IDI: Whats your problem?

[Holdontoyourhat]

no,I thought you assume he's guilty...we can't give him a pseudonym because he is unknown.I think he may or may not be guilty.

OK if you say so.

 

[claudicici]

What is my theory? An angry socialist revolutionary military guy from abroad did it. He's far away because he's a socialist, not worried about leaving long handwritten notes, and BPD ran out of suspects. RDI doesn't know if the R's own any of the key elements: cord, tape, handwriting, linguistics, motives, blunt instrument, etc. If you knew where these items came from, that they ever belonged to them, it would further point to the R's but you don't. Instead RDI makes up lots of stories about evidence removal to account for this unknown information. The intruder removed the unknown stuff, what is so complicated about that?
__________________
That's an interesting theory but it seems very far fetched to me....and that's just my opinion...just like PR did it seems far fetched to you.RDI doesn't know where these items come from but they have excellent theories about those items ,the IDI theories I've read about those items just seem less plausible for me also RDI does not make up stories about evidence removal again they are speculating within facts ,just as you think the intruder removed the items ,the R's could have removed the items just as well....oh and why do you always sound so rude btw?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That's an interesting theory but it seems very far fetched to me....and that's just my opinion...just like PR did it seems far fetched to you.RDI doesn't know where these items come from but they have excellent theories about those items ,the IDI theories I've read about those items just seem less plausible for me also RDI does not make up stories about evidence removal again they are speculating within facts ,just as you think the intruder removed the items ,the R's could have removed the items just as well....oh and why do you always sound so rude btw?

Thanks. It IS an interesting theory. Of course its far fetched, but near fetched isn't working, right? Sorry if I seem rude to you but remember you're asking why I'm here as if I'm breaking my own rules. I feel thats rude also. I never accused anyone specifically of child murder. How about you?

 

[claudicici]

I'm sorry if I sounded rude also and no,I've never accused anyone of child murder and I haven't seen anyone else do that here either.Like I said RDI's always seem to point out that they WISHED their theory was not true .....

 

[BBB167893]

You'll get your doors blown off.

Is that a challenge? You know how much I LOVE obliging!

 

[BBB167893]

I'm waiting on ya, pilgrim. Got the old Louisville Slugger all nice and shiny.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm waiting on ya, pilgrim. Got the old Louisville Slugger all nice and shiny.

Clear and convincing evidence
Clear and convincing evidence is the higher level of burden of persuasion sometimes employed in both civil and criminal procedure in the United States. For example, a prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief from capital punishment must prove his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence.[4]
To prove something by "clear and convincing evidence", the party with the burden of proof must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This is a lesser requirement than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", which requires that the trier of fact be close to certain of the truth of the matter asserted, but a stricter requirement than proof by "preponderance of the evidence," which merely requires that the matter asserted seem more likely true than not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_convincing_evidence#Clear_and_convincing_evidence

Which Louisville Slugger do you have? Is it clear and convincing, proof, or preponderance? Do you even know (introspection)? Because I've seen your thanks to other posters who state as fact things that cant be supported beyond one single uncorroborated source thats not even a regular or official outlet. And if thats your game, you win. At least in your own mind.

 

[BBB167893]

Clear and convincing evidence
Clear and convincing evidence is the higher level of burden of persuasion sometimes employed in both civil and criminal procedure in the United States. For example, a prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief from capital punishment must prove his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence.[4]
To prove something by "clear and convincing evidence", the party with the burden of proof must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This is a lesser requirement than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", which requires that the trier of fact be close to certain of the truth of the matter asserted, but a stricter requirement than proof by "preponderance of the evidence," which merely requires that the matter asserted seem more likely true than not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_convincing_evidence#Clear_and_convincing_evidence

I get all of that, HOTYH.

Which Louisville Slugger do you have? Is it clear and convincing, proof, or preponderance? Do you even know (introspection)?

I know the difference. And at this point, I'd have to say it leans towards preponderance. Is that your way of saying that you retract your challenge?

Because I've seen your thanks to other posters who state as fact things that can't be supported beyond one single uncorroborated source thats not even a regular or official outlet. And if thats your game, you win. At least in your own mind.

I'm not playing games, HOTYH.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I get all of that, HOTYH.

OK...

I know the difference. And at this point, I'd have to say it leans towards preponderance.

Aw, c'mon. RDI has more than just preponderance on some items. I'll give it that. Heck, there's at least one case investigator and one FBI that seem to have favored RDI although I don't know if they still do. Anyway, there's some things that have proof or clear and convicning that favor RDI.

Is that your way of saying that you retract your challenge?

If you want me to retract, I will. I'm just not sure I can win against your claims. I believe I can win against your facts, however.

I'm not playing games, HOTYH.

OK...

 

[BBB167893]

Aw, c'mon. RDI has more than just preponderance on some items. I'll give it that. Heck, there's at least one case investigator and one FBI that seem to have favored RDI although I don't know if they still do. Anyway, there's some things that have proof or clear and convincing that favor RDI.

