Like it or not, JBR murder a DNA case.

[BBB167893]

Who initially implicated the parents?

How do you mean?

(I could give you my personal answer, but I don't think you'd like it.)

 

[Reznor]

Initially implicating the parents in a little girl's murder, before all the facts were in, was probably a huge blow to finding justice in this case.

Implicating the parents should have happened the minute LE open the door from the 911 call. That was the huge blow to finding justice in this case.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Implicating the parents should have happened the minute LE open the door from the 911 call. That was the huge blow to finding justice in this case.

I'm not sure.

Lets suppose RDI for a minute. Its getting harder to do that, what with LE going IDI and finding new intruder leads.

I think I would've considered not taking samples or questioning or sounding alarm bells, in favor of surveillance. Maybe even get a judge to go along with wiretapping and all that. They do it all the time.

 

[Reznor]

I'm not sure.

Lets suppose RDI for a minute. Its getting harder to do that, what with LE going IDI and finding new intruder leads.

I think I would've considered not taking samples or questioning or sounding alarm bells, in favor of surveillance. Maybe even get a judge to go along with wiretapping and all that. They do it all the time.

I'm not thinking RDI/IDI. I don't know who kill JBR. I'm just thinking if they were put under the microscope when LE first entered their home it would lesson suspicion of R's guilt. KWIM? The R's leaving with bags and large coats the day of the murder? The sister dressed as a police officer to retrieve things out of the home? It's almost like The Church Lady, "How convenient."

Why didn't they do all those things you named above? Samples and questioning seems like regular police procedure.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm not thinking RDI/IDI. I don't know who kill JBR. I'm just thinking if they were put under the microscope when LE first entered their home it would lesson suspicion of R's guilt. KWIM? The R's leaving with bags and large coats the day of the murder? The sister dressed as a police officer to retrieve things out of the home? It's almost like The Church Lady, "How convenient."

Why didn't they do all those things you named above? Samples and questioning seems like regular police procedure.

I'll question your facts or your sources here.

I'm not an expert on R post-crime behavior, as that is a waste of time IMO.

Having said that, are you sure they left town the day of the murder?

Are you sure that the R's were behind some scheme to remove critical evidence from the house while dressing their relative as a police officer? Are you sure the sister came up with the idea to dress like an officer by herself? I thought impersonating a police officer is illegal. Was the relative charged?

Samples and questioning were seen by the R's as done 'at the exclusion of other suspects' which raised the alarm that LE were considering the R's and only the R's. This is the big problem because it would put the R's on guard, thereby averting any real post-crime behavior or remarks that would indicate guilt. Y'know something actually incriminating not petty stuff like pineapple bowl ownership.

 

[Reznor]

I'll question your facts or your sources here.

I'm not an expert on R post-crime behavior, as that is a waste of time IMO.

Having said that, are you sure they left town the day of the murder?

Are you sure that the R's were behind some scheme to remove critical evidence from the house while dressing their relative as a police officer? Are you sure the sister came up with the idea to dress like an officer by herself? I thought impersonating a police officer is illegal. Was the relative charged?

Samples and questioning were seen by the R's as done 'at the exclusion of other suspects' which raised the alarm that LE were considering the R's and only the R's. This is the big problem because it would put the R's on guard, thereby averting any real post-crime behavior or remarks that would indicate guilt. Y'know something actually incriminating not petty stuff like pineapple bowl ownership.

I never thought they left town. I believe they left the house the day of the murder. No? IMO They could have taken things incriminating with them.

Yes, it is illegal to impersonate a police officer. Are you saying that never happened or you just don't know?

I wonder why the R's would feel so alarmed by LE considering them as suspects early on? They were in the house. Process of elimination. Right? But they made that process very difficult. IMO R's alarm so early on looks like guilt. What are they guilty of?

 

[madeleine]

I never thought they left town. I believe they left the house the day of the murder. No? IMO They could have taken things incriminating with them.

Yes, it is illegal to impersonate a police officer. Are you saying that never happened or you just don't know?

I wonder why the R's would feel so alarmed by LE considering them as suspects early on? They were in the house. Process of elimination. Right? But they made that process very difficult. IMO R's alarm so early on looks like guilt. What are they guilty of?

:clap:

 

[BBB167893]

I'm doing my best to stay out of this dustup, but a few things have captured my notice:

Lets suppose RDI for a minute. Its getting harder to do that, what with LE going IDI and finding new intruder leads.

I don't think you could either way.

I think I would've considered not taking samples or questioning or sounding alarm bells, in favor of surveillance.

