JBR, PR and UMI

[WHITEFANG]

I don't think you understand. RDI's fate was sealed when the BPD couldn't put the ransom note pen in PR's hand. They tried to, but they failed. The implications are that PR didn't write the note.

Who needs DNA?

And they accomplished all this while the Governor of Colorado himself, personally, had a direct hand in shaping the nature of this "investigation" to get them and get them good.

 

[WHITEFANG]

SuperDave
MurriFlower, there are some places even I won't go.

Come on. Give it a shot.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Douglas: And here is a young child, such force cracking her skull. This is not a crime of parents. Parents certainly kill. But not these kinds of parents. SD

That kind of thinking is exactly what poisoned this case from the beginning. It has no place in the legal system. SD

What kind of thinking is that?

 

[WHITEFANG]

But accurate. Everything I said in that, others have already said. Don't kill the messenger.

In the case of JonBenét, even the coroner did not see a head wound. There was no swelling, there was no bleeding that was visible, there was no bruising.

Bleeding is instantaneous where blood vessels rupture, unless the victim is dead or close to death.

 

[WHITEFANG]

LOU SMIT - Somebody brutally bludgeoned JonBenét that night. This is a brutal massive head wound. Head wounds normally bleed very profusely. If someone is hit on the head with any force at all it will either swell or it will bruise or it will bleed. In the case of JonBenét, even the coroner did not see a head wound. There was no swelling, there was no bleeding that was visible, there was no bruising. SD

"This from a man who admits he never even spoke with Drs. Spitz, Wright or Brega. His reasoning for not doing so should give anyone who fancies themselves objective pause." SD

Therefore....?

Was she brutally bludgeoned? Did she receive a brutal massive head wound? Did the Coroner see a head wound? Did he note visible bruising, bleeding or swelling, or not?

 

[MurriFlower]

This from a man who admits he never even spoke with Drs. Spitz, Wright or Brega. His reasoning for not doing so should give anyone who fancies themselves objective pause. SD

Therefore....?

Why then does what he says make more sense than the Doctors? Or is it just me that thinks

If someone is hit on the head with any force at all it will either swell or it will bruise or it will bleed

Perhaps it was because he didn't speak to them that he makes sense.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower, there are some places even I won't go.

Yes, I can understand how the idea that JBR was drugged would be confronting for RDI. Still, I'm pretty confident, cause it answers a lot of questions. Depending on who the IDI is, it might answer the 'was she previously abused' question as well.

I'm thinking if it's easy to make at home and works so well, then the pedophiles would have the recipe available through their networks. Just not sure I'm quite game to look at their websites though. Might have to try elsewhere!

 

[WHITEFANG]

Garroting requires a deliberation, you have to think about it, you have to throw the rope around the neck. In this particular case you had to create an exact kind of knot, he had to twist the knot, all while that child is still alive. Most of the time that's a sexual kind of killing. SD

"All of that assumes the perp knows their victim IS still alive." SD ?

throw, create, twist, exact kind of knot and Pat would have the know how?

 

[WHITEFANG]

Why then does what he says make more sense that the Doctors? Or is it just me that thinks

Perhaps it was because he didn't speak to them that he makes sense.

MurriFlower,
This, YGG, means YOU GO GIRL, from now on, okay?

 

[BBB167893]

RDI's fate was sealed when the BPD couldn't put the ransom note pen in PR's hand.

That's where you got it wrong, friend. Not only could they, I'm saying that they DID. Maybe not with courtroom certainty, but by process of elimination.

They tried to, but they failed.

Excuse me? HER pen, HER paper, HER own experts not able to clear her...I could keep going and going, but I think my point's made.

The implications are that PR didn't write the note.

If implication is all you need, then I could be here all day!

Who needs DNA?

You do, because it's all you've got (and even then you ain't got it.)

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That's where you got it wrong, friend. Not only could they, I'm saying that they DID. Maybe not with courtroom certainty, but by process of elimination.



Excuse me? HER pen, HER paper, HER own experts not able to clear her...I could keep going and going, but I think my point's made.



If implication is all you need, then I could be here all day!



You do, because it's all you've got (and even then you ain't got it.)

The things I say are reflected in the news. The things you say are not.

 

[BBB167893]

"Even within forensic disciplines that are more firmly grounded in science, evidence is often made to sound more precise than it should. For example, analysts will testify that hairs from a crime scene “match” or “are consistent with” defendants’ hair – but because scientific research on validity and reliability of hair analysis is lacking, they have no way of knowing how rare these similarities are, so there is no way to know how meaningful this evidence is." Innocence Project

I'm aware of how the Innocence Project does its work. Problem is, I'm also aware of a few problems with them. Let's take what they say:

There have been 254 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States

• 17 of the 254 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.

• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13 years. The total number of years served is approximately 3,240.

• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 111 of the DNA exoneration cases.

Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.

Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions

These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. For more than 15 years, the Innocence Project has worked to pinpoint these trends. IP

Wendy Murphy talks about this in her book, specifically the chapter "Manucfacturing Innocence with DNA Lies."

One of the biggest frauds being perpetrated in the criminals justice system today is the claim that over 200 convicted criminals have been declared innocent as a result of new DNA tests that have been conducted on old cases.

To be more specific:

It matters a lot whether new DNA tests do nothing but muddy the waters with tangential or barely relevant evidence to help get a criminal out of jail on a technical argument about how the evidence was unavailable 20 years ago.

Combine that with the name Kerry Kotler and I'd take the IP with a small grain of salt.

 

[BBB167893]

Ask Wecht.

Nothing would please me more, Fang, if for no other reason than i could get some quotes for the book.

 

[BBB167893]

How?

Warrants, my friend. Non-testimonial evidence is taken on the implied (and sometimes explicit) understanding that "you can give it or I can take it."

You are not suggesting they were at fault for hiring the best quality legal help they could afford?

Certainly not. But in this instance, it was the incestuous nature of the beast.

Maybe as good a question would be, "Shouldn't our system of justice guarantee an equivalent degree of expertise on par with the best in the profession, at least in capital murder cases, to anyone under investigation?"

THAT, Fang, would be a MAJOR improvement over what we have now. You said it yourself: money talks. In this case, it didn't talk, it SHOUTED.

Did they charge her with a crime?

No.

Did she have to provide them with a sample?

In a sense.

 

[BBB167893]

And they accomplished all this while the Governor of Colorado himself, personally, had a direct hand in shaping the nature of this "investigation" to get them and get them good.

Come on, Fang. I've come to expect better than that from you.

For one thing, at the time this was going on, Bill Owens (who I presume you're speaking of) wasn't even in office. Roy Romer was, and he barely had more backbone than Alex Hunter did. Give me a break.

 

[BBB167893]

Come on. Give it a shot.

No way, man.

What kind of thinking is that?

Fang, surely by now I've made my meaning on that very plain. The kind of thinking that says that it's only "those" people who hurt their kids, the trailer-park people, the "skanky" people, and so on. That thinking was very prominent among members of the DA's office and those who worked with them. And I can provide specific examples.

Fang, do you remember what I told you when you first started coming around here? About the rotten elements of the human soul? How most people refuse to admit those things exist, and how most people are too afraid to confront it? Well, like I said then, I CAN. I CAN face that darkness because I've lived it my whole life. I CAN acknowledge the garbage poisons every person that walks this earth. The intruder theory tells a very nice story. It allows people the comfort of thinking that this was done by one of "those" people. It absolves us from having to think, do you understand? It allows to say that good is good and evil is evil and there's no need to understand why an intruder did it, because as far as Mr and Mrs America are concerned, that person is little more than a rabid dog: you can't reason with it; you have to take it out before it hurts anyone else. RDI is different, because it FORCES us to admit that ANYONE is capable of ANYTHING. The sooner we as a species accept that, the better off we'll be.

 

[BBB167893]

"This from a man who admits he never even spoke with Drs. Spitz, Wright or Brega. His reasoning for not doing so should give anyone who fancies themselves objective pause." SD

Therefore....?

Are you kidding? I should think the problems with that should be fairly obvious! The man's ego blinded him. He believed his own press and thought that he knew more than anyone: the pathologists, the FBI, etc. He refused to listen to anyone else (a MAJOR problem in this case, and not on my side, I'll have you know) once he settled on a course of action. I'm reminded of Paul Simon's song, "The Boxer:" "the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

And you don't think that's a problem????

Was she brutally bludgeoned?

I don't know.

Did she receive a brutal massive head wound?

Yes.

Did the Coroner see a head wound? Did he note visible bruising, bleeding or swelling, or not?

No, but he had no reason to look.

 

[BBB167893]

Why then does what he says make more sense than the Doctors?

It doesn't. That's my point. He created his scenario out of thin air and he can't even keep it straight. I didn't devote an entire chapter to him for nothing.

Perhaps it was because he didn't speak to them that he makes sense.

I don't know where to start with that one.

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, I can understand how the idea that JBR was drugged would be confronting for RDI.

That's not why I'm not doing it. I'll pursue a subject I think I have evidence for. To date, I can find no evidence of any kind of drugging. Show me some and I will.

 

[BBB167893]

"All of that assumes the perp knows their victim IS still alive." SD ?

throw, create, twist, exact kind of knot and Pat would have the know-how?

From what I understand, the knot experts said that anyone could have tied those knots. So, yeah, I suppose she would have the know-how.