No intruder?

[joeskidbeck]

Not on it's own, as I said, it will identify the IDI, but a conviction will require more evidence.

I have to admit it, that is certainly what I would love to see. All the evidence in this case going to trial.

 

[MurriFlower]

I have to admit it, that is certainly what I would love to see. All the evidence in this case going to trial.

I was just thinking about the IDI and who it may be.

If it is someone who is convicted of a similar crime but who was never suspected for JBR, and the handwriting, hair, alibi, motive, means, etc can all be subsequently proven, then I could not see how this person would not be convicted.

However, if it is someone who is already on our 'radar' (that is has been discussed here) and was basically 'cleared' by the BPD, then provided it is not RDI, I wonder how much work would be involved in reversing this opinion. Like, if some mistake was made where a suspect was 'supposedly' DNA tested and cleared, but the test was incorrect or never taken. Or, if say it was very early in the investigation, before the DNA was discovered in the panties even, when hair samples were taken, but only 'cut' and not 'pulled' hair, (which is difficult to obtain DNA profile) and never DNA tested. There were so many mistakes made by the investigators, that I wonder if people dismissed early on should be closely looked at as first priority.

 

[MurriFlower]

MF there is NO other evidence. None. Zip, zero nada!! None! There is however multitudes of evidence against the R's. Their statements, fiber evidence, the RN etc., etc., etc.

You are right about one thing though. Your IF it ever goes to court. Unfortunately, I find it impossible to believe it ever can or will.

Please read what I wrote about the DNA and then further investigation.

SunnieRN if you don't read anything I write, but still want to argue with me, I'll just ignore you in future.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I was just thinking about the IDI and who it may be.

If it is someone who is convicted of a similar crime but who was never suspected for JBR, and the handwriting, hair, alibi, motive, means, etc can all be subsequently proven, then I could not see how this person would not be convicted.

However, if it is someone who is already on our 'radar' (that is has been discussed here) and was basically 'cleared' by the BPD, then provided it is not RDI, I wonder how much work would be involved in reversing this opinion. Like, if some mistake was made where a suspect was 'supposedly' DNA tested and cleared, but the test was incorrect or never taken. Or, if say it was very early in the investigation, before the DNA was discovered in the panties even, when hair samples were taken, but only 'cut' and not 'pulled' hair, (which is difficult to obtain DNA profile) and never DNA tested. There were so many mistakes made by the investigators, that I wonder if people dismissed early on should be closely looked at as first priority.

I have a huge suspicion that they either didn't or weren't allowed to dna test anyone in this case that was under the age of 18. This worries me to the nth degree.

 

[SunnieRN]

I was just thinking about the IDI and who it may be.

If it is someone who is convicted of a similar crime but who was never suspected for JBR, and the handwriting, hair, alibi, motive, means, etc can all be subsequently proven, then I could not see how this person would not be convicted.

However, if it is someone who is already on our 'radar' (that is has been discussed here) and was basically 'cleared' by the BPD, then provided it is not RDI, I wonder how much work would be involved in reversing this opinion. Like, if some mistake was made where a suspect was 'supposedly' DNA tested and cleared, but the test was incorrect or never taken. Or, if say it was very early in the investigation, before the DNA was discovered in the panties even, when hair samples were taken, but only 'cut' and not 'pulled' hair, (which is difficult to obtain DNA profile) and never DNA tested. There were so many mistakes made by the investigators, that I wonder if people dismissed early on should be closely looked at as first priority.

So wait, which is it MF? Is the touch dna evidence good, or not good? I don't think I quite understand the point you are making here. You told me I needed to take it up with Bode, now you are saying that untainted samples collected by LE may not be accurate. If this is a possibility, than errors on the touch dna can make that information erroneous.

Please read what I wrote about the DNA and then further investigation.

SunnieRN if you don't read anything I write, but still want to argue with me, I'll just ignore you in future.

MF, you posted AFTER me. Was I supposed to read your mind? If you choose to ignore me, that is just fine by me. It will not however keep me from pointing out your erroneous facts.

 

[MurriFlower]

So wait, which is it MF? Is the touch dna evidence good, or not good? I don't think I quite understand the point you are making here. You told me I needed to take it up with Bode, now you are saying that untainted samples collected by LE may not be accurate. If this is a possibility, than errors on the touch dna can make that information erroneous.



