Serious DNA discussion

[Holdontoyourhat]

She saw/wrote the original when JB died...and HOW MANY WEEKS was it after that dido she have to submit those handwriting ? Like she is going to remember what those letters look like. Also...they DID take random samples from her also. Hey, what do you make of the fact that Patsy started typing her comments in Burkes School Friday folder, right after JB died? Hmmmmm, sounds a little suspicious to me.

Those samples are OK. Its the ones where they were telling her what and even how to write, that are junk.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You know you UNDER cooperated when you stall LE for so long that they can't effectively rule you out once & for all.

Maybe the single worst mistake was refusing to do the separate interviews at THE earliest date possible.

When the lawyers forced LE to interview the Ramseys as IF they were already SUSPECTS & were entitled to be treated with those specific rights.... that simply turned them into PRIME SUSPECTS in the eyes of LE and the public.

The Ramsey's fate was sealed. For all time. Unless they ever find the 'real killer.'

Despite what Lacy wants to pretend.

The trail didn't go cold when the R's stopped cooperating. The trail went cold 1 or 2 days after the murder, when the SFF escaped the country. This scenario makes the most sense:

1. The RN stated SFF.
2. A SFF wouldn't worry about leaving personal identifiers like multiple DNA traces, 2 1/2 pages, or even 10 pages of handwriting evidence.
3. The origins of cord. tape, and blunt instrument would not require any creative explanations like they do in RDI.
4. The motives for filicide would not need to be invented or presumed to exist by RDI.

 

[BBB167893]

I'm legitimately interested, Holdon.

One thing, though.

Origins of cord. tape, and blunt instrument doesn't need to be explained like it does in RDI

I'll be more than happy to talk it over with you.

Motives for filicide don't need to be invented or presumed to exist by RDI.

That too.

 

[Ames]

Those samples are OK. Its the ones where they were telling her what and even how to write, that are junk.

They didn't SHOW her the RN to write...they dictated it to her. And they had to have manuscript instead of cursive writing...because that's the way the RN was written, how could they compare her handwriting if her letters were cursive letters, and the RN's was manuscript (block print)? That IS how they take samples of somebody's handwriting. They didn't just pick Patsy to start doing that with. I don't see where you get they are junk. How ELSE were they going to compare her handwriting to the RN's. They did EVERYBODY else the same way....including John. And the reason that I know that is...my husband works with a guy that specializes in that...that's how they do it.

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks, Ames.

I mean, I understand the whole impetus behind "double-blind" testing, even though I sometimes wonder just how applicable it is to something like this, since, in some cases, you might only have intimate writings (like diary entries) to study. At the same time, if something is written in a certain manner (the note was block printed), it makes sense to me that you would see how someone would write like that.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Of course there is!

You know you've overcooperated as soon as someone then draws the wrong conclusion and stops looking for who really killed your child.

There was a case in the Pacific Northwest that speaks to this. A married woman went missing after work. She was seen getting into her car at work and pulling away but didn't make it home.

Because they worked opposing shifts, her husband didn't realise she was missing until the next day. He notified the police and filed a report but the police didn't make much effort to find her. He tried to search himself, he drove both the routes she usually took repeatedly, both during full daylight and in the late evening (when she went missing), couldn't find anything.

The police become convinced that the woman wasn't the sort to just runaway and started looking at the husband as a possible suspect. The long delay in reporting seemed suspicious, even though his work records proved he had been at work. They asked him to come in and take a lie detector test.

He agreed.

Bad, bad mistake. HUGE mistake.

Because it came up equivocal. It made it look like he'd killed his wife. The police search was never very intense (amounted to a BOLO and shift change announcements) but they gave up on it entirely.

On the eighth day a motorist saw a flash of red in a ravine just off the road, below some crushed vegetation. It was the wife's car.

And she was still alive.

In very bad condition but she was still alive. Took several weeks in the hospital but she pulled through.

Turns out the husband had nothing to do with her disappearance or accident. She was tired and fell asleep at a point on the road where her car was instantly concealed by the heavy vegetation in the ravine. Literally hundreds of thousands of vehicles drove by that site, including her husband, and never saw it.