Wow. Took the words right out of my mouth, brother.

If you want me to retract, I will. I'm just not sure I can win against your claims. I believe I can win against your facts, however.

1) Whether or not you retract it is your business. 2) If you think you can, I'm certainly ready.

OK...

Okay.

 

[Roy23]

My post and the arguments as to why it is not saliva, stand.
Full points for your attempted spin, though.
Read the highlighted portions.

"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.
"You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there," Kane said, "whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them."
Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.
And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

It is possible that the unidentified male DNA might have been left there through secondary contact,
-Mary Lacy
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/...23/miss-steps/

The DNA could be an artifact. It isn‘t necessarily the killer‘s.
-Mary Lacy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20319079


If it was saliva, why would they think the profile is attributable to “human handling”
If it was saliva, why did Mary Lacy herself not believe it?
If it was saliva, why did ML believe it could be deposited through secondary contact, or be "arifact"
If it was saliva, why was it not found on JBR’s body or from the vaginal swabs?
If it was saliva, why are people saying it is not a DNA case?
If it was saliva, why are people saying it might be the result of point-of-production contamination.
If it was saliva, there are presumptive tests that identify it. Either they didn’t do a presumptive test to screen for saliva, or they are being coy with the result, or the DNA profile came from skin cells.

Saliva is not "a cough or a sneeze," to claim that is spin of the highest order.

Yep, Mary Lacy said that a long time ago. What you should really focus on is that she has been shown the truth and changed her focus. During the JMK fiasco these same experts just as Lacey were singing a different tune. They all know enough to know this DNA is real and pertinent. Here is some more from another expert you like to quote, Wecht:

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, filling tonight in for Nancy Grace. An American school teacher claims he was with JonBenet Ramsey the night she died and says it was an accident. He`s in custody in Thailand as we speak and will head back to the U.S. to face charges.

We are very happy to have with us Cyril Wecht, forensic pathologist, who also wrote a book called, "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?" Knows more about this case than almost anyone. DNA has got to be key. So tell us what they`re going to have to do in terms of DNA testing to see if it matches up with this suspect?

DR. CYRIL WECHT, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: You`re quite right. They found something under one nail, and purportedly also in her underwear. They`ve already done some DNA testing. So it is a testable substance. And they`ll do the same thing now with Mr. Karr.

This will not exclude him if it is negative. If it proves to be positive, that probably is a wrap because I don`t see how they can have contact between him and her or even through some third party intermediary. But if it`s negative, that doesn`t mean that he might not have been there. So we`ll see. DNA and other things, question document examination is going to be important, too, get his writing exemplar and check that, and also some forensic psychiatric examination to test the psychodynamics and challenge his confession.

 

[cynic]

Mary Lacy said that a long time ago.

A truly rare moment of clarity for ML.

What you should really focus on is that she has been shown the truth and changed her focus.

She was shown another piece of the puzzle and proceeded to draw unwarranted conclusions.

During the JMK fiasco

… Which will forever be a testament to her bias and incompetence.

these same experts just as Lacy were singing a different tune.

The only tune ML has ever been known to sing is “the Ramseys are innocent and I’ll clear them if it’s the last thing I do.”
Whect was asked to comment on the relevance of JMK either matching or not matching the CODIS DNA profile derived from JBR’s panties.
He is not singing a different tune. As a matter of fact, it is clear that he is saying that the DNA is not the final arbiter in the case.
Whect states that if JMK was excluded by DNA but implicated by other significant evidence that he should still be under suspicion. (Which is precisely why the Ramseys should never have been exonerated.)
“But if it`s negative, that doesn`t mean that he might not have been there. So we`ll see.”
“… document examination is going to be important, too, get his writing exemplar and check that…”
Of course, we all know that, as it turned out, there was no match; furthermore, there was nothing whatsoever linking JMK to the case except for his twisted imagination.
That coupled with ML’s desperation to find anyone but a Ramsey guilty meant a first class ticket for sick pedophile back to the USA.

They all know enough to know this DNA is real and pertinent.

No one questions whether the DNA is real, or pertinent, the question is how it got there.
The DNA in the Janelle Patton case was real and pertinent; however, it was finally determined to be completely irrelevant.

Here is some more from another expert you like to quote, Wecht

That was from an interview on August 17, 2006
This is from July 9, 2008, after the exoneration letter to the Ramseys:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgt9yMZCvbI[/ame]

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm sorry if I sounded rude also and no,I've never accused anyone of child murder and I haven't seen anyone else do that here either.Like I said RDI's always seem to point out that they WISHED their theory was not true .....