MF, you posted AFTER me. Was I supposed to read your mind? If you choose to ignore me, that is just fine by me. It will not however keep me from pointing out your erroneous facts.

Originally Posted by SunnieRN View Post
I am sure it will be an OJ situation and expert after expert will refute each other. But guess what? I know the REST of the LONG JOHNS need to be examined and checked!

Guess what else I know? The dna touch evidence will never convict an idi. One doesn't exist!!


MurriFlower: Not on it's own, as I said, it will identify the IDI, but a conviction will require more evidence.
__________________

It must be very late where you are!!

 

[SunnieRN]

It must be very late where you are!!

I stand corrected, I thought you were referring to the erroneous dna evidence, not a single line that stated you posted that there would be more evidence needed. What that one line had to do with the questions that I asked you, I still am not sure about however?

I did respond to your one line statement however:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
Not on it's own, as I said, it will identify the IDI, but a conviction will require more evidence.

MF there is NO other evidence. None. Zip, zero nada!! None! There is however multitudes of evidence against the R's. Their statements, fiber evidence, the RN etc., etc., etc.

You are right about one thing though. Your IF it ever goes to court. Unfortunately, I find it impossible to believe it ever can or will.

So what part of that one line did I not read? Or ignore?? I think I answered adequately what my opinion is.

 

[MurriFlower]

I stand corrected, I thought you were referring to the erroneous dna evidence, not a single line that stated you posted that there would be more evidence needed. What that one line had to do with the questions that I asked you, I still am not sure about however?

I did respond to your one line statement however:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
Not on it's own, as I said, it will identify the IDI, but a conviction will require more evidence.

MF there is NO other evidence. None. Zip, zero nada!! None! There is however multitudes of evidence against the R's. Their statements, fiber evidence, the RN etc., etc., etc.

You are right about one thing though. Your IF it ever goes to court. Unfortunately, I find it impossible to believe it ever can or will.

So what part of that one line did I not read? Or ignore?? I think I answered adequately what my opinion is.

I'm bored with your constant circular argument.

Just re-read what was already written.

 

[SunnieRN]

I'm bored with your constant circular argument.

Just re-read what was already written.

I have re read the posts and answered your accusations. I wish you wold take your own advice. This may become a much more enjoyable conversation. We would also be able to broach additional subjects that would relieve your boredom.

 

[MurriFlower]

"Nopey, nope, no" that is so familiar to me. Someone else I know says that a lot. I don't think it was here though, so nevermind.

Familiar? So you hear that a lot?? Perhaps it's a sign.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Familiar? So you hear that a lot?? Perhaps it's a sign.

I'm quite sure it is.

 

[SunnieRN]

I was just thinking about the IDI and who it may be.

If it is someone who is convicted of a similar crime but who was never suspected for JBR, and the handwriting, hair, alibi, motive, means, etc can all be subsequently proven, then I could not see how this person would not be convicted.

However, if it is someone who is already on our 'radar' (that is has been discussed here) and was basically 'cleared' by the BPD, then provided it is not RDI, I wonder how much work would be involved in reversing this opinion. Like, if some mistake was made where a suspect was 'supposedly' DNA tested and cleared, but the test was incorrect or never taken. Or, if say it was very early in the investigation, before the DNA was discovered in the panties even, when hair samples were taken, but only 'cut' and not 'pulled' hair, (which is difficult to obtain DNA profile) and never DNA tested. There were so many mistakes made by the investigators, that I wonder if people dismissed early on should be closely looked at as first priority.

Familiar? So you hear that a lot?? Perhaps it's a sign.

Wow, I was tired at 3:00 in the morning! I missed your most obvious error. If the DNA was from someone who committed an earlier and similar crime, his DNA would have been in CODIS and we would have had a match!!!!! Sheesh!!! So what is is? A perp who did a crime that was similar, previously? Where does that leave IDI's touch dna sample? Just curious.


MF, you could be right. Maybe nopey, nope, nope, is a sign. I certainly hope I am wrong however.

 

[BBB167893]

Damned unsporting of them!!

Isn't it, though! But, to be honest, I shouldn't have expected much.

