Challenge of the Masters

[BBB167893]

Somebody told somebody about a 'likely match'. Doesn't even say that there WAS a match or not. We should then refer to 'tape fibers likely matching PRs jacket' instead of 'PR jacket fibers were on the tape'. These are two different statements, really.

True enough. When ST left the force, the further forensic analyses that Kane and Levin refer to had not been performed yet.

Sorry, but I don't consider BPD interviews with PR to be a reliable source of information regarding fiber evidence that BPD has or doesn't have.

Except these weren't BPD interviews. That's kind of the point.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi hotyh.

Police stating that PR's fibers were found in the paint tote to PR could've been a scare tctic. - Hotyh

Gee Hotyh,

is that even a possibility?
:waitasec: I guess it is.

I had not entertained that thought, believing that somehow, these 'facts' are legitimized in the process of formal police questioning.

Except it WASN'T police questioning, Tadpole. It was a straightforward statement by a prosecutor who is FORBIDDEN by law from misrepresenting evidence.

 

[Sophie]

Actually, HOTYH, last I heard you were accepting the fibre evidence and speculating that the perp put on Patsy's jacket while in the house. Decide that isn't a plausible scenario, did you? :angel:

TY Dave for the leg work that went into proving that the fibres were there.
As it happens, HOTYH has previously remonstrated with me (and others, I don't doubt) about referring to the fibres as being a match. He has pointed out that - like the cord fibres in JBR's bed - they are just 'consistent' with Patsy's jacket. That being the case, I can't think why he is getting so exercised about it

 

[BBB167893]

TY Dave for the leg work that went into proving that the fibres were there.

It was no trouble at all.

 

[cynic]

HOTYH has come down with a serious case of “deny-it-all-itis.”

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH has come down with a serious case of “deny-it-all-itis.”

More like "deny-what-all-itis". There is no 'it' to 'deny'.

Lets face it, RDI takes tenuous evidence, spins it and then magnifys it. Before long, we're all supposed to believe the DNA was a mix of JR + PR, the RN was written by PR, she smeared her jacket fibers all over everything, and JR is all "OK I'm game, lets make this accident look like a capital murder."

I wonder, why was PR wearing a jacket? Was she cold with all that headbashing, running around up and downstairs, writing fake ransom notes, breaking paintbrushes for unknown reason, and tieing knots?

This is all very ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as someone who was in LE and actually believed, for more than one second, that a resident of the same house would follow a child homicide by putting pen to paper for 350 words.

From my POV, the whole PDI and JR went along for a 'ride' seems a bit tenuous, to say the least.

 

[BBB167893]

Before long, we're all supposed to believe the DNA was a mix of JR + PR, the RN was written by PR, she smeared her jacket fibers all over everything, and JR is all "OK I'm game, lets make this accident look like a capital murder."

Works for me!

I wonder, why was PR wearing a jacket? Was she cold with all that headbashing, running around up and downstairs, writing fake ransom notes, breaking paintbrushes for unknown reason, and tieing knots?

Funny, HOTYH. It wasn't a jacket. It was the red sweater. PR herself confirmed that (whether or not she MEANT to is another issue altogether). Like most men, these interviewers were not very knowledgable when it comes to women's clothing. But the most recent media reports (that I'm aware of) say "sweater."

This is all very ridiculous,

The way you tell it, it is.

but not as ridiculous as someone who was in LE and actually believed, for more than one second, that a resident of the same house would follow a child homicide by putting pen to paper for 350 words.

Gee, I guess it never occurred to anyone that they just MIGHT know what they were talking about...

From my POV, the whole PDI and JR went along for a 'ride' seems a bit tenuous, to say the least.

Yeah, we've pretty much established your take on it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Gee, I guess it never occurred to anyone that they just MIGHT know what they were talking about...

...when it comes to making french fries MAYBE.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi Sophie.

..... accepting the fibre evidence and speculating that the perp put on Patsy's jacket while in the house. - Sophie

Dressed to kill ... *smirk

but I do wonder if PR is said to have the foresight to be gloved .... then why wear the sweater/jacket that sheds? If she is criminal minded enough to be gloved and dispose of evidence? an ommitence on her part?
I suppose.

 

[Ravyn]

Hi Sophie.

..... accepting the fibre evidence and speculating that the perp put on Patsy's jacket while in the house. - Sophie

Dressed to kill ... *smirk

but I do wonder if PR is said to have the foresight to be gloved .... then why wear the sweater/jacket that sheds? If she is criminal minded enough to be gloved and dispose of evidence? an ommitence on her part?
I suppose.

This is why,I can't walk away from JR having done this crime....I mean JR said he took a shower then if anything happen nothing would be found on him...Now about writting the RN now PR most likely done that...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hi Sophie.

..... accepting the fibre evidence and speculating that the perp put on Patsy's jacket while in the house. - Sophie

Dressed to kill ... *smirk

but I do wonder if PR is said to have the foresight to be gloved .... then why wear the sweater/jacket that sheds? If she is criminal minded enough to be gloved and dispose of evidence? an ommitence on her part?
I suppose.

