Simple question...

[DeeDee249]

No problem. Cynic. As long as it stays on WS forum, you may post it to any thread you wish.

 

[cynic]

As you can see, the touch DNA is fragile, and the underwear DNA is in solution with JBR's blood. These DNA are probably two different types of cells and yet the DNA matches.

Skin cells again.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Skin cells again.

The DNA mixed with blood in JBR's underwear is not necessarily from skin cells.

 

[cynic]

The DNA mixed with blood in JBR's underwear is not necessarily from skin cells.

Skin cells.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Skin cells.

Source? I don't think so. I know you don't know what type of cells.

 

[cynic]

Source? I don't think so. I know you don't know what type of cells.

The Rocky Mountain News reported in Tuesday's editions that investigators believe the DNA in the underwear may not be critical evidence because it might have been left before the Ramseys obtained the garment.
"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," former prosecutor Michael Kane told the News.
"You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there: whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them,"

As I said, skin cells.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The Rocky Mountain News reported in Tuesday's editions that investigators believe the DNA in the underwear may not be critical evidence because it might have been left before the Ramseys obtained the garment.
"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," former prosecutor Michael Kane told the News.
"You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there: whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them,"

As I said, skin cells.

Which Tuesday's edition? 1998? More archaic news, eh? Let us not forget that this DNA was found to match touch DNA on her longjohns in 2008.

"...got there through human handling" doesn't equal "skin cells" except in your rather assumtive world. Could be from hair, saliva, etc., etc.

 

[cynic]

Which Tuesday's edition? 1998? More archaic news, eh? Let us not forget that this DNA was found to match touch DNA on her longjohns in 2008.

Skin cells matching skin cells, yawn.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Skin cells matching skin cells, yawn.

Skin cells in JBR's blood on her underwear matching skin cells in two places on her longjohns is a major breakthrough in the case, for rational people.

This DNA is in CODIS and belongs to an unidentified male. I'm sure thats the case because (yawn) it belongs to a worker and JBR managed to move it from that blood stain in her underwear to her longjohns. Get real.

 

[cynic]

Skin cells in JBR's blood on her underwear matching skin cells in two places on her longjohns is a major breakthrough in the case, for rational people.

This DNA is in CODIS and belongs to an unidentified male. I'm sure thats the case because (yawn) it belongs to a worker and JBR managed to move it from that blood stain in her underwear to her longjohns. Get real.

Let me know when you have something.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Let me know when you have something.

There is a real person already mentioned on this forum who could be a suspect.

I'll let you decide if its something or not.

Why don't you gather some killer profiles from JR, FBI profilers, or your own ideas, and I'll tell you if its a hit, miss, or I dont know?

 

[BBB167893]

Lets imagine you are that prosecutor, SD, and the jury went for it. The conviction came on the circumstantial evidence you have expressed ad nauseum.

Oh, HOTYH...if you only knew how often I HAVE imagined it!

Now, maybe your conscience starts asking you all these questions because you suddenly realize there's a lot you really don't know. A lot of core facts you don't know--and truly wish you finally knew with certainty--that pertains to the motives, the weapons, and the sequencing of events.

Who owns the DNA?
What object hit JBR's skull?
Who owns that object?
Why was JBR sexually assaulted?
Why was JBR strangled?
Why did JBR have the other smaller injuries?
Did JBR first have the cord around her neck in her bedroom, in the basement, or somewhere else?
Where was JBR when she ate the pineapple?
How did JBR get the pineapple?
Where was JBR when she died?
Where was JBR when her skull was fractured?
Why was the paintbrush broken at both ends?
Why does the 2nd ligature have three loops and two knots in it?
Where is the rest of the cord from which the two ligatures were cut?
Where is the knife used to cut that cord?
Who owns the cord? Who owns the knife?
What does S.B.T.C. mean? What does the exclamation 'Victory!' mean?
Why did the RN author use the terms 'execution' and 'beheaded' in reference to a child?

Wow...you're pretty good when you come on my turf. I'll give you that.

I have to say, you're laying some very heavy stuff on me here. So, at the risk of seeming dismissive, let me say this, for the sake of argument:

If the jury came back with a conviction, why would my conscience bother me about these things to begin with? I mean, if I were the prosecutor and I did take this case to trial, something I would not do unless I felt very strongly about it, and I've already answered these questions to my own satisfaction and that of 12 men and women, I don't see any reason for my conscience to bother me.

I'm not trying to dismiss what you say, HOTYH. For what it's worth, I think you ask some fine questions. And I apologize to everyone if I give the impression of being hardhearted. I most certainly am not. I'm just being practical here.

