Henry Lee's new book, anyone?

[FrayedKnot]

Opinion.

There is nothing that says that PR killed her dd. Nothing. Nothing that she stood by and let it happen nor knew it happened until jbr was brought up from the basement.

There is no evidence that JR did this either.

If the police had done their job correctly and investigated correctly, Most likely there would be someone in jail but it would not be the R's. That is my opinion but one supported by DNA.

I don't think you understand TDNA if you truly believe that. But agree to disagree.

And there is plenty of evidence that PR killed JBR, but it's all circumstantial.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't think you understand TDNA if you truly believe that. But agree to disagree.

And there is plenty of evidence that PR killed JBR, but it's all circumstantial.

No there isn't. There is inference and people point to behavior and not evidence. They don't like her. I don't know if I like her, But the fact remains there is DNA that is not sourced to any of the R's. It is from blood evidence and then the TOUCH DNA backs that up with a MATCH.

 

[Nom de plume]

I have experience with 911 hang-ups. My sister is a developmentally disabled adult and she has done that while living with me, which I found out about when 911 called the house. Each time I explained the situation but they always sent an officer who entered the house and spoke to everyone and determined to his satisfaction that it was a mischief call. One asked if he could walk through the house to see if someone else was in need or danger. It ticked me off because he had a crappy attitude and it felt like a power play but I said OK. The same procedure was always followed when my sister did it while living with our mother in another state. We were never allowed to explain things through the screen door, let alone an intercom.

I think the R's sense of entitlement was emboldened by how LE acted after the 911 hang-up on the 23rd, when the dispatcher logging the hang-up called their number, got no response/only voice mail and dispatched an officer. Who was denied entry and was communicated with via intercom by someone other than the homeowner, and then left.

The Rs expected and were accustomed to receiving special treatment. The events on the 23rd are not comparable in gravity to those on the 26th but their innate entitlement lulled them into anticipating a similar outcome. I think they had every intention of putting on a show when LE arrived and then getting on with their day. They fully intended to fly out of town because of previous plans, including a business meeting. A. Business. Meeting. They expected to be allowed to do so. This was their mindset on the day of their daughter's demise. JR did not cancel their flight of his own volition. I will use the word reasonable instead of rational. Reasonable people would expect or ask for K-9s to be used but the Rs were not reasonable people. They considered themselves to be entitled to special treatment, which the 911 call on the 23rd reinforced. I think he/they were SHOCKED into realizing that he/they would have to produce JonBenet's body.

Your post got me thinking. What if the 911 call on the 23rd was a "test run"? Maybe someone wanted to see how BPD would react if they were refused entry, i.e. see how far they could push without BPD pushing back.

Of course, this would mean that the murder was premeditated, which I don't really think it was, but it is possible. If JB was starting to talk about being abused, and it's reported that she was, the abuser might have seen no way out other than to kill her.

 

[Venom]

No there isn't. There is inference and people point to behavior and not evidence. They don't like her. I don't know if I like her, But the fact remains there is DNA that is not sourced to any of the R's. It is from blood evidence and then the TOUCH DNA backs that up with a MATCH.

The only blood evidence is JB's blood. I'm not going to get into the tdna and who it could point to. That's discussed in another thread.


circumstantial evidence
n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=191

Perhaps people's "inference" comes from ALL of the circumstantial evidence. Which it is there if one chooses to look at it.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The only blood evidence is JB's blood. I'm not going to get into the tdna and who it could point to. That's discussed in another thread.


circumstantial evidence
n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.

Perhaps people's "inference" comes from ALL of the circumstantial evidence. Which it is there if one chooses to look at it.

The reason people don't want to get into it is because they refuse to accept that this points to a possible intruder. There is no way around this. There is TDNA that matches biological material mixed with JBR's blood. That right there is enough to point to an intruder. That along with the break in 8 mos later with the similar MO, is another..

There was an intruder there that night. Had the BPD done their job correctly, and paid attention, They would most likely have that intruder in jail now.

