DA's objectivity

[BBB167893]

Well, its a mock trial of a pseudonym intruder. That is, the rules allow us to refer to the R's by name but not anyone else.

Sounds like you're already setting grounds for an appeal.

You've got my vote, I can't speak for SD.

It's just as well. Neither of you would like my vote.

Perhaps he can help in another way. Make a few invites, see what flops out. I've made some myself.

 

[BBB167893]

I am not sure that I understand what we are doing here. I am IDI and I have experience with DNA matters. I think either party would have a real hard time convicting anyone. Who is prosecuting? And whom?

So you think it would be a hung jury?

 

[BBB167893]

I see. In this scenario, do you have a DNA match? If not, I suggest you both take your ball and go home.

He admits he doesn't. But better you telling him than me.

 

[BBB167893]

The idea that a DNA is required to win is based on what?

Remember that at one time there was NO DNA analysis and cases were tried and won anyway.

Damn, HOTYH! I couldn't have said it better myself!

(Of course, somehow when I say it, it's all wrong!)

 

[Roy23]

So you think it would be a hung jury?

At minimum a hung jury. If you do your job as juror you will always have reasonable doubt until you have an identity of the foreign DNA. I say that only because THIS case needs it. There is too much circumstantial evidence that points both ways. Of course, it is my opinion that if LE did a half way decent job it would point intruder.

I don't care who prosecutes or who defends, nobody could get a conviction as this case stands.

 

[Roy23]

Damn, HOTYH! I couldn't have said it better myself!

(Of course, somehow when I say it, it's all wrong!)

He even started a thread telling us essentially that the case is a DNA case. I agreed with him then and still believe it. Maybe he has changed his mind.

 

[mysterymax]

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

 

[Roy23]

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

I have been banned for the same reason. I really don't feel sorry for you though if you don't think foreign DNA on a dead little girl is evidence.

 

[BBB167893]

At minimum a hung jury. If you do your job as juror you will always have reasonable doubt until you have an identity of the foreign DNA. I say that only because THIS case needs it.

On your side, certainly.

There is too much circumstantial evidence that points both ways.

It's not me you have to tell that to!

Of course, it is my opinion that if LE did a half way decent job it would point intruder.

If that isn't the perfect illustration of how far apart we are. I happen to think that considering the efforts ot Team R and the hamstringing by their own side, LE did a superb job.

Roy, I don't know what your politics are, and quite frankly it's not important, but there's an article from National Review I think you should read. It was written just a week before 9/11, and in that regard seems a bit precognizant of it. But its main thrust is the idea that a case like this was bound to happen because of the way the courts have screwed up the legal system. I'll find it for you, if I can.

I don't care who prosecutes or who defends, nobody could get a conviction as this case stands.

Just to get off subject briefly, I've often wondered what would have happened if the Rs had been taken to trial. To be perfectly honest, I believe that the trial would not have gone to a jury. Either PR would have died during the trial (and please, PLEASE do not take that the wrong way; it's not just me who thought that), or more likely there would have been a plea bargain. That was the DA's bailiwick. But whether the DA brought it or the Rs asked for one is, to me, irrelevant, since the result would be the same.

 

[BBB167893]

I want to let you know how much I appreciate your posts.

It's a pleasure.

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.

I've noticed.

 

[mysterymax]

I don't mind conflict; in fact I thrive on it. It wouldn't surprise me if every tom dick and harry in boulder had access to that kid and I have no doubt that the Ramsey's had a kink meter that was off the charts. Patsy was an exhibitionistic nut job (who of sound mind wants to dress like her six year old?) and you can take a peek at any of JBR's unfortunate photos to see just how far mama rose would push her "darling" into the spotlight--and beyond, judging from the events of Christmas night. "We don't own the bowl the pineapple was in." "She wore the turtleneck, I mean the white blouse, I mean the garrotte." The intruder flew soundlessly away, leaving no other dna in the house. Control, control, control. That poor little girl was beginning to think for herself (maybe even wanted a normal life) but nothing normal was possible in that insane asylum called the Ramsey home.

 

[Roy23]

On your side, certainly.



It's not me you have to tell that to!



If that isn't the perfect illustration of how far apart we are. I happen to think that considering the efforts ot Team R and the hamstringing by their own side, LE did a superb job.

Roy, I don't know what your politics are, and quite frankly it's not important, but there's an article from National Review I think you should read. It was written just a week before 9/11, and in that regard seems a bit precognizant of it. But its main thrust is the idea that a case like this was bound to happen because of the way the courts have screwed up the legal system. I'll find it for you, if I can.



Just to get off subject briefly, I've often wondered what would have happened if the Rs had been taken to trial. To be perfectly honest, I believe that the trial would not have gone to a jury. Either PR would have died during the trial (and please, PLEASE do not take that the wrong way; it's not just me who thought that), or more likely there would have been a plea bargain. That was the DA's bailiwick. But whether the DA brought it or the Rs asked for one is, to me, irrelevant, since the result would be the same.

I don't doubt for a second that the legal system is messed up. I see little girls and boys taken by SO's almost every week now. And don't get me wrong Dave, I would love to see all of the evidence in a unbiased setting. I just don't think we have that. At least not yet. I think my original point stands considering so many on the case were divided.