The likely reason the husband's results on the lie detector came up equivocal? He was exhausted, terrifed for his wife, frustrated with what he saw as delays in working on the real problem (missing wife). He went in for the test with a big ball of emotion, understandably! I would have been at least that emotional if my spouse were missing, if not more so.

The story had a happy ending by the luckiest of accidents. What if she hadn't survived? What if the police continued to believe that the husband was the reason for her death?

I know a lawyer who has told her husband that if she disappears under no circumstances is he to take a lie detector test. In her judgment, all her experience, taking one is risky and can easily confuse things, slow down a search, etc. I thought about her when the above story came out.

 

[Ames]

Thanks, Ames.

I mean, I understand the whole impetus behind "double-blind" testing, even though I sometimes wonder just how applicable it is to something like this, since, in some cases, you might only have intimate writings (like diary entries) to study. At the same time, if something is written in a certain manner (the note was block printed), it makes sense to me that you would see how someone would write like that.

You are welcome...

And you are exactly right...I mean, it wouldn't make sense for them to dictate the note to Patsy, and have her write it in cursive...when the RN is NOT in cursive. Common sense says that they have to be the same style, or a comparison cannot be made. Hold acts like they were baiting her or something. Like she is the ONLY person in the universe that they have had to tell to stop writing in cursive...and the only person that has ever had anything dictated to them, while they gave a handwriting sample. It is common practice....she wasn't SPECIAL, even though SHE thought she was.

 

[BBB167893]

THAT'S why I place no value in lie detector tests, Grainne Dhu.

Although, that's not quite the same as we have here.

 

[Ames]

THAT'S why I place no value in lie detector tests, Grainne Dhu.

Although, that's not quite the same as we have here.

Me either...but, its not the same thing as a hand-writing analysis. If you blink wrong on a lie detector....it will come out as an untruth.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

THAT'S why I place no value in lie detector tests, Grainne Dhu.

Although, that's not quite the same as we have here.

True enough, although I've read enough about handwriting analysis that I don't feel it's as reliable as fingerprints or DNA. Maybe as reliable as eyewitness testimony, which would be about 50% reliable.

And you read it here first: if your sig other disappears, SuperDave, don't take a lie detector test! Tell the police to solve the disappearance by finding that person alive!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

They didn't SHOW her the RN to write...they dictated it to her. And they had to have manuscript instead of cursive writing...because that's the way the RN was written, how could they compare her handwriting if her letters were cursive letters, and the RN's was manuscript (block print)? That IS how they take samples of somebody's handwriting. They didn't just pick Patsy to start doing that with. I don't see where you get they are junk. How ELSE were they going to compare her handwriting to the RN's. They did EVERYBODY else the same way....including John. And the reason that I know that is...my husband works with a guy that specializes in that...that's how they do it.

Of course they needed manuscript writing. Its the only way to make PR's writing look like the perps!

If PR doesn't write in block letters before the murder, then she doesn't write in block letters after. You can't force someone to write in a way that they dont write, just to make it more similar to the writing you're trying to compare! You're stuck with whatever samples are available before the murder, whether they're cursive or block.

The only valid comparison is to take samples from PR that already existed before the murder. For all you know, PR had guilt and wanted to be arrested for the murder, so she tried to make her writing look like the perps. People take raps for crimes others commit all the time. Ask JMK!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm legitimately interested, Holdon.

One thing, though.



I'll be more than happy to talk it over with you.



That too.

There's no RDI explanation for cord, tape, blunt instrument, male DNA, or filicidal motive that is fact-based.

We've heard painting slings, McGukins receipts, flashlights, innocent transfer, chronic sexual abuse, and rage accident.

None of these things are real, SD. They're made up to sell tabloids and books. Fiction.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

True enough, although I've read enough about handwriting analysis that I don't feel it's as reliable as fingerprints or DNA. Maybe as reliable as eyewitness testimony, which would be about 50% reliable.

And you read it here first: if your sig other disappears, SuperDave, don't take a lie detector test! Tell the police to solve the disappearance by finding that person alive!

So what are the chances you'd leave mean, violent words written in your own handwriting at a capital murder scene? Slim or none?

