Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[BBB167893]

Didn't that palmprint turn out to be Melinda Ramsey's???

Yes, it did. Even Lin Wood didn't challenge that.

 

[BBB167893]

This being a year after the Article posted above...

Thanks!

Except Carnes didn't KNOW about it. The palmprint, boot print and hair news weren't reported until after the discovery period in the Wolf case had ended.

 

[BBB167893]

This is an indication JonBenet struggled with her attacker, and he wasn't a Ramsey. So sad...

Article Excerpt; Daily Camera (02.07.98):

"Investigators also are taking mouth swabs in hopes of matching DNA to genetic material extracted from skin tissue recovered under the slain 6-year-old's fingernails, sources said." (K. Dizon)

Another one of Lou Smit's many bits of made-up "evidence."

 

[BBB167893]

Something to consider, for sure. If RDI, the Rs disposed of (or hid REALLY well) tape, cord, shoes, something with beaver fur, ?brown work gloves?, etc. SO, why wouldn't they have done the same with the notepad, pens, etc.?

Actually, I have considered it. And to me, there are two possibilities:

1) It slipped their minds. Even the best criminals don't think of everything

2) If the initial intent behind the staging was to implicate someone who was familiar with the house (LHP, for example), it would have to be explained that this person knew where these items were.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't know. I would assume the BPD did that but who knows. I would bet they went through the R's records to see if there was a purchase by them for the rope.

They DID. I don't know about this rope, but PR's credit card records showed that she'd bought items from McGuckin's Hardware store whose prices matched to the penny their prices on cord and tape. You can't tell me that's a coincidence.

 

[BBB167893]

Who ever did this was sick but that was not patsy.
BTK was a depraved serial killer. Patsy is not.

Neither was the person who killed her.

 

[BBB167893]

Why? What would be the point?

JMO

You must have read my mind, tezi.

 

[BBB167893]

An interview with police; an interrogation with hearsay "facts" isn't sufficient, it's grossly inadequate.

Except Levin was NOT a policeman. He was working for the DA's office as a prosecutor, and as such, is held to a much higher standard when interviewing a person. Don't believe me? The law is clear:

Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct : Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others “In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act.”

 

[Mama2JML]

The CBI concluded the hair didn't come from any Ramsey (per ST) but it was LATER sourced to Patsy according to an anonymous source? Doesn't make sense to me, but to each their own.

So, like the hair, the boot print & the palmprint were FINALLY sourced 5 years later REPORTEDLY per Mr./Ms. ANONYMOUS. Hmm, okay... I think that's a tiny bit RIDICULOUS. What works for you, doesn't have to work for me. THANK GAWD. :facepalm:

 

[BBB167893]

The CBI concluded the hair didn't come from any Ramsey (per ST) but it was LATER sourced to Patsy according to an anonymous source? Doesn't make sense to me, but to each their own.

It doesn't make sense to you, but you're the person who insists that DNA that couldn't even be FOUND until 2008 is somehow a case breaker? That's what makes no sense.

So, like the hair, the boot print & the palmprint were FINALLY sourced 5 years later.

That's about the size of it.

Hmm, okay... I think that's a tiny bit RIDICULOUS.

By THAT logic, we should toss the DNA and TDNA right out! Since it wasn't identified until long after THAT, and are not sourced to anything.

What works for you, doesn't have to work for me. THANK GAWD. :facepalm:

Mama, I'm in a holiday spirit, so I'll just say that I feel the same way.

 

[Chelly]

In your opinion.

After reading that indictment, I can see exactly why it was not signed. It was hog wash. And he knew it was not something he could take to trial. OMO

"Hog Wash"?
Dedicated men and women spent a year of their lives on that GJ. They heard and saw testimony and evidence that posters here have NOT seen NOR heard. Based on the evidence and testimony, they voted to indict. How can anyone who does not know what was presented to the GJ claim "Hog Wash"? Really?

AH couldn't take it to trial because AH could not take HIMSELF to trial. He was corrupt and inept. He protected himself and others like him. He did not care one whit about an abused and murdered JBR.

 

[Little Jedi]

I don't see how that works.
*If it can't be proven that it is theirs and it was in their house, Then it was not theirs.

* This statement makes no sense !!

Yet there is no link to the R's with that rope. It was not connected to them.

'That Rope' ??

Also

"I decorated each of our bedrooms with a small tree that reflected the personality of its occupant.
(snip)
John Andrew's tree reflected a western theme with cowboy hats, saddles, bandanna bows, and ornaments to mirror his life as a "cowboy" student."
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-tour-boulderhouse1994.htm

 

[Mama2JML]

Except Levin was NOT a policeman. He was working for the DA's office as a prosecutor, and as such, is held to a much higher standard when interviewing a person. Don't believe me? The law is clear:

Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct : Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others “In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act.”

Deja Vu, again! (I've had this discussion before. What's new, right?)

Levin was a member of the investigatory team. The following excerpt from Ethical Deception by Prosecutors describes a prosecutor's discretionary privilege to deceive persons under suspicion, when prosecutors are acting members of an investigatory team:

"Authorities, however, have not tended to question prosecutors' use of out-of-court misrepresentations during investigations. Disciplinary authorities have allowed prosecutors to supervise and direct investigations involving deceit. Law enforcement officers regularly deceive suspects; it is considered an accepted investigative technique. Disciplining an attorney for supervising these investigatory practices would encumber meaningful investigations, so courts have determined that public policy favors deception over unchecked lawlessness and have given prosecutors discretion in directing investigations.

