How Many Steps to Innocence??

[MurriFlower]

The reason I don't believe that JMK confessed to JBR's murder just to get out of Thailand prison was because of the emails he had sent to Michael Tracey starting in 2001. His email address was december251996@yahoo.com or something very similar to that so he's obviously had a creepy obsession with this case for years. Boulder LE should have just gotten Karr's DNA somehow, tested it, and if there was a match, then notify the press. After all, Michael Tracey was talking to Karr for 5 years before we found out about it. They easily could have kept it a secret for a little bit longer.

From what I have read, he did not commit a crime in Thailand, so was not motivated by fear of imprisonment there to confess. As you rightly say, he had been 'confessing' to Tracey for four years by email and telephone.

They knew if they obtained his DNA by deception (and they did) as part of their investigation, it might have jeopardised his conviction.

Remember they had been following his movement for some time before this and discovered everything he had told Tracey (about his activities there) checked out correctly. They didn't just jump on a plane and go get him. It could not be kept secret once he was arrested.

 

[MurriFlower]

Well, even though ML did everything in her power to convict him, she couldn't and he is free, unfortunately, as he is IMHO a danger to children. The R's however remain under suspicion.

He is no more a danger to children through what happened than he was before, perhaps less so. The fact that he is now 'notorious' probably makes his activities more difficult to conceal, as these people like to fly under the radar in order to gain trust.

 

[SunnieRN]

He is no more a danger to children through what happened than he was before, perhaps less so. The fact that he is now 'notorious' probably makes his activities more difficult to conceal, as these people like to fly under the radar in order to gain trust.

The 'fact is' that no one knows for sure where he is, what he has done, or what he may be doing now. He is 'notorious' for many reasons.

 

[MurriFlower]

Well, even though ML did everything in her power to convict him, she couldn't and he is free, unfortunately, as he is IMHO a danger to children. The R's however remain under suspicion.

my bold

Only by RDI commited to believing they are guilty.

 

[BBB167893]

my bold

Only by RDI commited to believing they are guilty.

If what I've heard is correct, you'd best include a lot of cops and feds under that tent!

 

[UKGuy]

my bold

Only by RDI commited to believing they are guilty.

MurriFlower,

No! Its because there has been no court case, and no jury has said the Ramsey's are innocent. Likewise no intruder has been found guilty.


So the leading players in both theories e.g. RDI, IDI remain suspects.


.

 

[SunnieRN]

my bold

Only by RDI commited to believing they are guilty.

If what I've heard is correct, you'd best include a lot of cops and feds under that tent!

Thanks SD, you beat me to it! I hate it when work interferes with my posting here. Lol j/k.

 

[MurriFlower]

If what I've heard is correct, you'd best include a lot of cops and feds under that tent!

Yep, I expect that's correct.

 

[BBB167893]

Yep, I expect that's correct.

And you got to wonder why.

 

[MurriFlower]

And you got to wonder why.

Why it's been 14 years and still no resolution?

Because they've been looking in the wrong place.

 

[SunnieRN]

Why it's been 14 years and still no resolution?

Because they've been looking in the wrong place.

Either that, or the person responsible can not be charged and/or indicted.

 

[BBB167893]

Either that, or the person responsible can not be charged and/or indicted.

Those would be the choices!

Murri seems to have missed my point though. You have to wonder why so many law enforcement officials agree with RDI. I'm no expert, but it might have something to do with the fact that, as a rule, police and feds are pretty good at zeroing in on criminals.

 

[MurriFlower]

Those would be the choices!

Murri seems to have missed my point though. You have to wonder why so many law enforcement officials agree with RDI. I'm no expert, but it might have something to do with the fact that, as a rule, police and feds are pretty good at zeroing in on criminals.

my bold

Assuming that there ARE indeed 'so many' LE who are RDI doesn't make it so. They have had a long time to come up with something. Many LE still think LC is guilty too apparently! The profession is just like any other --, they have their smart ones, their dumb ones, their pig-headed ones (pun intended LOL), their receptive ones. Let's just say that 'so many' might just be the dumb, pig-headed ones.

 

[madeleine]

MurriFlower,

No! Its because there has been no court case, and no jury has said the Ramsey's are innocent. Likewise no intruder has been found guilty.


So the leading players in both theories e.g. RDI, IDI remain suspects.


.

ITA!


and
clearing people based on non matching DNA was wrong
clearing people based on non matching handwriting was wrong
exonerating the R's was wrong
clearing BR so early on was wrong
clearing FW only to keep his mouth shut was wrong
clearing Santa just because he seemed too frail was wrong
clearing CW and telling him hey we got no interest in you was wrong
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc


did these officials do something right in this case?...........:banghead:

 

[wonderllama]

Murri, you have to concede that in the majority of cases, the cops know who did it, they just have to gather proof to convince a jury or get someone charged.

My Dad often tells the story of the one time he hit someone on a sports field.
He waited 'til the referee had his back turned and then flattened a guy who had been hitting him all game.

The referee turned and saw the guy flat on the ground....came and reported my dad.
"Did you see me do it?"
"No"
"Then I didn't, you have no proof"
"You're the only one standing here"
"That still doesn't prove it"

You see, sometimes the truth is known even if the proof isn't there.

