Intruder probability more, less, or same?

[Holdontoyourhat]

Comments??

OH, you're absolutely right. That RN gives JR license to drive around town getting money or whatever for more than a full day!

The main RDI theory has so many conflicting motives and contradictions that a wildcard claim is used to handle them: "PR and JR created a massively confusing scenario pointing in many directions, like a smoke screen."

In reality there are many simple explanations to be found in this case.

PR spelled 'advise' and 'business' differently than the RN author, a very simple indication that they are two different people.

An intruder would be far less concerned about leaving a large handwriting sample, compared to someone who lived in the house. This is another very simple indication, an intruder is more likely to handwrite.

A parent who wanted to stage a sexual assault and strangulation by intruder would more likely break stuff to clearly show a forced entry, and would more likely make the assault and strangulation appear typical. JBR's assault and strangulation were anything but typical because of the ransom note, the dual-pointed stick, and the headbash.

 

[cynic]

Well, I still have real problems with the RDI theory. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think it all hinges on PR having written the RN? If not her, then there’s an outside chance JR may have written it.

It doesn’t all hinge on the RN, while it is a key piece of evidence; it is the totality of the evidence points to their guilt.
JR did not write the note, he was excluded.

PR sits down to write the RN. Her degree in journalism and flair for drama would (more likely) lead her to write – “We have your daughter. If you want to see her alive again you must follow our instructions. Do not tell anyone about this. Get $100,000 in cash. We will call in the morning with further instructions.”

Your RN is brief and to the point. Brevity and pragmatism does not equal dramatic flair and storytelling.

They would then wrap up the body of JBR and put it in the trunk of their car. One of them (probably him) would take the body to a deserted place/lake and dispose of it
…
If a neighbour happened to see the car go out in the middle of the night, JR just says he couldn’t sit and wait till morning and was searching the neighbourhood for any sign of her or of someone suspicious in the hope of getting her back.

In the OJ Simpson case, there were two people who claimed that they saw his vehicle on the road near the crime scene at a time when he claimed to be at home. These witnesses were Robert Heidstra and Jill Shively. Heidstra said he saw a white SUV, but it was too far away to be able to discern a driver, while Jill Shively was able to make out the driver. Unfortunately, Jill Shively received $5,000 from Hard Copy prior to the trial and therefore was not called to testify. Heidstra did testify.
My point is that in a high profile case, people will start the process of trying to recall whether they may have seen or heard anything relevant. While in your opinion, being seen in the neighborhood driving away is insignificant, I don’t think the police would see it that way, especially if it was in the middle of the night. Additionally, what if his vehicle wasn’t simply seen in the neighborhood, what if it was 5, 10, or more miles away? What if he was stopped by police for a traffic violation, a burned out taillight or some other infraction while miles away from his home?
Furthermore, as I’ve stated elsewhere, it is much easier to explain trace and other evidence belonging to the Ramseys when the crime scene is in the home.
If the body was found relatively quickly, and evidence such as fiber consistent with Patsy was found on the sticky side of duct tape covering JBR’s mouth, that would be bad enough, however, let’s add nearby tire tracks that match the tire tread on the Ramsey's vehicle – that would be catastrophic.
Other possibilities that would be very problematic include:
Carpet fiber from the Ramsey’s vehicle found to be consistent with something found on whatever JBR may be wrapped in.
Their vehicle being seen in close proximity to the area where JBR would later be found.

Everything is sweet, the parents are not implicated,

Keep in mind that the parents will automatically be suspects by virtue of statistical probability alone. The Ramseys would likely continue to heap suspicion upon themselves through their behavior regardless of what was done with the body.

but for such a planned and complicated attempt to cover up, they botched the whole thing. Here’s what should have happened if RDI.

While it appears that you believe that the Ramseys should have, or could have, done a “better” job, that doesn’t mean that you, or I, or anyone might have done so, under the circumstances. You will have to admit that their botched cover up has done a remarkable job of keeping them out of jail.

 

[DeeDee249]

This is only your fiction stated as fact.