There is nothing that points to the R's as the killers. Well unless you are writing a book ...

 

[Venom]

The reason people don't want to get into it is because they refuse to accept that this points to a possible intruder. There is no way around this. There is TDNA that matches biological material mixed with JBR's blood. That right there is enough to point to an intruder. That along with the break in 8 mos later with the similar MO, is another..

There was an intruder there that night. Had the BPD done their job correctly, and paid attention, They would most likely have that intruder in jail now.

There is nothing that points to the R's as the killers. Well unless you are writing a book ...

Help me.......:scared:

Respectfully. I didn't want to get into a whole discussion about tdna here, on this thread. There is already a discussion going on about it in the James Kolar thread and a thread about it in itself. But a quick overview: YES It could point at an intruder, BUT it also could point to a R. Markers from the Ramsey's were found in it, and that leaves a POSSIBILITY that it is one of theirs. No one side is 100% right about the dna evidence.

About writing books.....Henry Lee's book has him alluding to the fact of an intruder doesn't it? So that isn't true as there is a book out that has an intruder point of view. I haven't personally read Lee's book.

What POSSIBLY points to a R as a killer is the circumstantial evidence. Once again, it's the TOTALITY of all. The CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence is there. No one can make another see it if they don't have an open mind.

You, or anyone else, cannot say as fact that there was an intruder there that night. And I, or anyone else, cannot[/] say as fact that the R's did it. That is something no one else knows except JB, her killer, someone the killer told, or an accomplice to the fact if there is one.

 

[BOESP]

Just a suggestion, but arguments would be more convincing if a poster's opinion didn't include presumed mind-reading of the intent of other posters as a part of the rebuttal. It weakens the argument and it certainly doesn't follow the rules of logic. TIA

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Help me.......:scared:

Respectfully. I didn't want to get into a whole discussion about tdna here, on this thread. There is already a discussion going on about it in the James Kolar thread and a thread about it in itself. But a quick overview: YES It could point at an intruder, BUT it also could point to a R. Markers from the Ramsey's were found in it, and that leaves a POSSIBILITY that it is one of theirs. No one side is 100% right about the dna evidence.

About writing books.....Henry Lee's book has him alluding to the fact of an intruder doesn't it? So that isn't true as there is a book out that has an intruder point of view. I haven't personally read Lee's book.

What POSSIBLY points to a R as a killer is the circumstantial evidence. Once again, it's the TOTALITY of all. The CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence is there. No one can make another see it if they don't have an open mind.

You, or anyone else, cannot say as fact that there was an intruder there that night. And I, or anyone else, cannot[/] say as fact that the R's did it. That is something no one else knows except JB, her killer, someone the killer told, or an accomplice to the fact if there is one.

Sorry. It does not point to the R's. It was found not to match any of the R's.

No one can say there was no intruder there that night because there is evidence there was.

 

[tezi]

No there isn't. There is inference and people point to behavior and not evidence. They don't like her. I don't know if I like her, But the fact remains there is DNA that is not sourced to any of the R's. It is from blood evidence and then the TOUCH DNA backs that up with a MATCH.

Again, a MATCH with whom? There can't be a match unless there is another DNA sample to MATCH it with. You keep saying there is a MATCH, and I beg to differ.

JMO

Just to add: I see where you are getting your MATCH information. So, I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the meaning of MATCH.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Again, a MATCH with whom? There can't be a match unless there is another DNA sample to MATCH it with. You keep saying there is a MATCH, and I beg to differ.

JMO

Just to add: I see where you are getting your MATCH information. So, I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the meaning of MATCH.

It is a MATCH with the touch DNA that says it is from the same source. That is a match.
The two samples are from the same source. That makes them a match..

TO whom? We don't know yet.. But I can not wait until we do.

 

[FrayedKnot]

The only blood evidence is JB's blood. I'm not going to get into the tdna and who it could point to. That's discussed in another thread.


circumstantial evidence
n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=191

Perhaps people's "inference" comes from ALL of the circumstantial evidence. Which it is there if one chooses to look at it.

