Most of his information comes from sources before this information was discovered. So technically, some of Dave's sources may actually take a different stance now. Dave, of course, still believes it is only one part of this case and he also stands by his theory. He knows though until the DNA can be explained that he could never get a conviction.

This is just an exercise. Many people believe that LE had evidence to take this thing to trial and many do not. I think it was a close call but they were going to lose. I am IDI but if Dave is right I still believe that someone in the family was in collusion with another killer.

 

[Roy23]

Whaddaya say, SD, does Roy want to be a judge? This is the preliminary hearing I was talking about.

R's lawyering up is irrelevant to this case. Handwriting analysis in the form of comparison isn't being done because the pseudonym intruder's handwriting is not available.

There's no reason why it can't be pre-2006. I wasn't going to use anything later than that anyway.

I am not sure that I am actually qualified to be judge. And whatever I decided may not be based on the law. But I hope that maybe those that post and read these threads may get a better understanding of what all the parties faced in the aftermath of the crime. I would encourage everybody to try and hold back your personal feelings and act as if a juror or judge would. We all want justice but we don't want to burn a family at the stake if they are innocent. Losing a child is the worst thing that can happen to a family if they are, in fact, innocent.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I am not sure that I am actually qualified to be judge. And whatever I decided may not be based on the law. But I hope that maybe those that post and read these threads may get a better understanding of what all the parties faced in the aftermath of the crime. I would encourage everybody to try and hold back your personal feelings and act as if a juror or judge would. We all want justice but we don't want to burn a family at the stake if they are innocent. Losing a child is the worst thing that can happen to a family if they are, in fact, innocent.

What SD and I have been going over is a mock trial in absentia. Instead of the R's a defendants and SD as prosecutor, its a pseudonym intruder as defendant (who isn't there) and SD as a defender. Prosecuting the R's is equivalent to defending an intruder, except we don't refer to people by real names, as per forum rules.

The purpose is to show how the R's house is not a closed system, having windows and doors. Also to show how there are other people in the world that could fit the profile, be more motivated, and have a greater capability to do this.

Witness testimony is in the form of any dated quote, as long as its relevant. Witness testimony can be brought in anytime.

Exhibits are in the form of items referenced that are known to exist and are relevant. Exhibits are agreed beforehand. Although crime scene DNA and handwriting are there, we'll have no comparison samples from the defendant. Its as though the defendant jumped into the ocean.

 

[Roy23]

What SD and I have been going over is a mock trial in absentia. Instead of the R's a defendants and SD as prosecutor, its a pseudonym intruder as defendant (who isn't there) and SD as a defender. Prosecuting the R's is equivalent to defending an intruder, except we don't refer to people by real names, as per forum rules.

The purpose is to show how the R's house is not a closed system, having windows and doors. Also to show how there are other people in the world that could fit the profile, be more motivated, and have a greater capability to do this.

Witness testimony is in the form of any dated quote, as long as its relevant. Witness testimony can be brought in anytime.

Exhibits are in the form of items referenced that are known to exist and are relevant. Exhibits are agreed beforehand. Although crime scene DNA and handwriting are there, we'll have no comparison samples from the defendant. Its as though the defendant jumped into the ocean.

I kind of understand and think it would be interesting. As long as you know that you could not win either with a jury or judge. Don't feel bad though because no prosecutor could. Just like the thread that you started a few weeks ago stated, "this is now a DNA case". Any judge or jury would need an answer on that if they did their job. My .02.

 

[Tadpole12]

I really don't want to Tadpole but it wouldn't be fair otherwise. Dave has studied this case a lot. Most of his information comes from sources before this information was discovered. So technically, some of Dave's sources may actually take a different stance now. Dave, of course, still believes it is only one part of this case and he also stands by his theory. He knows though until the DNA can be explained that he could never get a conviction.

This is just an exercise. Many people believe that LE had evidence to take this thing to trial and many do not. I think it was a close call but they were going to lose. I am IDI but if Dave is right I still believe that someone in the family was in collusion with another killer.

Hi Roy23.
Ty for the explanation.

OK. cool.
I had thought that the limition allows for the possibility of contamination to be reconsidered. As you mention, SD's 'perspective' is representative of pre 2006 info and ya, the 'sources' may now have a different stance.

 

[Roy23]

Hi Roy23.
Ty for the explanation.

OK. cool.
I had thought that the limition allows for the possibility of contamination to be reconsidered. As you mention, SD's 'perspective' is representative of pre 2006 info and ya, the 'sources' may now have a different stance.

Wouldn't that be interesting if the DNA was contaminated or was someone working on the case? I would like to think that they would have figured that out. And I could guarantee that would be icing on the cake for this murder to never to be solved.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

I would like to see your major points in this investigation that I would have to decide as judge to take this to trial. And I would even limit my knowlege to pre 2006 before the touch DNA on the leggings. Anything having to do with the Ramsey's lawyering up, I would not base my decision on either. I would also have to minimize handwriting analysis experts to AN EXTENT.

