Simple question...

[BBB167893]

Mary oh Mary,yes.
I just love to quote Tracey,he and his big mouth,doing nothing but actually exposing the RST bs.

http://millsproductions.co.uk/jonbenet-ramsey/resources/script4_eviltwist.doc

JOHN RAMSEY V/O

Our objective almost from the beginning was to get the case moved out of the Boulder Police hands. They were grossly incompetent.

JOHN RAMSEY SYNC

So when Mary took the case over, took it directly, we were thrilled. .



So this is the Mary we should trust eh?

Madeleine, I've got a GREAT follow-up to this, so I invite everyone to join me at the "Rs are innocent" thread. All shall be made clear.

 

[BBB167893]

http://millsproductions.co.uk/jonbenet-ramsey/resources/script4_eviltwist.doc

Mary Lacy was ridiculed and made fun of

JOHN RAMSEY SYNC

And that that was sad. It was just sad. Because she did the right thing and was horribly criticized for that. And it just showed me that the people doing the criticizing had no perspective of what should be done in that situation.



Oh really...sniff sniff

Yes, it would move me to tears, if I still HAD tears to shed.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm convinced that a GOOD prosecutor (underline GOOD) could have gotten a conviction in this case. No doubt in my mind.

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.

Now, maybe your conscious 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?

 

[BOESP]

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.

Now, maybe your conscious 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?

I'm still waiting for you to tell us the directions the Grand Jury was charged with since you've said the Grand Jury didn't indict the Ramseys because they are innocent (or words to that effect).

Science indicates the high probability JonBenet suffered a low velocity/high pressure blunt trauma, i.e. she was the moving object and she hit an immovable object.

I think Steve Thomas answered most of your questions in his book. You might want to read, or re-read, it. Knowing what S.B.T.C. means is no more useful to finding the killer than knowing what BTK meant.

Most, if not all, of your questions have been satisfactorily answered already. Just search the archives.

 

[DeeDee249]

No one can answer WHY to many of those questions. Only the perp knows WHY. We may never know WHY. But I hope one day we will know WHO.

 

[Ripley007]

That would be me.

Patsy wrote the note.

Holy crapola DeeDee. When I first read this post, I would have SWORN that they were talking about Me!!! I am like a broken record here. Stating with confiedence that PATSY WROTE THE RANDSOM NOTE!!! (Duh, and Cased Closed!)
If you are of like mind, you are my new best friend here at WebSleuths. HIGH FIVE sister!!!

 

[Ripley007]

I'm still waiting for you to tell us the directions the Grand Jury was charged with since you've said the Grand Jury didn't indict the Ramseys because they are innocent (or words to that effect).

Science indicates the high probability JonBenet suffered a low velocity/high pressure blunt trauma, i.e. she was the moving object and she hit an immovable object.

I think Steve Thomas answered most of your questions in his book. You might want to read, or re-read, it. Knowing what S.B.T.C. means is no more useful to finding the killer than knowing what BTK meant.

Most, if not all, of your questions have been satisfactorily answered already. Just search the archives.

Bold by me.
That's right. SHE was the moving object and she hit an IMMOVABLE" object (ie-the side of the bathtub).
Had Patsy not have been sleep deprived (up late to "play Santa" for her children 12/24) with the promise of MORE sleep deprivation in her immediate future (the alarm set for 5 am 12/26) JonBenet might still be alive.
IMHO this case is the poster child for parents of bedwetters (what NOT to do, lol).

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm still waiting for you to tell us the directions the Grand Jury was charged with since you've said the Grand Jury didn't indict the Ramseys because they are innocent (or words to that effect).

Science indicates the high probability JonBenet suffered a low velocity/high pressure blunt trauma, i.e. she was the moving object and she hit an immovable object.

I think Steve Thomas answered most of your questions in his book. You might want to read, or re-read, it. Knowing what S.B.T.C. means is no more useful to finding the killer than knowing what BTK meant.

Most, if not all, of your questions have been satisfactorily answered already. Just search the archives.

1. Steve Thomas and the archives can answer the questions but the answers are not known to be right. Reread the questions, you don't know the answer with certainty to any of them.
2. There is no 'science' that has concluded JBR hit an immovable object. That is pure conjecture, like 'saying stuff'.
3. I wasn't in the room for the GJ's instructions, therefore I can't characterize them. I only hear what I read in the papers. Granted I take that with a grain of salt, but it is still how most of us amateurs learn. I'm not quite ready to completely disregard the news, as RDI has.