Not only that, but the coroner states in his report that the ligature was around the wrist. This ligature had more than one knot in it, so your statement that her hands weren't tied anywhere doesn't make sense. They were slip-knots capable of tightening against a pull.

Just because there were no wrist injuries listed on the coroner's report doesn't mean that there were no marks, that there was never any pull, or that the ligature was ineffective at restraining her arms.

The ligature was FOUND around her wrist (i never said it wasn't). But it was not tied to restrain, and had never been. There were NO ligature marks noted (aren't you big on what the coroner does and does not note?) and he would have put that in the autopsy as he did the neck furrow. That would have been important, as well as being fact, not an opinion. With the hymenal erosion, Mayer told Det. Arndt that it was his opinion that it was caused by digital penetration. Possibly that was why he did not put it in the report, which contains factual findings. The erosion was factual, the cause was the coroner's opinion.
Wrist furrows or marks would be factual, and included in the report.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, I still have real problems with the RDI theory. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think it all hinges on PR having written the RN?

Not really. RDI does not "hinge" on this or that one thing; it's the combination of EVERYTHING.

So, in the beginning, I was happy to believe RDI and that PR wrote the RN. But the problem with this was why didn’t they remove the body of JBR from the house?

1) Because if they did that, it would put them at risk of being spotted.

2) More importantly, by the time she was found, she would have been in no shape for that grand funeral.

PR, with her degree in Journalism and flair for drama, wrote the two and a half pages of RN following the murder of her daughter, as an explanation for her death and to divert suspicion from them. Then, at 6:00am she ‘finds’ the note and her daughter apparently missing, tells her husband, who immediately instructs her to phone 911 and ring all their friends. The cops arrive first, closely followed by the friends (whose sole purpose it appears is to contaminate the murder scene). After a period of time and with no ransom demand, one of the cops (apparently to give JR something to do) tells him to search the house for any signs of her! He then finds his daughter, (presumably where he hid her earlier), and carries her upstairs (thus intentionally destroying/contaminating the body and murder site) to her mother who puts on a wonderful display of hysterical grief for the gathered crowd. The cops immediately (within 20 minutes) suspect the parents and subsequently find upon analysis that the RN was ‘most likely’ written by PR. This, together with the behaviour of the parents after the murder, convince a large proportion of the population that they did it, and because of wealth and position, have gotten away with it.
I think this probably sums up what most of the RDI believe.

A few quibbles aside, pretty much.

So, I can go along with this to a degree, but for such a planned and complicated attempt to cover up, they botched the whole thing.

Except I don't believe it was planned. Quite the opposite, in fact. More of a "throw mud at the wall and see what sticks" approach.

Assuming the murder has occurred however and for what ever as above. It is now 11.30pm or 12.00 midnight. PR sits down to write the RN. Her degree in journalism and flair for drama would (more likely) lead her to write – “We have your daughter. If you want to see her alive again you must follow our instructions. Do not tell anyone about this. Get $100,000 in cash. We will call in the morning with further instructions.”

I think cynic sums up my feelings quite well, with the exception of that your "should have" doesn't account for the "intruder's" motives.

She would take pains to disguise her writing, not use her left hand to write in exactly the same way as she does with her right hand. They would then wrap up the body of JBR and put it in the trunk of their car. One of them (probably him) would take the body to a deserted place/lake and dispose of it, while the other cleans up the crime scene. Burke is later awoken and told JBR has been taken, but he is to stay in the house and speak to no one lest she be killed. The older children are contacted early in the morning and told there is some ‘problem’ (Patsy is ill perhaps) and they are to delay their departure till further notice. When the bank opens they draw out the money and they wait till afternoon. They then call the cops and tell them that they have followed the kidnapper’s instructions but have not received a call from the kidnappers and now fear JBR may have been killed. The cops search the house and find nothing, they then search for the kidnappers and eventually find JBR’s body (days/weeks/months later). There is evidence of head injury, sexual assault, (maybe even strangling, although if this was supposedly staged by JR & PR to protect the murderer it would not have been necessary).