 

[BBB167893]

my bold

Assuming that there ARE indeed 'so many' LE who are RDI doesn't make it so. They have had a long time to come up with something. Many LE still think LC is guilty too apparently! The profession is just like any other --, they have their smart ones, their dumb ones, their pig-headed ones (pun intended LOL), their receptive ones. Let's just say that 'so many' might just be the dumb, pig-headed ones.

I had a feeling you'd say that.

 

[MurriFlower]

Murri, you have to concede that in the majority of cases, the cops know who did it, they just have to gather proof to convince a jury or get someone charged.

My Dad often tells the story of the one time he hit someone on a sports field.
He waited 'til the referee had his back turned and then flattened a guy who had been hitting him all game.

The referee turned and saw the guy flat on the ground....came and reported my dad.
"Did you see me do it?"
"No"
"Then I didn't, you have no proof"
"You're the only one standing here"
"That still doesn't prove it"

You see, sometimes the truth is known even if the proof isn't there.

llama, I think this is just the exact problem here. BECAUSE the cops formed their opinion early, based on their 'experience' and not on the 'evidence' they never really looked too hard at the time it happened, when they COULD have been more likely to have found evidence of an IDI. Remember, this is not a simple hold up/shooting at a liquor store, but a very complex crime. I'm not sure any of the police involved had any 'experience' in the investigation of a murder of any kind, until LS came along and then because he wasn't RDI, he was axed.

The example you give is a simplistic one. You are joining the RDI choir in saying 'they were there, therefore they are guilty'. Just like your Dad was the only one there. Let's just say he didn't do it, but that they guy threw himself on the ground in order to get your Dad sent off (watch soccer -- happens all the time). Not that I'm suggesting that JBR committed suicide, but that there is an alternative to RDI, and just because no-one saw the IDI doesn't mean he doesn't exist. The DNA is a pretty good indicator that SOMEONE (an unidentified male) WAS there. Yes, DNA from any source CAN be transferred by a third party, BUT it is infinitely more likely to have been put there by it's owner. Until that person is identified (and discounted or implicated) we will continue to argue fruitlessly.

 

[wonderllama]

I admit my example was simplistic, but if I was to give a more complicated example than the JBR murder I think that wouldn't have been a very good example

Don't however make the mistake of thinking that I think "they were there, they did it". I like to think I consider the evidence, not here say or speculation.

Crime solving is about being able to eliminate 'potentials' as much as it is about locating 'possibles' and in this particular crime, neither of those have been successful.

 

[UKGuy]

llama, I think this is just the exact problem here. BECAUSE the cops formed their opinion early, based on their 'experience' and not on the 'evidence' they never really looked too hard at the time it happened, when they COULD have been more likely to have found evidence of an IDI. Remember, this is not a simple hold up/shooting at a liquor store, but a very complex crime. I'm not sure any of the police involved had any 'experience' in the investigation of a murder of any kind, until LS came along and then because he wasn't RDI, he was axed.

The example you give is a simplistic one. You are joining the RDI choir in saying 'they were there, therefore they are guilty'. Just like your Dad was the only one there. Let's just say he didn't do it, but that they guy threw himself on the ground in order to get your Dad sent off (watch soccer -- happens all the time). Not that I'm suggesting that JBR committed suicide, but that there is an alternative to RDI, and just because no-one saw the IDI doesn't mean he doesn't exist. The DNA is a pretty good indicator that SOMEONE (an unidentified male) WAS there. Yes, DNA from any source CAN be transferred by a third party, BUT it is infinitely more likely to have been put there by it's owner. Until that person is identified (and discounted or implicated) we will continue to argue fruitlessly.

MurriFlower,

You really must retake your semester statistics class again!

Everyone accepts that the owner may have transferred the touch-dna e.g. its not DNA, that can be a misleading description.

If only the owner of the touch-dna could have transferred the touch-dna then the probability it was an intruder would be 1. e.g. certainty!

But more than one person may have transferred the touch-dna e.g. there may have been multiple independent transfers of the touch-dna, but lets assume it was just one person, since that one person can be selected from quite a large population then then the probability that the touch-dna originated from the intruder starts to reduce e.g it starts falling towards 0 and away from 1.

So this little number offered by you is patently false.

BUT it is infinitely more likely to have been put there by it's owner.

Presumably your exageration was intended to bolster your IDI.

The lack of any other corroborating forensic evidence actually weakens the IDI case. One follicle of hair, a drop of saliva, a few foreign fibers discovered elsewhere at the crime-scene would increase the probability of an IDI theory.

To date there has been no credible IDI theory offered to explain the crime-scene evidence. Yet there are RDI candidates.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Murri, you have to concede that in the majority of cases, the cops know who did it, they just have to gather proof to convince a jury or get someone charged.

My Dad often tells the story of the one time he hit someone on a sports field.
He waited 'til the referee had his back turned and then flattened a guy who had been hitting him all game.

The referee turned and saw the guy flat on the ground....came and reported my dad.
"Did you see me do it?"
"No"
"Then I didn't, you have no proof"
"You're the only one standing here"
"That still doesn't prove it"

You see, sometimes the truth is known even if the proof isn't there.

wonderllama,
wow, nice anecdote.


.