 

[BOESP]

1. Steve Thomas and the archives can answer the questions but the answers are not known to be right. Reread the questions, you don't know the answer with certainty to any of them.
2. There is no 'science' that has concluded JBR hit an immovable object. That is pure conjecture, like 'saying stuff'.
3. I wasn't in the room for the GJ's instructions, therefore I can't characterize them. I only hear what I read in the papers. Granted I take that with a grain of salt, but it is still how most of us amateurs learn. I'm not quite ready to completely disregard the news, as RDI has.

1. Steve Thomas was one of the detectives assigned to the case thus his opinion carries more weight in my book. Just as you don't seem to require Mary Lacy to be 100% correct in her assessments in order to be believable, neither does Thomas have to be.

2. Yes, indeed, science does indicate a low velocity/high pressure trauma. It's up to you to study the wound if you want a good lead on how such wounds develop.

3. Please, then, don't argue with me about expressing my opinion if you are expressing Ramsey innocence based on what you've read in the papers. The sweeping generalizations, e.g. "completely disregard the news, as RDI has" doesn't help your arguments either.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

1. Steve Thomas was one of the detectives assigned to the case thus his opinion carries more weight in my book. Just as you don't seem to require Mary Lacy to be 100% correct in her assessments in order to be believable, neither does Thomas have to be.

2. Yes, indeed, science does indicate a low velocity/high pressure trauma. It's up to you to study the wound if you want a good lead on how such wounds develop.

3. Please, then, don't argue with me about expressing my opinion if you are expressing Ramsey innocence based on what you've read in the papers. The sweeping generalizations, e.g. "completely disregard the news, as RDI has" doesn't help your arguments either.

I don't know if you're missing the point or obfuscating the point, but here it is once more in case you missed it:

A hypothetical trial just ended with famed prosecutor SuperDave winning over the jury based on circumstantial evidence. A nice feat.

I am saying that here and now, there are a lot of questions that can not be answered with certainty. So many questions, in fact, that key elements of the crime cannot be reconstructed with a known degree of accuracy.

If I were that prosecutor, my conscious would be asking me all of those questions and more, because my conscious would want to KNOW, not merely believe or think or have an opinion.

BTW you don't know if JBR hit an object or was hit by the object. And I know you don't know because nobody knows.

 

[Linda7NJ]

sniped
BTW you don't know if JBR hit an object or was hit by the object. And I know you don't know because nobody knows.

Personally, It doesn't matter if she struck an object or was struck by an object to me.

 

[cynic]

I don't know if you're missing the point or obfuscating the point, but here it is once more in case you missed it:

A hypothetical trial just ended with famed prosecutor SuperDave winning over the jury based on circumstantial evidence. A nice feat.

I am saying that here and now, there are a lot of questions that can not be answered with certainty. So many questions, in fact, that key elements of the crime cannot be reconstructed with a known degree of accuracy.

If I were that prosecutor, my conscious would be asking me all of those questions and more, because my conscious would want to KNOW, not merely believe or think or have an opinion.

BTW you don't know if JBR hit an object or was hit by the object. And I know you don't know because nobody knows.

Since when are all questions answered, and the crime perfectly reconstructed during a trial?
Let’s look at the following example:
A man killed his wife.
Her body was never found.
The murder weapon was never found.
The prosecution case hinged on the defendant’s behavior subsequent to the crime and extremely minimal blood spots that were almost overlooked by investigators.

How did he kill his wife? Prosecution answer: Who knows?
What weapon did he use to kill his wife? Prosecution answer: Who knows?
When precisely did he kill his wife? Prosecution answer: Who knows?
Where is the body? Prosecution answer: Who knows?
Does the prosecution need to know the answers? No.
Would the prosecution need to answer every possible question in the JBR case? No.

You present your case in a manner that demonstrates the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that’s all that needs to be done.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBO8zNh4-X4[/ame]

The full episode is here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/48hours/full_episodes/?tag=bc

 

[cynic]

...and to hell with whether or not he really did it?

She came and went independent of him because she was seeing other men, and the detective wants to know why he doesn't check up on her? Maybe you should read up on this some more because this man is not known to be guilty. He did not confess, only a prosecutor convinced a jury.

The case WAS overturned at one point because a strange man was seen arguing with the victim.

There is a lot that is not known in this case also.

He's guilty. (Found guilty twice.)
My point is that the standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not all doubt.
There are countless trials where there are numerous unanswered questions following the verdict

 

[cynic]

...and to hell with whether or not the defendant did it. Now thats prosecution 101 alright.