I would expect this to apply only if the killing was premeditated.

If a neighbour happened to see the car go out in the middle of the night, JR just says he couldn’t sit and wait till morning and was searching the neighbourhood for any sign of her or of someone suspicious in the hope of getting her back.

Wouldn't work. Their whole story was tied to not knowing anything was wrong until they read that note.

Comments??

I've made most of them here. There are a few threads that should perhaps be checked out:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96736"]Loved to Death - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87820"]No Honor Among Thieves - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87817"]A Masterpiece of Misdirection - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[BBB167893]

Furthermore, as I’ve stated elsewhere, it is much easier to explain trace and other evidence belonging to the Ramseys when the crime scene is in the home.
If the body was found relatively quickly, and evidence such as fiber consistent with Patsy was found on the sticky side of duct tape covering JBR’s mouth, that would be bad enough, however, let’s add nearby tire tracks that match the tire tread on the Ramsey's vehicle – that would be catastrophic.
While it appears that you believe that the Ramseys should have, or could have, done a “better” job, that doesn’t mean that you, or I, or anyone might have done so, under the circumstances. You will have to admit that their botched cover up has done a remarkable job of keeping them out of jail.

:clap: :clap:

 

[BBB167893]

The main RDI theory has so many conflicting motives and contradictions that a wildcard claim is used to handle them:

Gregg mcCrary said it himself: real crime scenes are not inconsistent.

"PR and JR created a massively confusing scenario pointing in many directions, like a smoke screen."

Yes! Could someone PLEASE explain to me just what is so damn hard to understand about that?!!?

In reality there are many simple explanations to be found in this case.

A parent who wanted to stage a sexual assault and strangulation by intruder would more likely break stuff to clearly show a forced entry,

Wouldn't work. Their story hinges upon not knowing anything was out of place until they "found" that note.

and would more likely make the assault and strangulation appear typical.

That assumes they knew what "typical" was. That's pretty much the point I'm trying to make.

JBR's assault and strangulation were anything but typical

That I'll agree with!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The ligature was FOUND around her wrist (i never said it wasn't). But it was not tied to restrain, and had never been. There were NO ligature marks noted (aren't you big on what the coroner does and does not note?) and he would have put that in the autopsy as he did the neck furrow. That would have been important, as well as being fact, not an opinion. With the hymenal erosion, Mayer told Det. Arndt that it was his opinion that it was caused by digital penetration. Possibly that was why he did not put it in the report, which contains factual findings. The erosion was factual, the cause was the coroner's opinion.
Wrist furrows or marks would be factual, and included in the report.

But it was not tied to restrain, and had never been.

Of course it was.

The intruder applied it in the bedroom so JBR's arms wouldn't be flailing here and there. Her limp or nearly limp arms were restrained. We already know that JBR was either sleeping, headbashed, or stungunned before she left the bedroom. These would render her arms unable to resist with force necessary to cause abrasion. This isn't that complicated.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yes! Could someone PLEASE explain to me just what is so damn hard to understand about that?!!?

Sure.

Since RDI is constraining, all new information has to fit the RDI model. If it does not fit, then it becomes a phenomenon.

One of the phenomenon is the confusing scenarios presented at the crime scene. RDI's answer: PR and JR deliberately made it confusing. This essentially puts the carriage before the horse, as there is no evidence that PR or JR ever did that except for the confusion itself, and the perceived notion that PR or JR would be assumed to be motivated to make things confusing.

This is called circular reasoning.

Another phenomenon is PR spelling 'advise' and 'business' differently from the RN author. RDI fits this information into the model by claiming PR deliberately or accidentally spelled differently, although there is no evidence that PR actually did that except for the misspellings themselves.

More circular reasoning.

DNA from an unknown male was found all over the clothing JBR was wearing at the time, including mixed with blood in her crotch. RDI fits this phenomenon to the model by claiming the DNA is innocently transferred by JBR herself, even though there is no evidence to suggest this was the case (no donor of the DNA has been found).

