For IDI's: What is the Evidence of an Intruder?

"If one is willing to accept the secondary transfer of the DNA from her panties to under her fingernails that potentially originated from a factory workers sneeze half a world away, one would think one would consider the secondary transfer from fibers, also."

Well, I would, if not for the fact that:

1) They were in places and on things that Patsy and John said they had never been and never saw before.

2) Their stories about the innocent transfer of fibers weren't so easily proven false.

julianne, you and I have some unfinished business. (And I don't mean that in any negative way, in case you're wondering.)
 
SuperDave said:
"
julianne, you and I have some unfinished business. (And I don't mean that in any negative way, in case you're wondering.)
:D Shall we finish? Not sure what you're referring to, but I do so hate to leave anything unfinished, so whenever you're ready....
 
SuperDave,

By the way, I was replying to a post of yours earlier and my laptop battery died so I lost it. Ha ha, I lost my post, not lost "it".

You posted that when Patsy Ramsey was asked if she killed her daughter, she said "no" but was nodding "yes" at the time.

Now you KNOW I want a link to something that supports that. Don't link me to a National Enquirer article, either. I tend not to hold anything printed in tabloids as fact, regardless of where they say they are obtaining their info.

Not that you have ever used an Enquirer article to back up a post, but it's been done....
 
"You posted that when Patsy Ramsey was asked if she killed her daughter, she said 'no' but was nodding 'yes' at the time."

Yes, I did.

"Now you KNOW I want a link to something that supports that. Don't link me to a National Enquirer article, either. I tend not to hold anything printed in tabloids as fact, regardless of where they say they are obtaining their info."

No problem!

This was an approximately 34-minute documentary that was compiled from the videotaped depositions in the civil case. I'm pretty sure Det. Trujillo has a copy, as does Rick French. You might be able to find it on ebay.

As for our unfinished business:

Some while ago, you asked (forgive me if I don't recall the exact words you used) why the DA didn't file charges if there was so much evidence against the Ramseys. I put a lot of effort into answering that one.

Remember?

To your credit, you did respond to it. You even seemed (maybe I was just hoping) to agree with it. But then, you asked why no charges were filed when the new DA came on board.

As I and several other posters pointed out, the new (current) DA was not really "new." She'd been part of the DA's office since 1998 and as far back as that time, she'd been a die-hard pro-Ramsey person.

That's not a characterization, either. I can PROVE that.

But you didn't respond to that one. I've been very curious as to why.

Admittedly, I had my doubts as to whether or not it would make a difference, but it's the principle of the thing: I put a LOT of effort into indulging your request. I'd HATE to think I wasted it!
 
SuperDave said:
"You posted that when Patsy Ramsey was asked if she killed her daughter, she said 'no' but was nodding 'yes' at the time."

Yes, I did.

"Now you KNOW I want a link to something that supports that. Don't link me to a National Enquirer article, either. I tend not to hold anything printed in tabloids as fact, regardless of where they say they are obtaining their info."

No problem!

This was an approximately 34-minute documentary that was compiled from the videotaped depositions in the civil case. I'm pretty sure Det. Trujillo has a copy, as does Rick French. You might be able to find it on ebay.

As for our unfinished business:

Some while ago, you asked (forgive me if I don't recall the exact words you used) why the DA didn't file charges if there was so much evidence against the Ramseys. I put a lot of effort into answering that one.

Remember?

To your credit, you did respond to it. You even seemed (maybe I was just hoping) to agree with it. But then, you asked why no charges were filed when the new DA came on board.

As I and several other posters pointed out, the new (current) DA was not really "new." She'd been part of the DA's office since 1998 and as far back as that time, she'd been a die-hard pro-Ramsey person.

That's not a characterization, either. I can PROVE that.

But you didn't respond to that one. I've been very curious as to why.

Admittedly, I had my doubts as to whether or not it would make a difference, but it's the principle of the thing: I put a LOT of effort into indulging your request. I'd HATE to think I wasted it!
Yes, I do remember, and I didn't realize that I didn't respond to that. Sorry! I get befuddled myself when my posts aren't answered, which is most of the time, ha ha....but on to the question & my answer, which probably won't satisfy you because in all honesty, it isn't really satisfying to me but it's all I've got.