That's actually a fairly clever notion. But questioning is SOP. Even Smit said he would have hauled them in for questioning that day.

Maybe even get a judge to go along with wiretapping and all that. They do it all the time.

HOTYH, it may come as a surprise to you, but the police wanted to both tap their phones AND plant bugs inside their house.
Neither plan got past the development stages.

Anyone want to GUESS why?

Why didn't they do all those things you named above?

How much time you got, buddy?

Samples and questioning seems like regular police procedure.

They are.

I'm not an expert on R post-crime behavior, as that is a waste of time IMO.

And ONLY your opinion, HOTYH (fortunately for the rest of us).

Having said that, are you sure they left town the day of the murder?

He didn't say they DID. He said that they left the house.

Are you sure that the R's were behind some scheme to remove critical evidence from the house while dressing their relative as a police officer? Are you sure the sister came up with the idea to dress like an officer by herself?

I don't think he's saying any of that, HOTYH. From what I understand, Pam was sent to the house with the story that she wanted to pick up clothes to wear to the funeral and ended up taking everything but the kitchen sink. As for dressing up like a police officer, the way I heard it was that one of the cops on the scene gave her a police jacket to wear.

The point here is not that Pam Paugh knowlingly committed any wrongdoing. The point is she shouldn't have been let near the scene in the first place!

I thought impersonating a police officer is illegal.

It IS. Which is exactly what Susan Stine did when she sent out a passel of e-mails claiming to be Chief Beckner!

Was the relative charged?

No, but whichever BONEHEAD let her do it damn well should have been!

Samples and questioning were seen by the R's as done 'at the exclusion of other suspects' which raised the alarm that LE were considering the R's and only the R's. This is the big problem because it would put the R's on guard, thereby averting any real post-crime behavior or remarks that would indicate guilt.

I would actually agree with that, to a point.

 

[madeleine]

Just stumbled upon this and all I can say is :toast:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379981,00.html




"Although this DNA may match, Lacy’s own words prove this particular DNA may not even be relevant.

In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn't necessarily the killer’s. There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s. But it could be something else."
---------------
In fact, early on in the case a panel of pediatric experts determined that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, which would mean her killer probably is someone she knew. (sadly,IDI's keep forgetting/ignoring this)
------------
At no time did the Boulder Police Department believe JonBenet was killed by an intruder; nonetheless, Lacy persistently has done everything in her power to manipulate public opinion in favor of the intruder theory. Although that theory should continue to be explored until the case is solved, Lacy’s motivation for promoting it with so much passion is suspicious.

It’s no secret that in 1997, when Lacy was a sex-assault prosecutor under then-DA Alex Hunter, she was furious when he did not appoint her to work on the case. Because Hunter and the police shied away from the intruder theory, many law enforcement officials often wonder if Lacy’s attempts to prove them wrong are driven more by her personal feelings than by the actual pursuit of justice.

Shortly after taking office, Lacy announced in 2003 that she believed the Ramseys were innocent, an unusual and inappropriate statement for a prosecutor to make during an ongoing investigation.

In fact, during the Karr debacle, Lacy also said that "no one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction in court, beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor, unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime, to clear someone."

There is no question the Ramsey case has been unusually long, and the Ramsey family has suffered terrible heartbreak and undeserving cruel attacks from the media. Although the family deserves compassion, JonBenet deserves justice and Lacy’s motivation is misguided.

Almost nothing Lacy has done has been based on the solid, investigative work compiled by the Boulder Police Department or the opinions expressed by the FBI. Lacy, who had no official contact with the Ramsey case under the leadership of Hunter, has disregarded the opinions of every law enforcement agency and forensic expert who worked on the case.

Her arrogance and incompetence is beyond compare.

Despite her repeated attempts to convince the public that her belief is grounded in the highly respected science of DNA, it appears that her rationale is flawed. If Lacy were serious about solving the Ramsey case, she would re-invite the original police investigators and FBI agents, who know the case inside and out, to come back and advise her.

She’ll never do that, however, because for Mary Lacy none of this really is about JonBenet — it’s about her legacy and her ego.



Jeffrey Scott Shapiro


ITA!:clap:

 

[DeeDee249]

When did that article appear?

 

[DotsEyes]

No one will ever convince me that someone came into the house, killed JBR and hid her in the basement without leaving a trace of themselves in the house or on JBR.

Not finding what should have been there is strong evidence that someone in the house killed her.

 

[BBB167893]

When did that article appear?

Just about a year ago, if memory serves.

 

[BBB167893]

Let me say something else. This is directed at HOTYH:

I did a little thinking over the last few hours and I came to realize that you have a darn good point. If the police had played "good cop" en masse, the Rs might have dropped their guard.