When prosecutors are directly involved in investigations, the ethical standards that apply are not so clear. Up until 2001, few ethics opinions or rules had ever directly addressed this question.

The two states that recently took on this issue have decided that prosecutors may use deceit during the investigatory stages of a case. In 2001, Oregon amended its disciplinary rules to allow criminal attorneys to misrepresent their identity or purpose in investigating believed unlawful activity. In 2002, a Utah ethics opinion stated that 'as long as a prosecutor's conduct employing dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation is part of an otherwise lawful government operation, the prosecutor.does not violate the ethics rule(s). The Committee further stated that there should be no distinction between supervising an activity and directly taking
part in it.

...

The Colorado disciplinary panel found that Pautler was not acting in his role as a law enforcement officer because he was not acting as a member of the 'investigative team exercising police authority' but rather as an attorney, 'giving legal advice and acting as a consultant.' "

Source: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...0W6wdg#search="prosecutorial ethics colorado"

 

[Mama2JML]

It doesn't make sense to you, but you're the person who insists that DNA that couldn't even be FOUND until 2008 is somehow a case breaker? That's what makes no sense.



That's about the size of it.



By THAT logic, we should toss the DNA and TDNA right out! Since it wasn't identified until long after THAT, and are not sourced to anything.



Mama, I'm in a holiday spirit, so I'll just say that I feel the same way.

Crazy how technology evolves, huh?

Goodnight, Dave...

 

[Little Jedi]

Patsy denied the flashlight, pineapple... Even a box of tissues.

Let's not forget 'Santa Bear'

 

[BBB167893]

Deja Vu, again! (I've had this discussion before. What's new, right?)

You're telling me! :banghead:

Levin was a member of the investigatory team. The following excerpt from Ethical Deception by Prosecutors describes a prosecutor's discretionary privilege to deceive persons under suspicion, when prosecutors are acting members of an investigatory team:

"Authorities, however, have not tended to question prosecutors' use of out-of-court misrepresentations during investigations. Disciplinary authorities have allowed prosecutors to supervise and direct investigations involving deceit. Law enforcement officers regularly deceive suspects; it is considered an accepted investigative technique. Disciplining an attorney for supervising these investigatory practices would encumber meaningful investigations, so courts have determined that public policy favors deception over unchecked lawlessness and have given prosecutors discretion in directing investigations.

When prosecutors are directly involved in investigations, the ethical standards that apply are not so clear. Up until 2001, few ethics opinions or rules had ever directly addressed this question.

The two states that recently took on this issue have decided that prosecutors may use deceit during the investigatory stages of a case. In 2001, Oregon amended its disciplinary rules to allow criminal attorneys to misrepresent their identity or purpose in investigating believed unlawful activity. In 2002, a Utah ethics opinion stated that 'as long as a prosecutor's conduct employing dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation is part of an otherwise lawful government operation, the prosecutor.does not violate the ethics rule(s). The Committee further stated that there should be no distinction between supervising an activity and directly taking
part in it.

...

The Colorado disciplinary panel found that Pautler was not acting in his role as a law enforcement officer because he was not acting as a member of the 'investigative team exercising police authority' but rather as an attorney, 'giving legal advice and acting as a consultant.' "

Source: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...0W6wdg#search="prosecutorial ethics colorado"

Unless you can offer some kind of proof that Levin was not being truthful, I'll consider this conversation over. The police made their findings public in 2002. Kolar, to my knowledge, does not dispute them. We CAN triangulate these things, you know.

 

[BBB167893]

Crazy how technology evolves, huh?

When it evolves too fast for society to adjust, it can be crazy.

Goodnight, Dave...

It really makes no difference to me, Mama2JML, for a few reasons:

1) As I've always said, cases like this aren't solved through forensic evidence. They're solved by getting one suspect to flip on the other. If the police had done that at the beginning, we wouldn't be here right now.

2) As far as I go, justice has already been done. I'd explain what I mean by that, but I've learned to keep THOSE thoughts to myself.

 

[Mama2JML]

You're telling me! :banghead:



Unless you can offer some kind of proof that Levin was not being truthful, I'll consider this conversation over. The police made their findings public in 2002. Kolar, to my knowledge, does not dispute them. We CAN triangulate these things, you know.

Show me. (Anonymous, unidentified, no name sources aren't SOURCES.)

 

[BBB167893]

Show me. (Anonymous, unidentified, no name sources aren't SOURCES.)

Tell Richard Nixon that!

You've made it clear that NAMED sources aren't good enough for you. So what's the point?

 

[Mama2JML]

When it evolves too fast for society to adjust, it can be crazy.



It really makes no difference to me, Mama2JML, for a few reasons:

1) As I've always said, cases like this aren't solved through forensic evidence. They're solved by getting one suspect to flip on the other. If the police had done that at the beginning, we wouldn't be here right now.

2) As far as I go, justice has already been done. I'd explain what I mean by that, but I've learned to keep THOSE thoughts to myself.

1. Maybe, but what if you're wrong about this case? So much conviction on both sides, I don't get it.

2. You don't need to explain. You've already given it away.

Bon nuit, for real this time.