As far as the "new" DA not really being new---Well, you learn something new every day. I didn't know that she was actually a part of the DA's office since 1998. So basically what you are saying is that she had been a player in the pro-IDI office of the DA prior to her becoming the head honcho, so there was no way she would file charges. I see your point. However, I think that theory may hold more water if she had been a part of the DA's office in 1996, or 1997--closer to when the crime occurred. I mean, regardless of the Karr fiasco and the major role she played in that, she is an educated woman ( I'm acknowledging that I'm walking right into that one, so don't flame ) who I am sure had her opinions on this case well before she came on board. Isn't that possible?

Scenario A--She comes on board to the DA's office already thinking the Ramseys are innocent. Do you really think that if she saw evidence that convinced her of their guilt, that she would still publicy put out the perception that she thinks their innocent?

Scenario B--She comes on board to the DA's office already thinking the Ramsey's are guilty. Do you really think that she she saw evidence that convinced her of their innocence, that she would still publicy put out the perception that she thinks their guilty?

I don't know if they above makes sense----it just seems to me that if the key players, those who are closest to the real evidence in this case and those who have the ability to file these charges, the DA, thought they were in fact guilty, then they would have prosecuted. That seems so much more logical to me than going with theory that can aptly be named the "popularity contest." Meaning that I don't think she would just go along with the other DA & his cronies just to be in with the in crowd and go with the presumption of innocence just because that's the way it's been. What would the reasoning behind that be? What would be in it for her? If there was enough evidence to prosecute the Ramsey's, and the DA had full knowledge of that, don't you think that charges of obstruction of justice could be levied against her and all those responsible for obstructing that justice?

Just a thought--I don't proclaim to be right because I have been wrong before, once back in 1986:D Just kidding, seriously, though, I honestly think that there are convincing arguments for both sides, but I lean quite a bit more heavily towards IDI.

Before posters start furiously tapping away at their keyboards to tell me all the reasons why I am wrong and how you cannot possibly understand my view and how I obviously don't know the case, I say it's just a message board, take a deep breath and don't get your panties in a bunch. As I've said before, I don't have all the answers and neither does anyone on this board. All we have are our opinions, and each one of us has a right to post it w/o being castigated because it doesn't match others opinions. This is not directed at you, SuperDave, because that's not how you roll.:D
 
I'm a FS too, Irishmist but here goes an attempt to answer the Q.

Evidence? Some of it wasn't in Boulder. The Charlevoix people saying John was being badmouthed by a loiterer there, and the tabloid reporting the boatman story in Waterford, Mi. near Pontiac and the walker that the Barnhills saw that late afternoon, all are evidence that something was afoot, imho. ( I wouldn't necessarily believe the tabloid report but it's possible. ) And a university student's art work that was insulting to the dead child had to be taken down. There had been plenty of talk about her. And some of "the friends" had been planning to talk to Patsy after Christmas.

The "staging and staging within staging" pointing to first one Ramsey and then another also are, I feel, evidence. They wouldn't stage the scene to point to themselves.

Then there's the DNA. I don't believe in coincidences either, SD. It'd gradually wear off the worker's hand if he'd sneezed or coughed into it, not get on all the pairs of undies destined by NYC. Seems like just too much of a stretch. Nobody can estimate any odds of that happening. I've asked.
 
There's another option, Julianne. She could have been a fence sitter, and then after working with her IDI/Pro-Ramsey coworkers for awhile, she got off the fence and landed firmly in the IDI camp.

I wonder this because if I read a board that has a pro or anti slant, I end up leaving said board thinking along the lines that they do... am I being clear?
 
IrishMist said:
There's another option, Julianne. She could have been a fence sitter, and then after working with her IDI/Pro-Ramsey coworkers for awhile, she got off the fence and landed firmly in the IDI camp.

I wonder this because if I read a board that has a pro or anti slant, I end up leaving said board thinking along the lines that they do... am I being clear?
You're right, IrishMist. I completely left the fence sitter scenario out--:doh: oops

Well, this board definitely has a pro RDI slant, and I haven't crossed over yet.
 
"Well, this board definitely has a pro RDI slant, and I haven't crossed over yet."

(As the Emperor): You underestimate the power of the dark side!

"As far as the 'new' DA not really being new---Well, you learn something new every day. I didn't know that she was actually a part of the DA's office since 1998."

She was indeed.

"So basically what you are saying is that she had been a player in the pro-IDI office of the DA prior to her becoming the head honcho, so there was no way she would file charges. I see your point."

Glad to hear it. Yeah, I guess I was saying that.

"However, I think that theory may hold more water if she had been a part of the DA's office in 1996, or 1997--closer to when the crime occurred."

She might have been, julianne! I'm not sure. I'll have to go back and check, okay?

"I mean, regardless of the Karr fiasco and the major role she played in that, she is an educated woman ( I'm acknowledging that I'm walking right into that one, so don't flame ) who I am sure had her opinions on this case well before she came on board. Isn't that possible?"

Educated? Yes, but this is a woman who, in the wake of the Karr fiasco, admitted that she really doesn't know much about criminal procedure. That's from her OWN mouth! Julianne, you're an intelligent person. I can tell that. That's why I would think you'd be more mindful of the difference between "knowledge" and "wisdom."

I suppose it is possible. Never gave it much thought. My assumption was that Hunter filled her head with all of his "They didn't do it" business.

"Scenario A--She comes on board to the DA's office already thinking the Ramseys are innocent. Do you really think that if she saw evidence that convinced her of their guilt, that she would still publicy put out the perception that she thinks their innocent?"

Well, it's funny you should mention that, because in the summer of 2003, when she had taken the case away from the police, Michael Kane, the man who ran the Grand Jury, said, IN PUBLIC, ON TV, before millions of people, that it was clear to him that she was not reading the case file. You can imagine my surprise, not to mention OUTRAGE, when I heard that. Also, she never even TRIED to talk to Kane himself, or the chief of police.

"I don't know if they above makes sense----it just seems to me that if the key players, those who are closest to the real evidence in this case and those who have the ability to file these charges, the DA, thought they were in fact guilty, then they would have prosecuted."

Well, if you read the various books and articles concerning this case, you start to see a theme, and that theme is that the people in the DA's office NEVER even considered with any seriousness that the Ramseys did it. So, I guess that answers your point best it can.

"That seems so much more logical to me than going with theory that can aptly be named the 'popularity contest.' Meaning that I don't think she would just go along with the other DA & his cronies just to be in with the in crowd and go with the presumption of innocence just because that's the way it's been."

Loyalty can be a powerful thing. I know. I can't tell you how many times I've been backstabbed by people I thought were my friends.

"If there was enough evidence to prosecute the Ramsey's, and the DA had full knowledge of that, don't you think that charges of obstruction of justice could be levied against her and all those responsible for obstructing that justice?"

Well, there seems to be a movement now to do exactly that, julianne! Call it hubris if you like, but a letter of complaint to the American Bar Association is in the works right now!

"The 'staging and staging within staging' pointing to first one Ramsey and then another also are, I feel, evidence. They wouldn't stage the scene to point to themselves."

They didn't Eagle1. Everything in that staging is designed to point away from them. The fact that it didn't is due to a layperson's lack of know-how, not conscious planning. You can ask CASKU if you don't believe me. I know it was worth my postage stamp!

"Then there's the DNA. I don't believe in coincidences either, SD. It'd gradually wear off the worker's hand if he'd sneezed or coughed into it, not get on all the pairs of undies destined by NYC. Seems like just too much of a stretch. Nobody can estimate any odds of that happening. I've asked."

Then how DID it get on all those other pairs? What I mean is, if you've ever seen how these third-world factories work, it's basically a human corral, everyone rooting around, all cramped like. It's not a big stretch once you know that.

"There's another option, Julianne. She could have been a fence sitter, and then after working with her IDI/Pro-Ramsey coworkers for awhile, she got off the fence and landed firmly in the IDI camp."

Mark Fuhrman was on "Hannity & Colmes" in the wake of the "Karr Wreck." (I can't take credit for that one!) He said essentially the same thing.

Not only that, but he was harshly critical of her being so wedded to the intruder theory that she only hired people who also believed in it.

To julianne: it always struck me as hypocritical that, one the one hand, she took the case away from the police because (She SAID) they were biased, then she goes out and hires people who are TOTALLY biased, just the other way! I'm not the only person to make that observation, either!

There was one other thing about that: earlier this year, Tom Bennett, her chief investigator, left the investigation and was replaced by Jim Kolar. But for some reason, Kolar seemed to be cut out of the loop. When the Ramseys visited the DA's office in February, Kolar claimed that he'd never even been told they were coming! He never got a chance to speak with them. Three months later, he was gone and Bennett was back.

Now, and I'm just spitballing, you have to wonder just what it was that Kolar did or didn't do that put him on the outs. Maybe he read the file and came to the one conclusion the DA wasn't interested in hearing? Just hypothetical, you understand.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
155
Guests online
648
Total visitors
803

Forum statistics

Threads
626,010
Messages
18,515,512
Members
240,890
Latest member
MetaGon
Back
Top