The fact that PR spelled differently, that unknown DNA was on JBR, and that the RN and basement present confusing scenarios aren't phenomenons in IDI, and do not require unsubstantial claims to explain.

 

[MurriFlower]

It doesn’t all hinge on the RN, while it is a key piece of evidence; it is the totality of the evidence points to their guilt. JR did not write the note, he was excluded.

Hmm, well if neither parent wrote it, then who do you think did?

Your RN is brief and to the point. Brevity and pragmatism does not equal dramatic flair and storytelling.

A degree in Journalism should teach the basics of writing. Drama does not have to be in the length of the RN, but only in content.

In the OJ Simpson case, there were two people who claimed that they saw his vehicle on the road near the crime scene at a time when he claimed to be at home. These witnesses were Robert Heidstra and Jill Shively. Heidstra said he saw a white SUV, but it was too far away to be able to discern a driver, while Jill Shively was able to make out the driver. Unfortunately, Jill Shively received $5,000 from Hard Copy prior to the trial and therefore was not called to testify. Heidstra did testify. [/FONT]
My point is that in a high profile case, people will start the process of trying to recall whether they may have seen or heard anything relevant. While in your opinion, being seen in the neighborhood driving away is insignificant, I don’t think the police would see it that way, especially if it was in the middle of the night. Additionally, what if his vehicle wasn’t simply seen in the neighborhood, what if it was 5, 10, or more miles away? What if he was stopped by police for a traffic violation, a burned out taillight or some other infraction while miles away from his home?

After the event, witnesses are prone to recall indicents that never occurred.

Furthermore, as I’ve stated elsewhere, it is much easier to explain trace and other evidence belonging to the Ramseys when the crime scene is in the home.

If the body was found relatively quickly, and evidence such as fiber consistent with Patsy was found on the sticky side of duct tape covering JBR’s mouth

The crime scene was still inside the home, nothing has changed here.

that would be bad enough, however, let’s add nearby tire tracks that match the tire tread on the Ramsey's vehicle – that would be catastrophic.

Other possibilities that would be very problematic include:
Carpet fiber from the Ramsey’s vehicle found to be consistent with something found on whatever JBR may be wrapped in.
Their vehicle being seen in close proximity to the area where JBR would later be found.

While it appears that you believe that the Ramseys should have, or could have, done a “better” job, that doesn’t mean that you, or I, or anyone might have done so, under the circumstances. [/FONT]

These two statements appear to contradict each other. One minute they are thinking about carpet fibres and tire tracks and being seen, the next they are blundering around in a panic and making dreadful mistakes.

Keep in mind that the parents will automatically be suspects by virtue of statistical probability alone. The Ramseys would likely continue to heap suspicion upon themselves through their behavior regardless of what was done with the body

They wouldn't be the only innocent parties to be suspected of committing the crime by popular acclaimation, due to their subsequent behaviour. It's a pity there isn't an instruction manual "How to behave after your .......... is murdered" made available to avoid these pitfalls.

You will have to admit that their botched cover up has done a remarkable job of keeping them out of jail.

Or it could be just a complete lack of any convincing evidence of their guilt

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Or it could be just a complete lack of any convincing evidence of their guilt

RDI phenomenon: GJ would not indict JR or PR.
RDI unsubstantial claim: GJ's desire to indict was squelched by higher authority.

 

[MurriFlower]

This combination is not unusual. Bob Crane the actor died this way, among others.

I was going to ask if any of the movies that were quoted in the RN had such a scene, but this answers my question. I'll file this away for future information.

Could someone please tell me if the British comedy series 'Allo 'Allo (set in WWII France) was screened in the US around this time?

 

[cynic]

Hmm, well if neither parent wrote it, then who do you think did?

PR wrote the note.

A degree in Journalism should teach the basics of writing. Drama does not have to be in the length of the RN, but only in content.

Patsy demonstrated her ability as a storyteller as far back as her pageant days. While it’s true that you can have dramatic elements within the constraints of space, I think it’s clear that the RN in the Ramsey case is much more interesting and dramatic than the bland, business-like RN that you wrote.

