does any ALIENS get blown up? y/n
No. I always root for the aliens anyway.
They'll come back for me one day...to check on the microchip my husband is sure they implanted.
does any ALIENS get blown up? y/n
does any ALIENS get blown up? y/n
If so powerful you are, why leave?
Faith in your new apprentice misplace may be, as is your faith, in the RDI side of the investigation.
No. I always root for the aliens anyway.
They'll come back for me one day...to check on the microchip my husband is sure they implanted.
Hi voynich.
nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Encounters_of_the_Third_Kind
Re, Mi, Do, Do, So .....
I'm guessing that you're not familiar with that "light our darkest hour" bit, huh?
son of sons? son of suns?
much to learn you still have.
It's from "Transformers: The Movie" (THERE's something we could go back and forth with!)
there's more to you then meets the eye
You have no idea.
Seems to ME that not even the Ramsey's think this is a DNA case
18 Q. You've named Fleet White, I
19 believe, as a suspect. Same question, have
20 you rejected him as a possible suspect?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Bill McReynolds?
23 A. No.
24 Q. No, you have not rejected him?
25 A. No, I have not rejected him.
0022
1 Q. And I believe Chris Wolf you
2 also --
3 A. No, he has not been rejected.
4 Q. I assume then that that is a
5 function of the fact that you have not
6 received any significant information concerning
7 the murder of your child in the last two
8 years that differs from the information that
9 you received prior to your interviews with
10 representatives of the Boulder district
11 attorney's office?
12 MR. WOOD: Hold on before you
13 answer.
14 Do you understand that?
15 THE WITNESS: Not really.
16 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. I'll
17 rephrase it for you. In June of 1998, the
18 individuals that I've named were, in your
19 mind, potential suspects in the murder of
20 your child; correct?
21 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). Correct.
22 Q. You tell us that today, in August
23 of the year 2000, those individuals remain
24 suspects. Correct?
25 A. Correct.
0023
1 Q. I am assuming, based on that,
2 that you have not received, through your
3 investigators or through your experts, any
4 significant new information about the killing
5 which caused you to abandon those opinions or
6 suspicions?
7 MR. WOOD: Let me just caution
8 you. Because he tells you it is something
9 that he assumes, Patsy, I think what he
10 really wants to know is, why have you not
11 necessarily rejected these people in my own
12 mind. Do you follow me? I think that is
13 an easier question.
14 Isn't that what you are driving
15 at, Bruce?
16 MR. LEVIN: Well, not, no, it is
17 not.
Maybe I am just confused right now.......okay,DNA points to an intruder,but how does it exonerate the Ramseys???(when all the other circumstancial evidence points to THEM and there is NO other evidence that points to an intruder??)
How come was M.Lacy so sure that it wasn't R and an accomplice or God knows what other possible scenario?
It doesn't. As one of my favorite authors, lawyers and political pundits like to remind us:
DNA can only exclude suspects in cases of rape, and even then only if there was only one rapist and the victim was not sexually active. In virtually all other cases, DNA can include suspects, but not exclude suspects.
She was sure it couldn't be them from Day One.
DNA convicts rapist all the time. Especially when the two parties do not know each other.
It doesn't. As one of my favorite authors, lawyers and political pundits like to remind us:
DNA can only exclude suspects in cases of rape, and even then only if there was only one rapist and the victim was not sexually active. In virtually all other cases, DNA can include suspects, but not exclude suspects.
She was sure it couldn't be them from Day One.
I think the DA used the same rationale to exhonerate the R's.
Why does DNA exclude suspects in cases of rape? Because of the incriminating nature and location of the DNA. The idea there is that semen is found in the victim. If the victim is not sexually active, then the semen belongs to the rapist.
What is the nature and location of JBR's foreign DNA? Mixed with blood in her underwear, and on the surfaces of the waistband of her longjohns. Thats incriminating because it was deduced that an assailant that left DNA in JBR's underwear would also leave touch DNA on the waistband. They found touch DNA, and it did match the other DNA in JBR's blood droplets in her underwear.
The key is in the incriminating nature and location. Your favorite lawyer is right and the DA applied the principle correctly, thus exhonerating the R's.