 

[Silmarion]

Sorry to interrupt. I have never been able to understand the determination of people who have no connection to this crime yet continue to think up the most curious and far out ways to make the parents guilty. It's as if it's a game. I do think it takes a wild imagination to do this from some of the posts I have read over the years.

If the parents had been guilty, they would have been arrested, imo. They never had any evidence to even arrest them, much less convict them. Even a grand jury saw no reason to arrest them. Despite the media hype, and it was HUGE! often intermixed with plenty of opinions and outright lies, not to mention the nightly edited scenes of Jon Benet slow dancing to edited sexy music, nothing happened. The police simply didn't have anybody. So, they went for the parents, (always the safest way to show they're doing their job) . People believed them and still do. In this country, we are innocent unless proven guilty, and there has been so much confusion from the media about the evidence, that it appears to me whoever did it, unfortunately got away with it, and that's probably the end of the story. I do hope they find the real killer someday, but after so much time, it's doubtful they ever will. So let the child and her mother rest in peace for goodness sake.

 

[BBB167893]

True enough, although I've read enough about handwriting analysis that I don't feel it's as reliable as fingerprints or DNA. Maybe as reliable as eyewitness testimony, which would be about 50% reliable.

Well, with what I know about it, I won't go against you, Grainne Dhu!

And you read it here first: if your sig other disappears, SuperDave, don't take a lie detector test! Tell the police to solve the disappearance by finding that person alive!

Check!

Of course they needed manuscript writing. Its the only way to make PR's writing look like the perps!

Oh, I see. It's a conspiracy! (And look like it it did!)

If PR doesn't write in block letters before the murder, then she doesn't write in block letters after. You can't force someone to write in a way that they dont write, just to make it more similar to the writing you're trying to compare!

Well, Holdon, you're certainly free to make that argument. I'm actually surprised that no one else has. Trouble is, I really don't see any OTHER way to do it. Neither does Ames, apparently. You get what you can get. Let's be real here. And since they most likely asked EVERYONE to do it that way, what does that leave, if none of it is admissable? Do we scrap it entirely?

For all you know, PR had guilt and wanted to be arrested for the murder, so she tried to make her writing look like the perps.

Holdon, if you want to get into a psychlogical discussion about PR's possible state, I'm game. I was born game and I intend to die that way!

People take raps for crimes others commit all the time. Ask JMK!

Ugh! Don't mention that name around here!

There's no RDI explanation for cord, tape, blunt instrument, male DNA, or filicidal motive that is fact-based.

Well, I may or may not agree with that, Holdon. But I can make some educated guesses. After all, this is a forum, not a court of law. We're ALL just spitballing, right? Just a bunch of regular folks saying what's on our minds, right?

We've heard painting slings, McGukins receipts, flashlights, innocent transfer, chronic sexual abuse, and rage accident.

Yes, we have. And (MY OPINION) they're all worth discussing. That's what we're here for.

None of these things are real, SD.

Well, I'm not so sure about that. I have pretty good reason to wonder about a few of those. I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me, goodness knows.

They're made up to sell tabloids and books. Fiction.

Holdon, I'll actually AGREE with you! But only up to a point. To me, there's a difference between idle gossip and informed speculation, but that's me.

I have never been able to understand the determination of people who have no connection to this crime yet continue to think up the most curious and far out ways to make the parents guilty.

Silmarion, as soon as I see someone like that, I'll let you know!

If the parents had been guilty, they would have been arrested, imo.

Silmarion, an arrest was never a question in this case.
Chief Beckner: "Arrest them."
FBI: "Arrest them."
Dream Team Lawyers: "Arrest them."
And on and on. But the DA wouldn't go for it.

They never had any evidence to even arrest them, much less convict them.

They had plenty of evidence, Silmarion. The DA just wouldn't do it. Just how familiar are you with the backroom politics of this case, Silmarion? There are many reasons why there was no arrest, and none of them involve evidence. If you want the long version, I'll provide it, but the short version is:

Specifics. When you have a case where there is evidence that points to both people, you as a prosecutor have to decide who did what. You HAVE to. You can't say "one did it, the other helped, you decide." Can't do that. They never could. One of them (Hofstrom I think) said "So what if she wrote the note? Doesn't mean she killed her daughter." Sad as it is to admit, he's RIGHT! It only proves she wrote the note.