Some background on PR:
Patsy cared about doing things that mattered, but it mattered little to her if others were aware of what she had accomplished. Pearman and others were shocked on the high school's award's day to see Patsy sitting in front of two banquet tables loaded with trophies for speech, drama and academics.
Talented and resourceful, Patsy was coach's dream, said Linda Edison McLean, who met Patsy in 1973, when McLean started coaching the school's speech and debate teams.
"It would be like a first-year basketball coach finding an all-American on the team,'' McLean said. Patsy's particular strength was oral interpretation, which requires a student to interpret a scene from a story or play without costume or props.
Patsy won the state championship in both her junior and senior years and placed second in a national competition for her interpretation of a scene from the play The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, the same scene she used to win the Miss West Virginia pageant in 1977.
For the Miss America Pageant, Patsy wrote a dramatic scene called Deadline based on a local textbook controversy, featuring a journalist with traditional ideas and a young innovative school teacher that expressed Patsy's views about press freedom and censorship.
It took about 40 hours to write and edit, said Linda McLean, who helped Patsy with it
Rocky Mountain News-1997

"My talent is a dramatic interpretation that I wrote based on a portion of The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. I play two characters — Miss Mackay, the stern head mistress, and Jean Brodie, the eccentric, vivacious school teacher. When I won second place in the National Forensic Tournament in Philadelphia the interpretation was 10 minutes long.”
…
Last fall Patsy attended the Miss America pageant where she closely observed the contestants and took meticulous notes. The day after she arrived back in Parkersburg, she called her speech coach, Linda McLean, and said, "Let's get to work."
What motivated Patsy to begin preparations at once was the consistently professional and polished calibre of the performances at the national pageant. She realized that being "good" was not "good enough" for an aspiring Miss America. The level of her presentation must be refined and redefined, revised and rehearsed until it was as nearly perfect as possible. After nearly a year of analyzing every inflection, expression and gesture of the characterizations, she continues to search for the smallest glint of an eye or toss of the head that might add dimension to her characterizations.
A certain amount of backstage nervousness is inevitable, says Patsy — even desirable, since it "gets the adrenalin going." But on stage, she says, "I feel very relaxed about my talent. When I say the first few lines and get everyone else in the palm of my hand, then I go into my own little world. It's as if I'm completely alone.
-The Charleston Gazette, 1977

After the event, witnesses are prone to recall indicents that never occurred.

While anyone is free to say whatever they wish in pursuit of their 15 minutes of fame, most will not take that into the courtroom. Perjury is a serious offense.

The crime scene was still inside the home, nothing has changed here.

???
One crime scene would be the Ramsey home, wherever the body was dumped and whatever was used to transport it would also be considered a crime scene.
“the crime scene would include not just a location, but the victim’s body, the suspect’s body, the houses involved and the vehicle involved.”
-Henry Lee’s crime scene handbook, Henry Lee, pg 4
also
The scene of occurrence can’t be limited to one place only. The number crime scenes may vary according to the mode of crime. There could be primary, secondary and often tertiary crime scenes. For instance, an offender might abduct at one location (primary crime scene), transport the victim (the car being a secondary crime scene), commit another crime at a distant location and then dispose off the body at a fourth scene.
http://www.dbrau.ac.in/departments_Html/inst_of_lifelong/chemistry/crime_scene_investigation.pdf

These two statements appear to contradict each other. One minute they are thinking about carpet fibres and tire tracks and being seen, the next they are blundering around in a panic and making dreadful mistakes.

I outlined my own thoughts about the risks of moving the body. Even the thought of being spotted may have been sufficient to prevent the Ramseys from moving the body.
While I imagine there was panic, it wasn’t implying “blundering and making dreadful mistakes.”
I stated quite clearly:
“While it appears that you believe that the Ramseys should have, or could have, done a “better” job, that doesn’t mean that you, or I, or anyone might have done so, under the circumstances.”

