Like it or not, JBR murder a DNA case.

[Holdontoyourhat]

But in the R's case didn't LE take the basement window,winecellar door,and alot of other things that the knpwn intruder could had touch..They did find pineapple in the frig that match what was found in JB 's stomach and I can't see an intruder getting PR and BR to touch the bowl on the table and how Pr's handprint on the winecellar door looks like she could had been holding it open and there are pics at the ACR...

I can't see that either.

Just a quick question: What would you think if PR or BR fingerprints were not on the bowl?

 

[Ravyn]

And about this DNA I keep reading touch so PR or JR could had shook someone hand then touch the longjohbs and panties and there would be forgien DNA cause the R's didn't say they didn't shake hands with any males right...Just wondering...

 

[Ravyn]

I can't see that either.

Just a quick question: What would you think if PR or BR fingerprints were not on the bowl?

Well show me the link that hasn't said their prints wasn't on the bowl..Cause out of all the links I haven't seen one yet to say different...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well show me the link that hasn't said their prints wasn't on the bowl..Cause out of all the links I haven't seen one yet to say different...

Can I rephrase the question? What would you think if there were no fingerprints on the bowl?

 

[Ravyn]

Can I rephrase the question? What would you think if there were no fingerprints on the bowl?

Then I would have to start wondering why? Cause this would had helped out alot for the intruder and do you have a site that says this...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Then I would have to start wondering why? Cause this would had helped out alot for the intruder and do you have a site that says this...

No I sure don't. It was a hypothetical question.

Suppose there were no prints on the bowl. How could that be?

 

[Ravyn]

No I sure don't. It was a hypothetical question.

Suppose there were no prints on the bowl. How could that be?

Ok,if there was no prints this means we had a smart intruder that wore gloves but then was stupid for leaving his DNA..And one question if JR placed the RN on the floor and spread the pages out why didn't he leave fingerprints on the RN does this mean he never touch it and it fell into place or was he wearing gloves..Now just more questions I'm trying to figure out...

 

[madeleine]

Hi Madeleine.

Wow. Fox's story has so many parallels to that of the Ramsey's. -that same pattern of evidence plus the dna.

"The police, Zellner argued, deliberately ignored evidence suggesting that an intruder was in the house. She said that there are numerous parts of the house they never bothered to check, including the back door, which was standing open.
"We know what's how the intruder came in because the lock was broken," she says. Zellner also claimed one of the windows was open from the inside, potential evidence of an intruder looking for an exit route. None of this was ever fingerprinted, nor was the blanket used to cover Riley that night."

Hi Tad.

I know there are a lot of innocent people who were exonerated because of dna,I just think sometimes it's done way too easy ,like in the R case.
There are a lot of differences between the R and Riley's dad,Kevin did co-operate with LE.We don't have a silly RN matching his handwriting,we don't have his fibers in the victim's panties.
I compared the two cases because I always had the impression that you gotta have more than dna in order to exonerate a suspect,I mean you had GOOD reasons to make that person a suspect in the first place,right?But this is an example that it can happen.Doesn't mean I am okay with it.I would ask for more.I am not a DNA fan.Look at the OJ trial,look at all the experts arguing about it in the JB case.It's all about how it's interpreted and who is doing it.

 

[Reznor]

Is there a list of the people that gave samples for DNA testing? I have found bits and pieces but not a full list.

 

[DeeDee249]

If there were NO prints on the bowl, I'd be even more suspicious of the Rs. Just like there were NO prints on the flashlight and batteries!!! that belonged to the Rs. There should have been R prints on at least the batteries. Why wipe them down, even if you're an intruder? An intruder would have no reason to handle the batteries. And the R prints on these things would not be suspicious. It is the absence of their prints on things that belong to them that is suspicious.

 

[madeleine]

Lacy stated back in 2006(the enlightening JMK conference ) that there is NO other evidence there,it's all out in the public.Dunno who was hammering away around here about how the DA might have lots of infos and evidence that we don't know of.
If there was nothing else in 2006 then how on earth were they pursuing only the IDI theory? :waitasec: She said back then that (not so directly,still) that she ain't investigating the R's anymore,cause of the DNA.Yep that dna added something new to the investigation but it doesn't make what they had so far dissapear.


First the R's were made suspects based on what LE had and pointed to them.
Then they found the DNA match,which made them believe it could have been IDI.

A smart prosecutor would try to see how these 2 fit in the same puzzle.One doesn't eliminate the other.

IMO

 

[madeleine]

If there were NO prints on the bowl, I'd be even more suspicious of the Rs. Just like there were NO prints on the flashlight and batteries!!! that belonged to the Rs. There should have been R prints on at least the batteries. Why wipe them down, even if you're an intruder? An intruder would have no reason to handle the batteries. And the R prints on these things would not be suspicious. It is the absence of their prints on things that belong to them that is suspicious.

The so called intruder didn't leave fingerprints anywhere.Makes you think he wore gloves right?Then why wipe the flashlight AND the batteries down.The batteries one is a good one.And you're right,sometimes lack of such evidence IS evidence.

 

[JMO8778]

..arriving late in the thread,but...since ML and JR were together in the latest dna stunt..(I think I've made this comment before but...)..either 1- John redressed JB (wearing gloves),or 2- HE KNOWS WHO DID.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

..arriving late in the thread,but...since ML and JR were together in the latest dna stunt..(I think I've made this comment before but...)..either 1- John redressed JB (wearing gloves),or 2- HE KNOWS WHO DID.

ML and JR aren't 'together', and there was no 'stunt'.

Even if ML and JR were together and there was a stunt, these would not add or subtract from any theory where John redressed JB or knew who did.

 

[21merc7]

I'm sure this has been asked before somewhere. Was Burke's DNA ever taken? I know that he was "exempt" from certain things due to his age, which makes absolutely no sense at all in and of itself. That would explain unknown male DNA.

 

[BBB167893]

ML and JR aren't 'together', and there was no 'stunt'.

Could have fooled me.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Could have fooled me.

The only place ML and JR are characterized as 'together' and the DNA event referred to as a 'stunt' is right here in RDI-land.

 

[Ravyn]

I'm sure this has been asked before somewhere. Was Burke's DNA ever taken? I know that he was "exempt" from certain things due to his age, which makes absolutely no sense at all in and of itself. That would explain unknown male DNA.

That is something I also had wonder if the LE did get a sample from Burke,I know they did with handwritting but DNA,I haven't seen that nowhere..

 

[BBB167893]

The only place ML and JR are characterized as 'together' and the DNA event referred to as a 'stunt' is right here in RDI-land.

Like I've said before, HOTYH: I can't not see what my eyes see.