Sample 'wildcard' answers to your question, with no reasoning or logic required!

11.) Everybody makes mistakes.

24.) She was panicked.

37.) Easy for you to think of these things years later.

LOL

 

[Tadpole12]

Sample 'wildcard' answers to your question, with no reasoning or logic required!

11.) Everybody makes mistakes.

24.) She was panicked.

37.) Easy for you to think of these things years later.

LOL

Hi Hotyh

Ah my dear, "I suppose" is a supposition, a consideration.
Your sense of humour is sharp, but not dry.

*giggle

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hi Hotyh

Ah my dear, "I suppose" is a supposition, a consideration.
Your sense of humour is sharp, but not dry.

*giggle

Oh, I was only noting that these types of answers really aren't connected to the question, or of explaining a known phenomenon (e.g. the neck garrote was tied tight while the wrist ligature was loose, contradicting the staging idea and thus raising the question). That is, they make an unsupported claim or generalization (panicked, tired, etc.) and use the claim to attempt to explain a known phenomenon.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi Sophie.

..... accepting the fibre evidence and speculating that the perp put on Patsy's jacket while in the house. - Sophie

Dressed to kill ... *smirk

but I do wonder if PR is said to have the foresight to be gloved .... then why wear the sweater/jacket that sheds? If she is criminal minded enough to be gloved and dispose of evidence? an omittence on her part?
I suppose.

Well, here's how I look at it, Tadpole: nobody thinks of everything. Damn good thing too, because if they did, nobody would ever get caught. It's one thing to know about fingerprints and the really obvious stuff. Any fool knows about them. BUT, not too many people knew about fiber evidence back in 1996. CSI wasn't on yet. Thus, PR might know the form, but not the substance.

I'll ask you the question HOTYH seems to have so much trouble with: just how much knowledge about killing and staging were the Rs supposed to have, anyway?

This assumes of course that JR wasn't setting her up. Perhaps we should revisit the "No Honor Among Thieves" thread.

 

[BBB167893]

Sample 'wildcard' answers to your question, with no reasoning or logic required!

11.) Everybody makes mistakes.

24.) She was panicked.

37.) Easy for you to think of these things years later. LOL

Laugh it up, wiseguy. I'm not in the mood to trade wisecracks; I'm only going to say this once, so EVERYBODY listen up:

They're not "wildcard" answers; they're the answers real cops and real prosecutors use EVERY SINGLE DAY to catch and imprison real killers. Do you know why? Because they're true. Because the greatest criminal is still human. The only way you'll get a perfect crime is with perfect people.

And for ALL of our sakes, we better be DAMN glad that criminals DO make mistakes and DO panic and DON'T think of everything! Because otherwise, none of them would ever get caught.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Laugh it up, wiseguy. I'm not in the mood to trade wisecracks; I'm only going to say this once, so EVERYBODY listen up:

They're not "wildcard" answers; they're the answers real cops and real prosecutors use EVERY SINGLE DAY to catch and imprison real killers. Do you know why? Because they're true. Because the greatest criminal is still human. The only way you'll get a perfect crime is with perfect people.

And for ALL of our sakes, we better be DAMN glad that criminals DO make mistakes and DO panic and DON'T think of everything! Because otherwise, none of them would ever get caught.

None of us know if the killer made mistakes, panicked, or didn't think of everything. In all your wisdom and knowledge, you might be able to say the ransom note author misspelled business and that was a mistake. There were mistakes crossed out on the ransom note also. If you want to catch this criminal, maybe you should consider analyzing these mistakes further. AT LEAST THEN YOU'LL BE FULLY WITHIN THE FACTS. PR writing the note is no fact, PR killing her daughter is no fact, and JR helping her is no fact. They're only ideas.

I'm pretty sure RDI claims are more important than catching the criminal, and that leaves most of us blind.

 

[BBB167893]

None of us know if the killer made mistakes, panicked, or didn't think of everything.

Like I said, the only way you can have a perfect crime is with perfect people. We haven't quite reached that level as a species yet.

In all your wisdom and knowledge, you might be able to say the ransom note author misspelled business and that was a mistake. There were mistakes crossed out on the ransom note also.

Right.

If you want to catch this criminal, maybe you should consider analyzing these mistakes further.

What do you mean "if?" And I have analyzed them.

AT LEAST THEN YOU'LL BE FULLY WITHIN THE FACTS.

Okay.

PR writing the note is no fact, PR killing her daughter is no fact, and JR helping her is no fact. They're only ideas.

Pretty solid ones, for what my opinion's worth.

I'm pretty sure RDI claims are more important than catching the criminal, and that leaves most of us blind.

THAT was over the line.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm perfect.....

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm perfect.....

In what way?

 

[Tadpole12]

In what way?

In every way.