Has Any Ramsey Defender Ever Given an Explanation for the Pineapple?

[luvbeaches]

I get the succinct feeling Wudge likes to see murderers walk.

LOL...I agree. I'm always intrigued by posters that try and explain every discrepancy or questionable act away. And that's fine...this is a forum and we're all entitled to our opinions, but I can't honestly see how anyone can't question a lot of things that the Ramsey's have said and done.

Me thinks it's just a game for some (not saying this is what this particular poster is doing) and has nothing to do with the crime or justice for the guilty party. You say black, they say white...you say white, they say black.

 

[daffodil]

I support the use of properly tested DNA to exclude people. It's reasonable to do that, and Courts recognize that fact. Therefore, those people in this case who have been excluded on the basis of DNA can logically be excluded from having left the DNA that was found in JonBenet's blood smear on her underpants. Since that DNA excludes all of the Ramseys, the entire family is logically cleared.

It could be argued that there were two intruders. If so, one intruder could have left their DNA while the other intruder did not.

It could also be argued that one or more of the Ramseys invited someone in to molest JonBenet. I have seen that argued. To say the least, that is not, in any way, reasonable in my mind.

Maybe cleared by ONE piece of evidence.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The Kidnapper rules are every bit as logical as the 'such nice parents would never kill their kid' rule.


The RN is what tells you the OBJECT of the game.... it's not our 'rules' we are going by it's the kidnapper's OWN rules that are being laid out.

Demand money. Kidnap kid.

No it isn't.

The RN is simply what the perp wants the reader(s) to read and a given time.

Maybe you should read up on a coupld of other cases. Don't miss Leopold & Loeb or if you've never heard of that one, try 'crime of the century'. You'll learn that criminals aren't automatically honest in their writings when it comes to their motives, as you seem to believe.

 

[Wudge]

Handwriting,DNA,palm prints.......

titcr

 

[LI_Mom]

I support the use of properly tested DNA to exclude people. It's reasonable to do that, and Courts recognize that fact. Therefore, those people in this case who have been excluded on the basis of DNA can logically be excluded from having left the DNA that was found in JonBenet's blood smear on her underpants. Since that DNA excludes all of the Ramseys, the entire family is logically cleared.

It could be argued that there were two intruders. If so, one intruder could have left their DNA while the other intruder did not.

It could also be argued that one or more of the Ramseys invited someone in to molest JonBenet. I have seen that argued. To say the least, that is not, in any way, reasonable in my mind.

AND it can be argued that the DNA has nothing to do with the case....

it IS possible that it's innocent dna that JB picked up playing & transferred to her own body when she wiped or maybe scratched her own genitals. And it's NOT impossible that she could touch her own longjohns either.

Why won't they at least try to rule out that possibility???? Test all the people KNOWN to have contact with the victim. This is a 6 year old child with very limited contacts... not some adult who has been out & around town at various unknown locations.

 

[Medea]

No it isn't.

The RN is simply what the perp wants the reader(s) to read and a given time.

Maybe you should read up on a coupld of other cases. Don't miss Leopold & Loeb or if you've never heard of that one, try 'crime of the century'. You'll learn that criminals aren't automatically honest in their writings when it comes to their motives, as you seem to believe.

Why would the perp leave a ransom note when the kidnap victim was still in the house? The presence of the victim's body is clear evidence that no kidnapping took place.

I suggest you read up on the Lindbergh kidnapping, where the kidnappers did accidentally kill the child, but took the body and attempted to still get the money. See, that's how a kidnapping for ransom goes.

A kidnapper who accidentally kills his victim is either going to call it a day and slink back out, or leave the note and take the victim in the hopes of getting paid.

 

[Wudge]

AND it can be argued that the DNA has nothing to do with the case....

it IS possible that it's innocent dna that JB picked up playing & transferred to her own body when she wiped or maybe scratched her own genitals. And it's NOT impossible that she could touch her own longjohns either.

Why won't they at least try to rule out that possibility???? Test all the people KNOWN to have contact with the victim. This is a 6 year old child with very limited contacts... not some adult who has been out & around town at various unknown locations.

They found the same DNA on two different item of clothing and in three different places. Moreover, one of those places had that DNA mixed with JonBenet's blood inside her underwear on the very night that she was sexually molested and murdered.

Courts deal in probabilities, not possibilities.

 

[LI_Mom]

No it isn't.

The RN is simply what the perp wants the reader(s) to read and a given time.

Maybe you should read up on a coupld of other cases. Don't miss Leopold & Loeb or if you've never heard of that one, try 'crime of the century'. You'll learn that criminals aren't automatically honest in their writings when it comes to their motives, as you seem to believe.

A time for WHAT?

 

[Medea]

They found the same DNA on two different item of clothing and in three different places. Moreover, one of those places had that DNA mixed with JonBenet's blood inside her underwear on the very night that he was sexually molested and murdered.

Courts deal in probabilities, not possibilities.

The DNA from the longjohns is skin cells, the DNA from the panties has never been sourced to my knowledge other than to say its not blood or semen, it has never been said to be saliva....so my conclusion is that its also DNA from skin cells or could not be sourced.

My opinion is that if the DNA evidence on John Doe was the only evidence of John Doe's involvement in the crime and John Doe could provide an alternative explanation such as having been in the Ramsey house previously or having been in casual contact with JonBenet earlier that you would NEVER, NEVER consider this sufficient evidence for a conviction.

What you are interested in is finding ways for named suspects to be exonerated, as long as its a 'stranger did it' you are comfortable but as soon as the 'stranger' has a name, you are going to start the same spinning of not guilty theories as you do on ever case.

 

[LI_Mom]

They found the same DNA on two different item of clothing and in three different places. Moreover, one of those places had that DNA mixed with JonBenet's blood inside her underwear on the very night that he was sexually molested and murdered.

Courts deal in probabilities, not possibilities.

Well, I still have REASONABLE DOUBT that the dna evidence should EXCLUDE the Ramseys.


And I wonder why Lacy just didn't say.... 'It happened so long ago & we'll never find out WHO killed JB, so it's about time someone 'officially' declared poor John Ramsey isn't a suspect anymore?' After all, THAT'S what she meant.


And the funny thing..... it just reminded people how from the very beginning the case was all about protecting the Ramseys instead of finding JB's killer.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

What you are interested in is finding ways for named suspects to be exonerated, as long as its a 'stranger did it' you are comfortable but as soon as the 'stranger' has a name, you are going to start the same spinning of not guilty theories as you do on ever case.

In any case, I assess evidence for materiality, relevance and competence.

If criminal charges are filed, I assess evidence for sufficiency, materiality, relevance and competence against the standard of proof beyond a reasonabe doubt.

 

[LI_Mom]

In any case, I assess evidence for materiality, relevance and competence.

If criminal charges are filed, I assess evidence for sufficiency, materiality, relevance and competence against the standard of proof beyond a reasonabe doubt.

Competence?

In the JB case????

Now, THAT'S funny!

 

[Medea]

In any case, I assess evidence for materiality, relevance and competence.

If criminal charges are filed, I assess evidence for sufficiency, materiality, relevance and competence against the standard of proof beyond a reasonabe doubt.

Thankfully, your personal threshold for 'reasonable doubt' is not shared by most people. Otherwise, nobody would ever be convicted of a crime. I mean no real offense by that, but its my view having read your posts on other cases including the Scott Peterson trial, that you are automatically prejudiced against the prosecution in every case and that you actively look for ways to explain away inculpatory evidence by judging that its not sufficient, material, relevant or competant or by embracing theories because they are "possible" no matter how improbable and unlikely they might be.

 

[Wudge]

Competence?

In the JB case????

Now, THAT'S funny!

Competetence is a legal measure used in the determination of the admissability of evidence. It goes to the reliability of purported evidence.

For purposes of exclusion, if sufficient markers were found in the DNA sample, Courts will consider DNA evidence to be competent evidence.

 

[LI_Mom]

Competetence is a legal measure used in the determination of the admissability of evidence. It goes to the reliability of purported evidence.

For purposes of exclusion, if sufficient markers were found in the DNA sample, Courts will consider DNA evidence to be competent evidence.

Yes, I understand.

My point is that I don't think the DNA in this case will ever pass the smell test if a defense lawyer presents a case.

The ONLY way this dna will be useful is IF they make a MATCH.... otherwise it's a load of nothing to any jury.

 

[Wudge]

Thankfully, your personal threshold for 'reasonable doubt' is not shared by most people. Otherwise, nobody would ever be convicted of a crime. I mean no real offense by that, but its my view having read your posts on other cases including the Scott Peterson trial, that you are automatically prejudiced against the prosecution in every case and that you actively look for ways to explain away inculpatory evidence by judging that its not sufficient, material, relevant or competant or by embracing theories because they are "possible" no matter how improbable and unlikely they might be.

Unlike the jury in the first murder trial of the Menendez brothers, I would have found both of them guilty of murder one (six men voted guilty, six women voted not guilty).

Unlike the jury in the murder trial of Rae Carruth, I would have found him guilty of murder one, not murder two.

Unlike the jury in the manslaughter trial of Jayson Williams, I would have found him guilty.

Unlike the jury in the murder trial of OJ Simpson, I would have found him guilty (murder two for Nicole, murder one for Ron Goldman).

Unlike the jury in the murder trial of Phil Spector, I would have found him guilty (murder two).

 

[Wudge]

Yes, I understand.

My point is that I don't think the DNA in this case will ever pass the smell test if a defense lawyer presents a case.

The ONLY way this dna will be useful is IF they make a MATCH.... otherwise it's a load of nothing to any jury.

The only way a defense attorney would present a case alleging that the DNA did not pass a smell test as reliable evidence would be if the DNA evidence was found to be a match to their client's (the defendant) DNA.

 

[LI_Mom]

The only way a defense attorney would present a case alleging that the DNA did not pass a smell test as reliable evidence would be if the DNA evidence was found to be a match to their client's (the defendant) DNA.

Right.

I believe they had a dna match in the OJ case.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I suggest you read up on the Lindbergh kidnapping, where the kidnappers did accidentally kill the child, but took the body and attempted to still get the money. See, that's how a kidnapping for ransom goes.

No it isn't, not always. Read up on Leopold and Loeb, rich kids who kidnapped a boy supposedly for a ransom, and instead murdered him for thrill.

IMO its very naive to pretend to know the motives, or what criminals would or would not do under certain circumstances, when you don't even know who did it. It wasn't until after Leopold and Loeb were in custody that their true motives were discovered.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

They found the same DNA on two different item of clothing and in three different places. Moreover, one of those places had that DNA mixed with JonBenet's blood inside her underwear on the very night that she was sexually molested and murdered.

Courts deal in probabilities, not possibilities.

Not just three different places, three criminally conspicuous places. Places where an investigator would expect to find perpetrator DNA, not factory worker DNA.