Are you game? :crazy:

Pilgrim, I was born game and I intend to die that way.

Whaddaya say, SD, does Roy want to be a judge? This is the preliminary hearing I was talking about.

I see. I'm not quite sold on the idea of him being a judge though. Not yet.

R's lawyering up is irrelevant to this case.

I suppose that means I can't use it in my closing. Very well. It wasn't central to my presentation anyway.

Handwriting analysis in the form of comparison isn't being done because the pseudonym intruder's handwriting is not available.

I understand that. Doesn't mean I can't use it in a more limited capacity, though. Which brings me to my next question: I want to know what this "extent" is Roy was talking about.

There's no reason why it can't be pre-2006. I wasn't going to use anything later than that anyway.

You and Roy are being awfully accomodating to me. That makes my antenna start to crackle.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave has studied this case a lot.

Damn right.

Most of his information comes from sources before this information was discovered. So technically, some of Dave's sources may actually take a different stance now.

It would be news to me.

Dave, of course, still believes it is only one part of this case

Quite so.

and he also stands by his theory.

You'd better believe I do, pilgrim.

He knows though until the DNA can be explained that he could never get a conviction.

That was probably (MY OPINION) the DA's intent.

Many people believe that LE had evidence to take this thing to trial and many do not.

You can put me in the "DO" column.

I think it was a close call but they were going to lose. I am IDI but if Dave is right I still believe that someone in the family was in collusion with another killer.

You and my brother would get along superbly, Roy. That's what he believes.

 

[BBB167893]

OK. cool.
I had thought that the limition allows for the possibility of contamination to be reconsidered.

If you ask me, that possibility is still a real one.

As you mention, SD's 'perspective' is representative of pre 2006 info and ya, the 'sources' may now have a different stance.

No need for quotation marks.

 

[BBB167893]

Wouldn't that be interesting if the DNA was contaminated or was someone working on the case? I would like to think that they would have figured that out.

So would I. But given everything else in this case, I find it unlikely that they would have. Indeed, I think it's a strong possibility.

And I could guarantee that would be icing on the cake for this murder to never to be solved.

I'm not so sure about that, Roy. If you ask me, one of the big problems in this case is an overreliance on technology at the expense of other tried-and-true investigative techniques. Even if you don't believe that the DA has basically used DNA as an excuse to bury most of the other evidence, I think you'd still have to agree that it's not necessarily a good idea to limit yourself to one single avenue. To use a rather crude analogy, that's like looking for one tree in a whole forest.

Which brings me to the part about why I'm not so sure: if the investigators (and I use the term loosely) would open themselves up to other avenues of investigation, their chances of finding an intruder just might increase.

That's my feeling, for what it's worth.

 

[BBB167893]

Okay, folks, no more stalling. I said I was game, and I am. Roy, HOTYH, you wanted a list of points that I'm planning to use. Well, you're in luck. When I was compiling them for the book, I wrote them down in a list fashion just so people could read them in the fashion you suggest.

I think you guys should keep in mind that as a defense atty., I'm not limited by the rule that says you have to decide who did what like the prosecutor is. I can point to the Rs in the collective sense. All I need is reasonable doubt. HOTYH has to pin specific crimes on specific people. But, I think he knows that, and that's why he decided to go with conspiracy charges.

Right-o. Without further ado, here you are:

1) Fibers from the clothing the Rs were known to have worn that night were found on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth, tied into the knots of the neck ligature, inside the blanket used to wrap her body, inside the little box PR kept her art supplies in, and inside her underwear.

2) Receipts from the hardware store.

3) Inconsistent statements and dirty tricks by private investigators.

4) Burke's Swiss Army knife.

5) Witness statements from CASKU agents, BPD officials, forensic experts, etc.

6) Autopsy findings, including witness statements about prior abuse.

7) Obviously, I can't use any expert testimony on handwriting until I find out what it permissable. But I do plan to use some direct visual comparisons (which is how this whole deal got started, lest we forget) and patterns.

I think that will do nicely.

 

[Roy23]

Pilgrim, I was born game and I intend to die that way.



I see. I'm not quite sold on the idea of him being a judge though. Not yet.



I suppose that means I can't use it in my closing. Very well. It wasn't central to my presentation anyway.



I understand that. Doesn't mean I can't use it in a more limited capacity, though. Which brings me to my next question: I want to know what this "extent" is Roy was talking about.



You and Roy are being awfully accomodating to me. That makes my antenna start to crackle.

OK! If I am picked to be the judge, I have some demands. So maybe this will help in your decision whether to choose me or not. I am the authority figure so both of you will have to respect that. On some issues both of you will be so far apart but I will expect you to try and work together and give me the most accurate picture of the facts. That may mean having to give in some. For example, the RN. Both of you can find experts that can include and exclude Patsy as the writer. This isn't just about trying to pull the wool over my eyes to win. It is about educating me with facts. And if I think you are trying to do that, I will be more receptive to your other points.