:tyou:

 

[tezi]

It is a MATCH with the touch DNA that says it is from the same source. That is a match.
The two samples are from the same source. That makes them a match..

TO whom? We don't know yet.. But I can not wait until we do.

I understand what you are saying. Not going to argue about the meaning of MATCH anymore. The fact is the TDNA hasn't been MATCHED to anyone.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I understand what you are saying. Not going to argue about the meaning of MATCH anymore. The fact is the TDNA hasn't been MATCHED to anyone.

IT is matched to another source from the body that is mixed with Blood from JBR. That is not something that can be ignored.

 

[BOESP]

If you shake my hand then I shake John Doe's hand and your DNA shows up at John Doe's house on some object of cloth he might have touched does that make you guilty?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If you shake my hand then I shake John Doe's hand and your DNA shows up at my house on some object of cloth that I might have touched does that make John Doe guilty?

Not at all the same thing because in this case there is biological material that is another source of the same DNA.

So it is not just I touched who that touched who.. That is one reason the fibers don't mean anything..

But the DNA has a back up source that says that person was definitely there.

 

[BOESP]

Not at all the same thing because in this case there is biological material that is another source of the same DNA.

So it is not just I touched who that touched who.. That is one reason the fibers don't mean anything..

But the DNA has a back up source that says that person was definitely there.

Obviously, you haven't considered the garment worker sneezing and touching the brand new panties. Or that some male helped JonBenet in the bathroom, which was customary according to many statements made by family friends. She didn't care who helped her.

Also, please re-read my post directly above. I edited to changing the last "John Doe" to "you" (a figurative "you").

ETA: In addition, the panty DNA carried mixed, partial markers that taken separately are said to have matched markers found in the DNA of various Ramsey family members. Without seeing the official DNA report there is no way to make claims of fact from either side. Regardless, the DA was over-stepping her bounds in declaring anyone no longer a suspect, especially since the current Chief of Police publicly stated otherwise.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Obviously, you haven't considered the garment worker sneezing and touching the brand new panties. Or that some male helped JonBenet in the bathroom, which was customary according to many statements made by family friends. She didn't care who helped her.

Also, please re-read my post directly above. I edited to changing the last "John Doe" to "you" (a figurative "you").

This just too far fetched. Her blood is mingled with someone else's DNA. and then there is tDNA that matches that.. It is really simple.

 

[tezi]

This just too far fetched. Her blood is mingled with someone else's DNA. and then there is tDNA that matches that.. It is really simple.

But, yet the fibers don't mean anything? And no, it's not that simple.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

But, yet the fibers don't mean anything? And no, it's not that simple.

JMO

Yes it is. Because the fibers are from people in the house that belong there along with their clothes, That their fibers are all over mean nothing.. The fibers are supposed to be all over and co mingled.

 

[gramcracker]

circumstantial evidence
n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=191

Perhaps people's "inference" comes from ALL of the circumstantial evidence. Which it is there if one chooses to look at it.

I've always like Manson prosecutor Vince Bugliosi's take on circumstantial evidence:

“I think that counsels’ problem is that they misconceive what circumstantial evidence is all about. Circumstantial evidence is not, as they claim, like a chain. You could have a chain spanning the Atlantic Ocean from Nova Scotia to Bordeaux, France, consisting of millions of links, and with one weak link that chain is broken.

“Circumstantial evidence to the contrary, is like a rope. And each fact is a strand of that rope. And as the prosecution piles one fact upon another we add strands and we add strength to that rope. If one strand breaks – and I’m not conceding for one moment that any strand has broken in this case – but if one strand does break, the rope is not broken. The strength of the rope is barely diminished. Why? Because there are so many other strands of almost steel-like strength that the rope is still more than strong enough to bind these two defendants to justice. That’s what circumstantial evidence is all about.”

http://advocacytraining.blogspot.com/2011/10/winning-closing-argument.html