We will just have to disagree I guess. I harp on the DNA because I know that it must be explained before a conviction would ever be attainable. The Ramsey's may know more like you think they do, but I still stick with the science.

 

[Roy23]

I don't mind conflict; in fact I thrive on it. It wouldn't surprise me if every tom dick and harry in boulder had access to that kid and I have no doubt that the Ramsey's had a kink meter that was off the charts. Patsy was an exhibitionistic nut job (who of sound mind wants to dress like her six year old?) and you can take a peek at any of JBR's unfortunate photos to see just how far mama rose would push her "darling" into the spotlight--and beyond, judging from the events of Christmas night. "We don't own the bowl the pineapple was in." "She wore the turtleneck, I mean the white blouse, I mean the garrotte." The intruder flew soundlessly away, leaving no other dna in the house. Control, control, control. That poor little girl was beginning to think for herself (maybe even wanted a normal life) but nothing normal was possible in that insane asylum called the Ramsey home.

Well, you certainly seem like someone who has all the answers. Now, you just need the evidence to prove it. There is a big difference between opinions and facts.

 

[mysterymax]

1) The Ramsey's owned the pineapple and the bowl. No need to lie. Who cares is JBR has a little snack?

2) Any normal mother will not forget how she dressed her own daughter to go to a major holiday gathering. No need to lie. Why lie?

3) Take a good look at the way mama rose dressed a toddler who had barely learned to walk. And by a good look, I mean the textual/pornographic implications of JBR's attire. I would also refer you to Joyce Carol Oates's essay on JBR in the New York Review of Books for further clarification.

4) Where did the intruder go, into the 4th dimension? And by what means?

5) The ransom letter would be comical if it weren't so horrific. What, precisely, would the "intruder's" motive have been? Don't look for the zebra in the horsebarn when it's horse**** that is staring tyou straight in the face with its own tale and dna markers.

 

[Roy23]

1) The Ramsey's owned the pineapple and the bowl. No need to lie. Who cares is JBR has a little snack?

2) Any normal mother will not forget how she dressed her own daughter to go to a major holiday gathering. No need to lie. Why lie?

3) Take a good look at the way mama rose dressed a toddler who had barely learned to walk. And by a good look, I mean the textual/pornographic implications of JBR's attire. I would also refer you to Joyce Carol Oates's essay on JBR in the New York Review of Books for further clarification.

4) Where did the intruder go, into the 4th dimension? And by what means?

5) The ransom letter would be comical if it weren't so horrific. What, precisely, would the "intruder's" motive have been? Don't look for the zebra in the horsebarn when it's horse**** that is staring tyou straight in the face with its own tale and dna markers.

You are gonna need a little more than that. Your pornographic charges would not be admitted in court due to that being your opinion. You also still don't prove that the Ramsey's wrote the note. And just because no one can tell you who the intruder was or how he got in or left, you can't explain how or who the DNA is from.

Your case doesn't meet the "ham sandwich" rule. You just have opinions besides the pineapple. And that is really nothing by itself.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Damn, HOTYH! I couldn't have said it better myself!

(Of course, somehow when I say it, it's all wrong!)

The concept of 'trial in absentia' seems to escape some of us. How can the defendant, who isn't present, provide us with handwriting or DNA samples?

The defendant may or may not match the DNA that was left on JBR. Probably not, since IMO this defendant is the one behind the ransom note, not the one operating the garrote. Thats why its a conspriacy charge.

I read that as a prosecutor you should only go after charges you know will stick.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't doubt for a second that the legal system is messed up. I see little girls and boys taken by SO's almost every week now.

Oh, I'm talking even worse than that.

And don't get me wrong Dave, I would love to see all of the evidence in a unbiased setting. I just don't think we have that. At least not yet. I think my original point stands considering so many on the case were divided.

I wouldn't mind myself.

We will just have to disagree I guess.

Looks that way.

I harp on the DNA because I know that it must be explained before a conviction would ever be attainable.

Given the lack of understanding most average people have concerning it, I would have to say you're right, in the conventional sense. But as I said, I have my doubts that it would ever get that far.

The Ramsey's may know more like you think they do, but I still stick with the science.

If that's the case, then I think you're severely limiting yourself.

 

[BBB167893]

3) Take a good look at the way mama rose dressed a toddler who had barely learned to walk. And by a good look, I mean the textual/pornographic implications of JBR's attire.

Your pornographic charges would not be admitted in court due to that being your opinion.

Maybe not officially, Roy, but there could very well be a few people in the jury box who would think along those lines. It's not that big a leap, really.

I would also refer you to Joyce Carol Oates's essay on JBR in the New York Review of Books for further clarification.

I'd like to see that myself.

Other than that, I'll try to keep out of this little dustup.

 

[BBB167893]

The concept of 'trial in absentia' seems to escape some of us. How can the defendant, who isn't present, provide us with handwriting or DNA samples?

Don't get after me, HOTYH. I didn't bring it up.

The defendant may or may not match the DNA that was left on JBR. Probably not, since IMO this defendant is the one behind the ransom note, not the one operating the garrote. Thats why its a conspriacy charge.

Oh, I see.

 

[Roy23]

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: