IDI: Whats your problem?

[BBB167893]

Our beloved judiciary.
Handwriting analysis qualifies as admissible evidence but not polygraph test results.

You said it.

The greatest fear most people acknowledge is the fear of speaking in front of a crowd. The Ramseys were literally hoisted up upon the world stage to speak in front of hundreds of millions of people/strangers and to answer accusatory questions screamed at them from a belligerent, cold and calculating media about their involvement in the horrific murder of their 6 year old daughter. They were given about 9 minutes to prepare for both.

Maybe, but from where I'm sitting, there were moments when PR looked like she was having one HE** of a good time.

They should have been given the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 11. The results are objective, thorough and designed to detect levels of deception and transparency. It tests for a wide spectrum of pathology.

Never heard of it, but I agree!

For anyone with questions about the integrity of our judicial system and the Ramsey's reluctance to take a polygraph administered by the FBI and the BP, I can assure you they were smart to resist.

That may well be, and no one is denying their right not to take one. What people have a problem with is them saying they'll take one, then lying and saying they were never asked, then claiming that they won't take one because LE is "out to get them," then barely passing a bought-and-paid-for farce and waving it around like it meant something.

Bottom line: in this country, people have a right to shut up. They DON'T have a right to lie.

 

[BBB167893]

Wait a second,wait a second:waitasec:

So the touch DNA on the longjohns is skin cells,correct?
But not the one from the panties,I don't remember them saying so.

If we have two types of DNA (skin cells AND saliva or whatever it was) coming from the same person then I guess this means it can't be secondary transfer.:waitasec:
I mean,you can't have TWO types of DNA if you're talking about transfer,right?It should be the same type.
You can't pick up skin cells from a person,touch an item and leave his saliva there.Sorry dunno how to explain better.

Except we don't know WHAT kind of DNA it was in the panties, madeleine. If it was there and JB bled on it, it would become a liquid base.

 

[BBB167893]

"That sounds like a very dangerous assumption to me. "

I would agree with you if it wasn't year 2010. I now realize this case is not like a Star Trek convention anymore.

I'm afraid you've lost me.

 

[BBB167893]

Oh, the only truly dangerous assumption is made by RDI when they assume that the offender is off the street.

IDI makes no such assumption.

While that is possibly a fair point, there's just one thing wrong with it: it's been almost 14 years and not ONE little girl has been murdered in a way that even remotely resembles this one.

Killings like this, whether for ideological or sexual reasons, are sort of like potato chips: you can't stop with just one!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

While that is possibly a fair point, there's just one thing wrong with it: it's been almost 14 years and not ONE little girl has been murdered in a way that even remotely resembles this one.

Killings like this, whether for ideological or sexual reasons, are sort of like potato chips: you can't stop with just one!

How do you know? You should've qualified your statement with 'not one reported...' or 'not one that I am aware'

Not all countries are sharing their statistics on child murders. Better check some statistics worldwide on 'missing' children and also know that many missing children aren't even reported as missing. IOW there's a huge problem with your statement that not one little girl has been murdered in a way that remotely resembles this one, because you have no idea if the statement is right or not. And I know you don't know.

 

[Roy23]

While that is possibly a fair point, there's just one thing wrong with it: it's been almost 14 years and not ONE little girl has been murdered in a way that even remotely resembles this one.

Killings like this, whether for ideological or sexual reasons, are sort of like potato chips: you can't stop with just one!

This is one thing that bothers me.

 

[BBB167893]

Lets all ignore the Grand Jury and professional defense witnesses and blame it on the DA.

I'm not ignoring anything; I'm saying they go hand in hand.

 

[madeleine]

Except we don't know WHAT kind of DNA it was in the panties, madeleine. If it was there and JB bled on it, it would become a liquid base.

Yes but we DO know it's NOT skin cells so I guess innocent transfer is ruled out.The DNA owner left TWO types of DNA at the murder scene,his skin cells are there and so is something else (doesn't even matter WHAT IMO,saliva,another fluid,etc)

 

[madeleine]

I guess skin cells didn't become liquid only because they came in contact with JB's blood.Or?Is this what you're trying to say,that's what I understood.

 

[Roy23]

Yes but we DO know it's NOT skin cells so I guess innocent transfer is ruled out.The DNA owner left TWO types of DNA at the murder scene,his skin cells are there and so is something else (doesn't even matter WHAT IMO,saliva,another fluid,etc)

I expect Dave might argue this but you are right. It is not skin cells because they couldn't test that. It could have been skin but their was no blood. I am smelling a new IDI.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't believe they were telling the whole truth Dave.

I have no reason to think they didn't.

All they had to do was prove they had evidence of those fibers. It was a fair request.

I doubt very seriously that any prosecutor/cop is going to give file evidence to a litigation attorney, Roy. They'd HAVE to turn it over to the defense counsel in the event of charges being filed, but that and this are a fair distance apart.

Remember this is also a group that had DNA sitting around and did nothing with it.

If the two are related, I suppose that's a fair point.

 

[ami]

Killings like this, whether for ideological or sexual reasons, are sort of like potato chips: you can't stop with just one!

There have been hundreds of kidnaps of young girls, many of whom were never found alive or dead. We have no idea how many were garroted and molested in the same way.

 

[BBB167893]

How do you know? You should've qualified your statement with 'not one reported...' or 'not one that I am aware'

Fair enough. Although, do you really think the Rs and their mouthpieces would have kept silent about it if they had anything like that? I know LW tried to link JB's murder to those of Danielle Van Dam and Samantha Runnion back in '02. Trouble is, it failed miserably because, among many reasons, he said it to Marc Klaas, of all people.

Not all countries are sharing their statistics on child murders. Better check some statistics worldwide on 'missing' children and also know that many missing children aren't even reported as missing.

True enough. I'm sure some countries don't keep those stats, anyway.

 

[BBB167893]

Yes but we DO know it's NOT skin cells so I guess innocent transfer is ruled out.The DNA owner left TWO types of DNA at the murder scene,his skin cells are there and so is something else (doesn't even matter WHAT IMO,saliva,another fluid,etc)

I certainly don't know that!

 

[BBB167893]

I expect Dave might argue this but you are right.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't argue it so much as I question it.

 

[DeeDee249]

Yes Yes Yes.

The BPD found the original DNA in two or three different bloodspots on the panties. It was very small and it sounded like they had trouble identifying a complete profile from at least one of them. The DNA was not blood or seminal fluid and almost all of the experts conclude it was saliva. They developed a full profile similarly from the way they would get it from a cigarette butt.

The BPD had created scenarios of the crime when investigating. Of course some of the scenarios were staging and some sexual assault. They had an idea of how it happened. The isolated the area they thought might have skin cells based on the scenario and hit paydirt.

Roy, do you have a link for that (about the saliva)? Which experts said it and were they experts who were actually on the case? Because I have never seen any credible report that it was concluded that the panty DNA was saliva.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I expect Dave might argue this but you are right. It is not skin cells because they couldn't test that. It could have been skin but their was no blood. I am smelling a new IDI.

I'm not sure there is an authoritative source for the underwear cell type. However, if the type isn't skin cell, then exhonerating the R's seems to be the inescapable conclusion and takes the air out of RDI's ad hominem arguments.

 

[slug]

I think the biggest problem for both IDI and RDI is the way things were handled in the first 24 hours.

But i have a few points that i find are a problem
looking at an IDI first if it was a SFF why was the ransom note written in the house, why was JBR body left there. IMO if a SFF went into the house with the plan of kidnapping, they would have the note written already and they would take the body wheater they ment to kill her that night or not. so for those reasons i feel the SFF idea is very unlikely.
If an IDI and it was someone totally unknown to the family why the RN why the only evidence the couple of possible crime related DNA samples why no obvious sign of break in why use items from round the home unless the idea was to frame the family.
just a couple of things that i've been thinking about.

 

[MurriFlower]

I think the biggest problem for both IDI and RDI is the way things were handled in the first 24 hours.

But i have a few points that i find are a problem
looking at an IDI first if it was a SFF why was the ransom note written in the house, why was JBR body left there. IMO if a SFF went into the house with the plan of kidnapping, they would have the note written already and they would take the body wheater they ment to kill her that night or not. so for those reasons i feel the SFF idea is very unlikely.
If an IDI and it was someone totally unknown to the family why the RN why the only evidence the couple of possible crime related DNA samples why no obvious sign of break in why use items from round the home unless the idea was to frame the family.
just a couple of things that i've been thinking about.

Oh Slug,

You are a gastropod after my own heart!

I think it was an IDI, but someone very close. So close as to almost be 'family'. Was it intentional to 'frame' the family? Or just lucky? This was an 'inside job' make no mistake. So many RDI are so passionate about their beliefs as to defy reason! Every piece of evidence is turned and twisted to prove RDI. Why?

 

[Roy23]

Roy, do you have a link for that (about the saliva)? Which experts said it and were they experts who were actually on the case? Because I have never seen any credible report that it was concluded that the panty DNA was saliva.

DeeDee,

There are old links numerous different sites that speculate on this. Even some newer ones. We always (or at least me) run into someone that has another link from way back who also suggest that it might be skin cell from a factory worker.

I can admit that no one here can definitely prove something 100% because so much information pointing in every direction has been said on the web. I have read and believe that the DNA is in liquid form in JBR's blood. I am not aware of blood dissolving a skin cell. I saw or read something from Henry Lee with him saying this DNA was most likely saliva and I have also seen Barry Scheck suggesting that it might be skin.

All of this information is from so very long ago so I can't prove anything to you. What has stayed with me is that they have said the DNA was liquid form and minute. And at the time getting DNA from a minute skin cell was not talked about much. You, just like me, will have to draw you own conclusion here.