I also want two more people that I confer with. I want it to be posters here and you each pick one person. I want it to be someone that you think can be logical and unbiased.

Holdon is talking about doing an pseudo intruder case. I need more guidelines on how to do that. Now, if we are going to do a case where I decide if the Ramsey's go to trial with Dave as the DA and Holdon representing the R's, I am game.

Before you decide, I am IDI. I am aware of some evidence and multiple theories but certainly not all of it. For me, the DNA is the trump card. That means post 2006, Dave could not win this with me as judge unless he could prove the DNA is meaningless or had a smoking gun. So in this case, we have DNA but it is minute, foreign, and degraded. You guys decide.

 

[Roy23]

So would I. But given everything else in this case, I find it unlikely that they would have. Indeed, I think it's a strong possibility.



I'm not so sure about that, Roy. If you ask me, one of the big problems in this case is an overreliance on technology at the expense of other tried-and-true investigative techniques. Even if you don't believe that the DA has basically used DNA as an excuse to bury most of the other evidence, I think you'd still have to agree that it's not necessarily a good idea to limit yourself to one single avenue. To use a rather crude analogy, that's like looking for one tree in a whole forest.

Which brings me to the part about why I'm not so sure: if the investigators (and I use the term loosely) would open themselves up to other avenues of investigation, their chances of finding an intruder just might increase.

That's my feeling, for what it's worth.

Dave,

My point is that if LE had even screwed that up too, a jury, judge, or anyone else for that matter would listen to any other evidence that they may have. Your dog could defend the defendant and win.

 

[Tadpole12]

If you ask me, that possibility is still a real one.

Sure it is .... and could be proven.

No need for quotation marks.

Why's that? That's how I write? if I'm not sure of a term or ? it's a habbit.

 

[Tadpole12]

Okay, folks, no more stalling. I said I was game, and I am. Roy, HOTYH, you wanted a list of points that I'm planning to use. Well, you're in luck. When I was compiling them for the book, I wrote them down in a list fashion just so people could read them in the fashion you suggest.

I think you guys should keep in mind that as a defense atty., I'm not limited by the rule that says you have to decide who did what like the prosecutor is. I can point to the Rs in the collective sense. All I need is reasonable doubt. HOTYH has to pin specific crimes on specific people. But, I think he knows that, and that's why he decided to go with conspiracy charges.

Right-o. Without further ado, here you are:

1) Fibers from the clothing the Rs were known to have worn that night were found on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth, tied into the knots of the neck ligature, inside the blanket used to wrap her body, inside the little box PR kept her art supplies in, and inside her underwear.

2) Receipts from the hardware store.

3) Inconsistent statements and dirty tricks by private investigators.

4) Burke's Swiss Army knife.

5) Witness statements from CASKU agents, BPD officials, forensic experts, etc.

6) Autopsy findings, including witness statements about prior abuse.

7) Obviously, I can't use any expert testimony on handwriting until I find out what it permissable. But I do plan to use some direct visual comparisons (which is how this whole deal got started, lest we forget) and patterns.

I think that will do nicely.

Hi SD.

7) Obviously, I can't use any expert testimony on handwriting until I find out what it permissable. But I do plan to use some direct visual comparisons (which is how this whole deal got started, lest we forget) and patterns. - SD

? can't all the observations made about PR's handwriting and her given ranking as can not be excluded, be interchanged with the observations to be made of hand writing of the mock trial IDI, as seen in the rn? Just wondering about that limitation as well, if there is no reference point to the IDI's sample exemplars ....

 

[BBB167893]

OK! If I am picked to be the judge, I have some demands. So maybe this will help in your decision whether to choose me or not. I am the authority figure so both of you will have to respect that. On some issues both of you will be so far apart but I will expect you to try and work together and give me the most accurate picture of the facts. That may mean having to give in some. For example, the RN. Both of you can find experts that can include and exclude Patsy as the writer. This isn't just about trying to pull the wool over my eyes to win. It is about educating me with facts. And if I think you are trying to do that, I will be more receptive to your other points.

I would expect those demands from anybody.

I also want two more people that I confer with. I want it to be posters here and you each pick one person. I want it to be someone that you think can be logical and unbiased.

I'll see who I can find.

Holdon is talking about doing an pseudo intruder case. I need more guidelines on how to do that. Now, if we are going to do a case where I decide if the Ramsey's go to trial with Dave as the DA and Holdon representing the R's, I am game.

He'd have to explain that one.

For me, the DNA is the trump card. That means post 2006, Dave could not win this with me as judge unless he could prove the DNA is meaningless or had a smoking gun. So in this case, we have DNA but it is minute, foreign, and degraded. You guys decide.

I shall think about it.