Even a grand jury saw no reason to arrest them

The Grand Jury didn't hear from half the players in the case. Besides, based on the words of one of them, they already made up their minds.
Quote:
The pictures were so horrible that the jurors felt it was absolutely inconceivable that any mother on Earth could have been capable of doing such a thing to their own child.

But wait! Here is FBI agent Ron Walker, who was there that morning!
Quote:
Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children.

The police simply didn't have anybody. So, they went for the parents, (always the safest way to show they're doing their job).

Oh, and I suppose the FBI were just along for the ride, right? You know, the guys who do this kind of work every day who TOLD them to look at the parents?

In this country, we are innocent unless proven guilty, and there has been so much confusion from the media about the evidence, that it appears to me whoever did it, unfortunately got away with it, and that's probably the end of the story.

THAT I agree with. The person who killed JB (MY OPINION) is dead.

So let the child and her mother rest in peace for goodness sake.

Hey, I forgave Patsy a LONG time ago, Silmarion. I believe that she and JB are together now, despite everything. The gods have shown mercy, and that gives me hope for all of us.

 

[TinaD]

Of course they needed manuscript writing. Its the only way to make PR's writing look like the perps!

If PR doesn't write in block letters before the murder, then she doesn't write in block letters after. You can't force someone to write in a way that they dont write, just to make it more similar to the writing you're trying to compare! You're stuck with whatever samples are available before the murder, whether they're cursive or block.

The only valid comparison is to take samples from PR that already existed before the murder. For all you know, PR had guilt and wanted to be arrested for the murder, so she tried to make her writing look like the perps. People take raps for crimes others commit all the time. Ask JMK!

Holdon - can I just clarify what you're saying? The ransom note was written in block letters. You believe that LE should have looked at Patsy's samples from before the crime, seen that they were written in a cursive hand and said something like" Ok well, it's not Patsy because she doesn't write in block letters!" Is that what you truly believe?

 

[TinaD]

If the parents had been guilty, they would have been arrested, imo.

Hi Silmarion, I used to think that as well. Until I read Steve Thomas' book, where he sets out exactly what the situation was in Boulder, in regard to the DA taking cases to court. Then I started to understand why, with so much evidence, the Ramseys were never charged.

I recommend reading it if you are interested in this case.

 

[BBB167893]

Holdon - can I just clarify what you're saying? The ransom note was written in block letters. You believe that LE should have looked at Patsy's samples from before the crime, seen that they were written in a cursive hand and said something like" Ok well, it's not Patsy because she doesn't write in block letters!" Is that what you truly believe?

TinaD, that REALLY would have been incompetent.

 

[DeeDee249]

Its standard procedure to ask for handwriting samples to be given in the manner of the writing they are to be matched against. If the note was printed, samples would be printed. Not just by PR, but by anyone who they tested. And this procedure is done everywhere, not just the Boulder PD.
If you look at PR's exemplars side by side with the note, there's no way you'd think she didn't write it.

 

[DeeDee249]

Sorry to interrupt. I have never been able to understand the determination of people who have no connection to this crime yet continue to think up the most curious and far out ways to make the parents guilty. It's as if it's a game. I do think it takes a wild imagination to do this from some of the posts I have read over the years.

If the parents had been guilty, they would have been arrested, imo. They never had any evidence to even arrest them, much less convict them. Even a grand jury saw no reason to arrest them. Despite the media hype, and it was HUGE! often intermixed with plenty of opinions and outright lies, not to mention the nightly edited scenes of Jon Benet slow dancing to edited sexy music, nothing happened. The police simply didn't have anybody. So, they went for the parents, (always the safest way to show they're doing their job) . People believed them and still do. In this country, we are innocent unless proven guilty, and there has been so much confusion from the media about the evidence, that it appears to me whoever did it, unfortunately got away with it, and that's probably the end of the story. I do hope they find the real killer someday, but after so much time, it's doubtful they ever will. So let the child and her mother rest in peace for goodness sake.

Actually, people who have no connection to the crime also will consider any theory designed to "prove" their innocence as well. None of here (or on the many other forums on the case) are supposedly connected to the crime. It is all opinion and theory. But by the law of averages- some of us are right.