They wouldn't be the only innocent parties to be suspected of committing the crime by popular acclaimation, due to their subsequent behaviour. It's a pity there isn't an instruction manual "How to behave after your .......... is murdered" made available to avoid these pitfalls.

An instruction manual is not needed. If you are innocent, and your daughter was sexually assaulted and murdered, you will want to work with the people whose job it is to catch the bad guys – law enforcement.
Mark Klass didn’t have a manual, but then again, he really was innocent.
"I never considered not cooperating and I never considered hiring a lawyer. We bring these children into this world and its our duty then to do whatever we can to protect them and that includes totally cooperating with law enforcement right down the line"
"It is only when you hire a lawyer that it becomes apparent, if not obvious that you are hiding something"
"I don't believe there was an intruder inside the Ramsey house that evening I believe the evidence as we know it is pretty clear-cut. The only logical explanation for that ransom note is if it came from within the household itself."
-Mark Klaas
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuu_IfYOX7U[/ame]

Or it could be just a complete lack of any convincing evidence of their guilt

Try reading the following books and see if you feel the same way afterwards:
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town : The Uncensored Story of the JonBenet Murder, Lawrence Schiller
JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas

 

[MurriFlower]

PR wrote the note.

You see, this is where we differ in opinion. I do not believe she did. If you got a whole 'ship load' of 'experts' to assess the RN and Patsy's writing, all they will come up with is a number of points of similarity. This is all they can do and it completely disregards many more points of difference. It is not enough to convince, let alone enough to convict. If it were, then it would have happened.

You can throw in all the anecdotal evidence and stories of her pagaent days, quote from similar cases and point to the parents subsequent behaviour to support this theory. However, you are completely ignoring the one piece of incontrovertible evidence that actually proves or disproves your case.

She did or did not write the RN.

She did or did not murder her daughter

 

[cynic]

This is all they can do and it completely disregards many more points of difference.

It’s the job of document examiners to consider the differences.

It is not enough to convince, let alone enough to convict. If it were, then it would have happened.

The totality of the evidence is convincing, if you were to read some of the primary books on the case you would understand why the case was not brought to trial.

 

[cynic]

However, you are completely ignoring the one piece of incontrovertible evidence that actually proves or disproves your case.

She did or did not write the RN.

She did or did not murder her daughter

I'm not completely sure of what it is that you are saying, please clarify.

 

[MurriFlower]

I'm not completely sure of what it is that you are saying, please clarify.

If she wrote the RN then she did it. If someone else wrote the RN then someone else did it. Sorry, I just can dumb it down any further.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It’s the job of document examiners to consider the differences.

OK

"no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note."

Richard Dusak, U.S. Secret Service

The totality of the evidence is convincing, if you were to read some of the primary books on the case you would understand why the case was not brought to trial.

A 'totality' of evidence is an abstract concept, not unlike an 'umbrella' of suspicion. IOW there's no such thing as a 'totality' or an 'umbrella'. Either you've got enough evidence to convince a jury, or you don't. If you had enough of the right kinds of evidence, you wouldn't need to say 'totality' instead you would say 'enough evidence'. Inventing clever new ways to say 'not enough evidence' won't help.

Using abstract terms, the pieces in the RDI puzzle only seem to fit together in RDI's eyes, its obvious these pieces are pounded and cut to fit. Thats why there's so many unsubstantial claims in support of RDI. For example, prior abuse is an unsubstantial claim because the expert opinion is only claimed to exist. It can't be independently confirmed from an unbiased source. Dont take my word for it, other posters have tried and the trail ends at the Bonita Papers and thats it.

 

[BBB167893]

Sure.

I'm not holding my breath.

Since RDI is constraining, all new information has to fit the RDI model. If it does not fit, then it becomes a phenomenon.

I suppose it is a bit constraining. We've talked about that before. With you guys, the sjy is the limit. But as for things not fitting and becoming phenomena, I would just remind you that EVERY case has things that won't fit. Tom Haney said that himself. Real crimes aren't like the movies and television, where every single piece fits in all nice and neat. It just doesn't happen.