 

[BBB167893]

The back-and-forth here has been riveting!

Tell me more about being a famed prosecutor!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If the jury came back with a conviction, why would my conscience bother me about these things to begin with? I mean, if I were the prosecutor and I did take this case to trial, something I would not do unless I felt very strongly about it, and I've already answered these questions to my own satisfaction and that of 12 men and women, I don't see any reason for my conscience to bother me.

Then you've done what nobody else has done. Nobody else can answer any of these questions with certainty. This means that you don't really know, and are just guessing. Satisfied with just a guess, I guess?

 

[BBB167893]

Then you've done what nobody else has done. Nobody else can answer any of these questions with certainty. This means that you don't really know, and are just guessing. Satisfied with just a guess, I guess?

I don't have your skill for word games, HOTYH. I prefer to say what I mean.

Cynic is right. I've never heard of a case where every single question was answered with certainty. That's not the standard we hold our juries to. Some things may have to remain a mystery, and I'm willing to accept that, even if I don't like it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't have your skill for word games, HOTYH. I prefer to say what I mean.

Cynic is right. I've never heard of a case where every single question was answered with certainty. That's not the standard we hold our juries to. Some things may have to remain a mystery, and I'm willing to accept that, even if I don't like it.

Wha?? Who asked for a certain answer to every single question? Not me. I think you misunderstood.

I am simply noting HOW MANY questions that you don't know the answer to with certainty. All those questions and more. With your guilty verdict, you have too many unanswered questions. So many, in fact, that you can only guess at the motive, the basic sequence of events, where the weapons came from, or how they were used.

How can your conscience deal with knowing there was this kind of information gap, knowing that there was no 'smoking gun' evidence linking either defendant, and knowing you've convinced a jury to convict the defendants?

I think you're beginning to understand why the R's were never convicted. Heck they weren't even tried.

 

[BBB167893]

Wha?? Who asked for a certain answer to every single question? Not me. I think you misunderstood.

Yeah, I did. I'm sorry.

I am simply noting HOW MANY questions that you don't know the answer to with certainty. All those questions and more. With your guilty verdict, you have too many unanswered questions. So many, in fact, that you can only guess at the motive, the basic sequence of events, where the weapons came from, or how they were used.

How can your conscience deal with knowing there was this kind of information gap, knowing that there was no 'smoking gun' evidence linking either defendant, and knowing you've convinced a jury to convict the defendants?

Well, that's just it, HOTYH. To my way of thinking, I didn't convince the jury so much as the evidence I presented did. That was pretty much my point.

But to answer your question, maybe it would bother me. The standard says "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "all doubt." But in the end, I would remind myself that I did what I was chosen by the people to do. I did my best to bring justice to a defenseless victim and restore society's faith in the law. THAT's how.

And just for the record, you can call them guesses if you want, but if I feel I have good reason to go with something, you better believe I will.

I think you're beginning to understand why the R's were never convicted. Heck they weren't even tried.

Oh, I understand PERFECTLY. And you have outlined it better than I could have ever HOPED: because the DA's were more concerned about their consciences than justice. Never mind the victim. We have to dot every i and cross every t so we don't impinge on the rights of the suspects.

Yeah, I understand THAT only too well.

 

[Ravyn]

Why? Does there have to be a smoking gun...Now we have JR very smug with his interview with LS...Telling him he believes JonBenet was killed at 11:30pm that night,now certain things only a killer would know exact time of death...JR knew at this time about the pineapple so why give a time...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Oh, I understand PERFECTLY. And you have outlined it better than I could have ever HOPED: because the DA's were more concerned about their consciences than justice. Never mind the victim. We have to dot every i and cross every t so we don't impinge on the rights of the suspects.

Yeah, I understand THAT only too well.

Who says the DA's were more concerned about their consciences? You? They were in fact concerned about a lack of evidence. Thats according to the news.

Remember all those unanswered questions? Remember no smoking gun evidence? And that was BEFORE the DNA from an unidentified person was found on more than one item of clothing. RDI believes in their own mind that all this can be disregarded and still call it justice.

Thats not justice. Thats irresponsible.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Why? Does there have to be a smoking gun...Now we have JR very smug with his interview with LS...Telling him he believes JonBenet was killed at 11:30pm that night,now certain things only a killer would know exact time of death...JR knew at this time about the pineapple so why give a time...

Yeah, RDI doesn't need smoking gun evidence, doesn't need to answer any of the basic questions with certainty, and can pick and choose which forensic evidence to use.

Riiight. Thats some real justice.