The prosecutor's conscience is asking a lot of questions here too. The defendant's guilt was never really demonstrated. The jury was instead convinced to assume that the defendant did it, and shown that it should be a safe assumption. Hardly a desirable outcome. This is somewhat different than demonstrating the defendant's guilt.

This and JBR is apples and oranges, isn't it though? We're given the most evidence ever assembled in a murder case and many basic questions are still guesswork. Oh yeah, instead of blood spots on the floor there is DNA mixed with JBR's blood on the panties and matching DNA in two locations on the longjohns. Would this same jury acquit JR and PR because they can assume the DNA belongs to her assailant?? If the blood trace was key in that trial then the DNA should be key here.

Does the prosecution need to know the answers? Uh, yes.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of DNA if that is what you believe. The only DNA from blood in the JBR case is from JonBenet only.
We have argued this at considerable length before.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of DNA if that is what yiou believe. The only DNA from blood in the JBR case is from JonBenet only.
We have argued this at considerable length before.

Maybe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this case, at least as far as the DNA is concerned.

Unknown male DNA was found mixed with JBR's blood on her underwear. I didn't make that up. This DNA matches DNA found in two locations on her longjohns, according to the news. I suppose next you'll tell me to disregard the news reports on the case that aren't RDI?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

He's guilty. (Found guilty twice.)

You declaring him guilty, stating it as fact, doesn't mean he did it. He was found guilty twice because the first ruling was overturned when a witness came forward and said she was seen arguing with an unknown male just before she disappeared.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Since when are all questions answered, and the crime perfectly reconstructed during a trial?

I don't remember asking for 'all' questions to be answered and the crime to be 'perfectly' reconstructed. Whats your point? I think you put words in my mouth.

My point is a prosecutor can't even roughly reconstruct the crime or answer a few core questions. Not only that, unlike Harris case there is no motive except for RDI imagined ones, and they called 911 even before they had to.

 

[slug]

tbh all motives in this case are just speculation without a definate perpertrater.
I have read reasonable motives for both RDI and IDI but not one is gonna be proved until the person resopsible say i did it or there is evidence enough for the police to actually arrest a viable suspect.
IMO

 

[cynic]

Maybe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this case, at least as far as the DNA is concerned.

Unknown male DNA was found mixed with JBR's blood on her underwear. I didn't make that up. This DNA matches DNA found in two locations on her longjohns, according to the news. I suppose next you'll tell me to disregard the news reports on the case that aren't RDI?

HOTYH, feel free to loudly proclaim the value of the skin cell based DNA in the JBR case, but in reality it has only the same probative value as hair and fiber.

Strengths and Weaknesses
-CBI Laboratory Agent Schleicher

First, "touch DNA," like standard DNA and fingerprints for that matter, doesn't tell the investigator when the DNA was left on the evidence. It could have been left an hour ago or a week ago. Of course the investigator may be able to narrow down the time range based on certain facts of the particular case.

An example is a suspect's baseball cap left behind at a murder scene. The lab swabs the inside and outside of the hat. A DNA profile from two individuals is developed. Even if there's more DNA from one contributor than the other, you still can't say who was wearing the hat at the time of the murder.

Also, "touch DNA" is so sensitive that it's possible to pick up background DNA. For example, if a shirt is made by hand, then someone has touched the shirt even before it's packaged and sold. It's possible "touch DNA" could liberate these skin cells from the evidence, even though this person has nothing to do with the investigation.

And of course, "touch DNA" doesn't tell the investigator how the DNA made its way onto an item.It doesn't provide the culpable mental state of the individual that committed the crime.

It's up to the lawyers to argue whether the "touch DNA" is the result of a casual contact, or from the suspect forcefully grabbing the victim's shirt. The bottom line is that good police work is necessary to piece together the events surrounding the commission of the crime.

Schleicher wants agencies to be aware of the power and limitations of the technology. Agencies need to clearly understand the questions they want answered. Why is this piece of evidence important? What will it tell me about the commission of the crime? Law enforcement agencies just need to be prepared for the answers, even if the answers aren't what they were expecting.

http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Tec...t-a-Touch.aspx

I am familiar with "Touch DNA" and limitations to this technique which includes the following:
a. No body fluid has been identified for the samples tested. If a DNA profile is identified in a "touch" or "contact" area, the result may be from an individual with no relation to the crime.
b. The samples are limited imposing some technical limitations. A negative result could mean that an individual did not contact the item tested. A negative result could also mean too few cells were collected. The ISPR&D laboratory has shown that individuals shed cells with typable DNA at varied rates; absence of a results may not indicate absence of contact.
c. The presence of a high level of one DNA profile could also result in missing low level results
http://cspl.uis.edu/ILLAPS/Service/D...teResponse.pdf