It seems that RDI's wish has come true. Its not the DNA that makes it so, its the circumstances of the DNA. Its convincing evidence of an intruder. That it does not convince these RDI here is not remarkable.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I dont think Dr. Wecht understands that JR's skin cells may have been there but weren't tested. Did JR raise or lower the leggings? No. We don't know this. Did a criminal raise and lower the leggings? Yes. We do know this. RDI thinks the criminal was PR but her skin cells were never found there. Believe me they looked. Instead, its the skin cells from a mystery man. Lab workers aren't reallty mystery men because they've all been subjected to DNA testing to rule out innocent transfer. Wecht speaks as if that effort never took place!

 

[claudicici]

...but PR DID raise her leggings...that's what I don't understand,her skin cells SHOULD be there....she said she put those leggings on a sleeping child.....an intruder may have worn gloves,his skin cells were not on the RN so what makes you certain they would be on the leggings?.....where are PR's skin cells? why would she have worn gloves?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

...but PR DID raise her leggings...that's what I don't understand,her skin cells SHOULD be there....she said she put those leggings on a sleeping child.....an intruder may have worn gloves,his skin cells were not on the RN so what makes you certain they would be on the leggings?.....where are PR's skin cells? why would she have worn gloves?

PR would've handled the leggings gently to not wake JBR and with dry hands. The intruder would've been grabby and sweaty. Both of these factors raise the probability of a positive touch DNA result.

 

[Roy23]

A truly rare moment of clarity for ML.
She was shown another piece of the puzzle and proceeded to draw unwarranted conclusions.
… Which will forever be a testament to her bias and incompetence.
The only tune ML has ever been known to sing is “the Ramseys are innocent and I’ll clear them if it’s the last thing I do.”
Whect was asked to comment on the relevance of JMK either matching or not matching the CODIS DNA profile derived from JBR’s panties.
He is not singing a different tune. As a matter of fact, it is clear that he is saying that the DNA is not the final arbiter in the case.
Whect states that if JMK was excluded by DNA but implicated by other significant evidence that he should still be under suspicion. (Which is precisely why the Ramseys should never have been exonerated.)
“But if it`s negative, that doesn`t mean that he might not have been there. So we`ll see.”
“… document examination is going to be important, too, get his writing exemplar and check that…”
Of course, we all know that, as it turned out, there was no match; furthermore, there was nothing whatsoever linking JMK to the case except for his twisted imagination.
That coupled with ML’s desperation to find anyone but a Ramsey guilty meant a first class ticket for sick pedophile back to the USA.
No one questions whether the DNA is real, or pertinent, the question is how it got there.
The DNA in the Janelle Patton case was real and pertinent; however, it was finally determined to be completely irrelevant.
That was from an interview on August 17, 2006
This is from July 9, 2008, after the exoneration letter to the Ramseys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgt9yMZCvbI

Ha ha! Nice Try Cynic. The BPD's first order of business was to test all LE personnel involved in the case. And make note that Cyril makes mention that they have useful DNA from under a fingernail. All the people who still are investigating know they have egg on their face but it is comical to me that the ones who were initially involved but not now hold on to past theories.

You think that touch DNA is like air that it floats around all of us. As much as Holdon keeps explaining it, nobody is listening. And Wecht is wrong on another thing too. This case is gonna get solved. And we are all gonna feel so stupid because it will be real simple had they done their jobs.

 

[DeeDee249]

PR would've handled the leggings gently to not wake JBR and with dry hands. The intruder would've been grabby and sweaty. Both of these factors raise the probability of a positive touch DNA result.

Is this based on scientific fact? Or is this just your opinion? We also don't know for a fact that whoever handled that clothing had sweaty or grabby hands.

 

[DeeDee249]

Ha ha! Nice Try Cynic. The BPD's first order of business was to test all LE personnel involved in the case. And make note that Cyril makes mention that they have useful DNA from under a fingernail. All the people who still are investigating know they have egg on their face but it is comical to me that the ones who were initially involved but not now hold on to past theories.

You think that touch DNA is like air that it floats around all of us. As much as Holdon keeps explaining it, nobody is listening. And Wecht is wrong on another thing too. This case is gonna get solved. And we are all gonna feel so stupid because it will be real simple had they done their jobs.

So you think that Dr. Wecht, one of the most respected forensic pathologists in the country, is wrong and that a poster here, Holdon, whom I respect very much but feel probably is NOT a forensic pathologist, knows more about the forensic science of this case? Now it's MY turn to say HA HA! Nice try, Roy.

 

[UKGuy]

PR would've handled the leggings gently to not wake JBR and with dry hands. The intruder would've been grabby and sweaty. Both of these factors raise the probability of a positive touch DNA result.

Holdontoyourhat,

The intruder would've been grabby and sweaty. Both of these factors raise the probability of a positive touch DNA result.

So why was it only found on the leggings and underwear?

Could the touch-dna on the longjohns have arrived there via the size-12's. That is whoever redressed JonBenet in the size-12's then transferred touch-dna from the underwear to the longjohns? e.g. the touch-dna belonged to someone who had handled the size-12's prior to them being packed for sale?

.