I thought about what you said about their post-crime behavior possibly being caused by being ON guard and tied it in with what you often say about after-the-fact behavior.

HOTYH, do you realize how much trouble you would have saved the two of us if you had just said that right off?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No one will ever convince me that someone came into the house, killed JBR and hid her in the basement without leaving a trace of themselves in the house or on JBR.

Not finding what should have been there is strong evidence that someone in the house killed her.

OK no one will ever convince you.

No traces? How about DNA, cord, tape, pineapple, and handwriting?? Thatsa lotta traces.

Pleeeze don't explain to me with tall tales about how the R's owned these items because you can't show at all that they did.

 

[DeeDee249]

OK no one will ever convince you.

No traces? How about DNA, cord, tape, pineapple, and handwriting?? Thatsa lotta traces.

Pleeeze don't explain to me with tall tales about how the R's owned these items because you can't show at all that they did.

All of these can be possibly traced to the Rs. Can't be proven? Maybe not, but it can't be proven than they DID NOT belong to them. To do that, you have to prove who they DID belong to. And there is no evidence of an intruder associated with THESE items. Of your list, the DNA is the only thing that is shown to be NOT of R origin. But it still does not prove they had no involvement in this crime. Only that the DNA on the clothes is not theirs. And that DNA could have gotten there innocently. We've explained it many times how that COULD have happened.

 

[BBB167893]

All of these can be possibly traced to the Rs. Can't be proven? Maybe not, but it can't be proven than they DID NOT belong to them. To do that, you have to prove who they DID belong to. And there is no evidence of an intruder associated with THESE items. Of your list, the DNA is the only thing that is shown to be NOT of R origin. But it still does not prove they had no involvement in this crime. Only that the DNA on the clothes is not theirs. And that DNA could have gotten there innocently. We've explained it many times how that COULD have happened.

Even JR admitted that the intruder left "no good evidence" behind.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

All of these can be possibly traced to the Rs. Can't be proven? Maybe not, but it can't be proven than they DID NOT belong to them. To do that, you have to prove who they DID belong to. And there is no evidence of an intruder associated with THESE items. Of your list, the DNA is the only thing that is shown to be NOT of R origin. But it still does not prove they had no involvement in this crime. Only that the DNA on the clothes is not theirs. And that DNA could have gotten there innocently. We've explained it many times how that COULD have happened.

Have you noticed the 'all of these' part? Tape, cord, handwriting, and pineapple are the bulk of the evidence! And LE can't trace ANY of it to the R's! Its too much stuff!

All thats left is the pen, paper, and paintbrush, I think.

 

[madeleine]

I still don't believe this is a DNA case,not until they find a match on the garrote or paintbrush or note (even so it could be the dna of an accomplice)

BUT after reading about Kevin Fox I will be a bit more quiet about Lacy exonerating the R's based on DNA match.
<<<shrug>>>

ETA link

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=6196896&page=3

Interesting ,was the same lab where the dna in the R case was sent.



http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Alt/alt.true-crime/2007-12/msg00473.pdf

Riley Fox: DNA on duct tape detailed

 

[Tadpole12]

I still don't believe this is a DNA case,not until they find a match on the garrote or paintbrush or note (even so it could be the dna of an accomplice)

BUT after reading about Kevin Fox I will be a bit more quiet about Lacy exonerating the R's based on DNA match.
<<<shrug>>>

ETA link

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=6196896&page=3

Interesting ,was the same lab where the dna in the R case was sent.



http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Alt/alt.true-crime/2007-12/msg00473.pdf

Riley Fox: DNA on duct tape detailed

Hi Madeleine.

Wow. Fox's story has so many parallels to that of the Ramsey's. -that same pattern of evidence plus the dna.

"The police, Zellner argued, deliberately ignored evidence suggesting that an intruder was in the house. She said that there are numerous parts of the house they never bothered to check, including the back door, which was standing open.
"We know what's how the intruder came in because the lock was broken," she says. Zellner also claimed one of the windows was open from the inside, potential evidence of an intruder looking for an exit route. None of this was ever fingerprinted, nor was the blanket used to cover Riley that night."

 

[Ravyn]

But in the R's case didn't LE take the basement window,winecellar door,and alot of other things that the knpwn intruder could had touch..They did find pineapple in the frig that match what was found in JB 's stomach and I can't see an intruder getting PR and BR to touch the bowl on the table and how Pr's handprint on the winecellar door looks like she could had been holding it open and there are pics at the ACR...