One of the phenomenon is the confusing scenarios presented at the crime scene. RDI's answer: PR and JR deliberately made it confusing.

I'm not sure that's it. I think they made it confusing, but it may or may not have been intentional.

This essentially puts the carriage before the horse, as there is no evidence that PR or JR ever did that except for the confusion itself, and the perceived notion that PR or JR would be assumed to be motivated to make things confusing.

You said it: the confusion itself IS the evidence. Gregg McCrary said it himself: real crime scenes are not inconsistent.

This is called circular reasoning.

I call it the pot and the kettle, for reasons I shall explain at the end of this posting.

Another phenomenon is PR spelling 'advise' and 'business' differently from the RN author. RDI fits this information into the model by claiming PR deliberately or accidentally spelled differently, although there is no evidence that PR actually did that except for the misspellings themselves.

I never said that. I don't think about it that much.

DNA from an unknown male was found all over the clothing JBR was wearing at the time, including mixed with blood in her crotch. RDI fits this phenomenon to the model by claiming the DNA is innocently transferred by JBR herself, even though there is no evidence to suggest this was the case (no donor of the DNA has been found).

That bolded part pretty much says it all. As long as no donor is found, there's no evidence that JB did NOT transfer it to herself. Quite the opposite, really.

The fact that PR spelled differently, that unknown DNA was on JBR, and that the RN and basement present confusing scenarios aren't phenomenons in IDI, and do not require unsubstantial claims to explain.

It's funny you say that, because IDI itself is based on a single unsubstantial claim: that there was someone else in the house to begin with. No one has ever been able to establish that nexus, yet that doesn't stop IDI from taking random crime scene phenomena (to use your words) and trying to build a case for that. In other words, unsubstantial claims are all you've GOT.

To use a phrase my father liked, you can make hamburger meat out of a cow, but you can't make a cow out of hamburger meat. The difference between you and me is I learned to stop trying.

 

[BBB167893]

These two statements appear to contradict each other. One minute they are thinking about carpet fibres and tire tracks and being seen, the next they are blundering around in a panic and making dreadful mistakes.

I think it had more to do with the two conflicting personalities.

Or it could be just a complete lack of any convincing evidence of their guilt

As far as I can tell, it's neither. It was the combination of the sheer legal power of their lawyer's office and the weakness of the DA.

Speaking of which, MurriFlower, ask yourself this question: convincing for WHOM? It helps to know a little about the environment in which this killing took place. We're talking about a DA who hadn't taken a case to trial in ten years and was known for adhering to a standard of proof that most prosecutors say is ridiculous. I've said it before, but it bears repeating: I'm convinced that if this had happened anywhere else, a good prosecutor (underline GOOD) could have made a case and won.

But then, a prosecutor anywhere else would have known what to do to get a solid lock. I'm not sure where you're from, MurriFlower, but since you referred to a flashlight as a "torch," I'm guessing you reside in England or Australia. Well, I don't know how the police do things there, but here in America, when a child is murdered in their own home with more than one suspect present, the standard procedure is to throw the two suspects in jail for a while and see which one of them will sell out the other one first. That's what the Boulder police WANTED to do, but the DA shot them down.

Actually, now that I think of it, there was another reason, and it ties in with trying to get one suspect to turn on the other: it's called the cross-fingerpointing defense. The Rs had a built-in defense mechanism: each other. Under the law, if the DA can't say for sure which one did the actual killing and which one just helped the coverup, then there's no case, because each suspect has the other for a "fall guy." As Vincent Bugliosi said, "two suspects equals no suspects."

 

[BBB167893]

RDI phenomenon: GJ would not indict JR or PR.
RDI unsubstantial claim: GJ's desire to indict was squelched by higher authority.

Unfortunately for you, HOTYH, it's not as unsubstantial as you think. Henry Lee has said several times that he told the DA flat-out not to prosecute if the GJ came back with an indictment, and Bryan Morgan, one of the Rs' own attorneys, has said that's exactly what happened.

I've explained all of this before. Not that it did me any good, obviously.