Many posters have provided superb explanations for how the DNA evidence may have been deposited in this case. (Hopefully DeeDee will forgive me for copying her post from:http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21032&page=6 )

“I can only imagine how the "rival" pageant moms viewed Patsy and JB. I had read that some moms used to pull their daughters out of a pageant if JB was entered. But I do not believe this crime was committed by a rival mom or someone they hired. Why? Because there is absolutely NO evidence that anyone other than the three other residents that lived there were in the house that night. I completely discount the foreign DNA on her clothes for the simple reason that it is not found anywhere else at the scene. Gloves? Taking them on and off repeatedly for different activities during the same crime just isn't reasonable. There isn't a print, hair or fiber belonging to any one else other than a parent on her body. There are ONLY fibers (on the body, tape, cord and panties) and hair (Patsy's forearm hair on the blanket) belonging to the parents.
This crime may be unique in some ways, but there are some forensic certainties that apply to ALL crimes, even this one: There is always an exchange of forensic evidence. Always. Something is taken FROM the crime scene (hair, fiber, DNA) and something is left from the perp. Hair, fiber, DNA. The fact that the DNA alone is left and there are NO foreign hairs or fibers found on her tells me that the DNA was likely not part of the crime. Especially as it was skin cells, which are easily shed by everyone every day. The Rs were at a party that day. Lots of hand-shaking, hugging. Touching doorknobs, utensils, glasses. Other people and other people's things. Even other people's clothes (sleeves, etc) as happens in any social situation. JB was playing with other kids' toys. That male DNA is simply "male" it is not "adult male". It could have belonged to any little boy at that party. If JB touched them or anything they touched and then pulled her own longjohns and panties up or down without washing her hands, that could be exactly how those skin cells got there. I have seen lists of who gave DNA samples, but I have not seen where the young male party guests who were children at the time were ever matched to the new "touch DNA". Why hasn't it been done? The infamous suitcase- let's test that handle, if Smit is so certain it was used by an intruder to climb up the wall or to stuff JB inside (he actually said this) then let's test for a match. So far, the only things in that suitcase are a comforter belonging to JAR, stained with his semen, and a children's book. For those who suggest that the children's book and blanket were JAR's childhood items, stored in there- I say this- the suitcase was said to be used by JAR to go back and forth to college and the comforter was from his dorm room. If the items were from his childhood, how did his semen get on it? Early puberty? Somehow the children's book and ejaculation don't match up. Odd to take a children's book to college.
Yet fibers and hairs belonging to NO ONE EXCEPT THE PARENTS are found anywhere on the body, the wineceller or anywhere else related to the crime- the bowl of pineapple, the glass, spoon. ALL have prints from a family member.
Yet we do not see where that same "touch DNA" testing was applied to the tape and garrote, two things DIRECTLY related to the crime and her death. Wonder why that is? Yet, Lacy loudly proclaims the innocence of the parents based on the skin cells found on her clothing, completely ignoring the FACT that fibers belonging to the parents are found on their child's dead body and on things associated with her death.
Show me a match to the tape, cord, to that clothing DNA and I'll move a bit closer to the other side.
We won't see those things tested. Because the DA's office and the defense attorneys probably already know what's there.”

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, feel free to loudly proclaim the value of the skin cell based DNA in the JBR case, but in reality it has only the same probative value as hair and fiber.

Consider the value of skin cell based DNA loudly proclaimed.

First, "touch DNA," like standard DNA and fingerprints for that matter, doesn't tell the investigator when the DNA was left on the evidence. It could have been left an hour ago or a week ago. Of course the investigator may be able to narrow down the time range based on certain facts of the particular case.

It DOES tell the investigator when, because I read that touch DNA testing is really hard to do on clothing after its been simply run thru the laundry. That indicates the touch DNA is PROBABLY FRESH. Corroborating the claim that the touch DNA is probably fresh is the fact that the underwear DNA was only found in a blood stain. That DNA was probably transported there by the blood. That DNA was probably in solution with the blood.

With respect to the idea that the DNA was not found on any other item except JBR's clothing, I wasn't aware of a 'free pass' rule, where if an item of evidence is found, but is not adequately distributed, then it gets a pass.

Thats just absurd.

As you can see, the touch DNA is fragile, and the underwear DNA is in solution with JBR's blood. These DNA are probably from two different types of cells and yet the DNA matches. It truly was a profound development in the case, and resulted in an exhoneration letter that the DA was not even obligated to do.