Well, it's evidence and that is more than what RDI has got, (except "we BELIEVE they did it").

I happen to disagree on both counts. VEHEMENTLY.

You cannot discount evidence just because you are unable to identify its source or who left it. You could liken it to a photograph of someone who was suspected of being involved in a crime, as happened in a famous case here. The photo was taken at a service station if memory serves and he fitted the description given by one of the victims. It was quite some time before he was identified and it was only after that he was able to be placed at the scene, etc and eventually enough evidence was collected for a jury to convict him.

Perhaps "discount" is not the right word. It might be more appropriate to say that they should put it on the back burner and concentrate on other elements. Let me put it this way: think of yourself as a general in war. Tanks are a good thing to have, but they're not the only thing. You need air support and artillery and men on the ground. If you can't coordinate all of them, you won't win the battle.

It would be very irresponsible for LE to "discount" evidence of any kind and especially DNA evidence, matching earlier DNA from another location, both of which were found in places that were associated with the sexual assault.

Maybe it would be irresponsible. As for your other assertions, I have my own ideas about them.

 

[BBB167893]

MF, "touch" dna is considerably less reliable than let's say dna derived from blood, saliva, or sperm. You know this. If the dna had been from any of these three, I would be giving IDI some serious thought, but it wasnt and it never will be.

Yeah, I was just telling somebody that today.

I also mentioned contamination: DNA can only exclude suspects in cases of rape in the strictest sense, and even then, only if there was one rapist and the victim had not been sexually active that day. In virtually all other cases, DNA can only include suspects, not exclude them. I guess the DA forgot that (if she ever KNEW it).

I know Murri hates it when I bring up other cases, but if it will help, I will. I often compare this case to that of Jeffrey MacDonald and his family. Collette had unmatched DNA under her nails, too.

Another one is Sarah Cherry. She was murdered in Maine about 22 years ago by Dennis Dechaine. Despite the fact that he confessed, witnesses ID'd him and he tried to cut the same deal as David Westerfield (with the same results), people still claim him to be innocent. Their evidence? DNA under Sarah's nails.

DNA is EVERYWHERE. The world is fairly bristling with it.

It is not evidence until we know where it came from. Looks like the score just evened up. You feel RDI has no evidence, we feel IDI has no evidence.

It's 50/50 now (and that's me being generous!)

 

[BBB167893]

MF, we freely admit it every single day. We have no clue where it came from. It is IDI who insists it came from a murderer.

YEAH! Let's not get things confused.

 

[BBB167893]

I was just thinking about the IDI and who it may be.

If it is someone who is convicted of a similar crime but who was never suspected for JBR, and the handwriting, hair, alibi, motive, means, etc can all be subsequently proven, then I could not see how this person would not be convicted.

However, if it is someone who is already on our 'radar' (that is has been discussed here) and was basically 'cleared' by the BPD, then provided it is not RDI, I wonder how much work would be involved in reversing this opinion. Like, if some mistake was made where a suspect was 'supposedly' DNA tested and cleared, but the test was incorrect or never taken. Or, if say it was very early in the investigation, before the DNA was discovered in the panties even, when hair samples were taken, but only 'cut' and not 'pulled' hair, (which is difficult to obtain DNA profile) and never DNA tested. There were so many mistakes made by the investigators, that I wonder if people dismissed early on should be closely looked at as first priority.

For what it's worth, Murri, I'm in agreement with you, 100% The best thing to be done now is to start over with an entirely new team. Or should I say teams? One for RDI, one for IDI.

 

[MurriFlower]

Wow, I was tired at 3:00 in the morning! I missed your most obvious error. If the DNA was from someone who committed an earlier and similar crime, his DNA would have been in CODIS and we would have had a match!!!!! Sheesh!!! So what is is? A perp who did a crime that was similar, previously? Where does that leave IDI's touch dna sample? Just curious.


MF, you could be right. Maybe nopey, nope, nope, is a sign. I certainly hope I am wrong however.

Wrong again:

MurriFlower: If it is someone who is convicted of a similar crime but who was never suspected for JBR, and the handwriting, hair, alibi, motive, means, etc can all be subsequently proven, then I could not see how this person would not be convicted.

What I wrote is correct, you just need to read it again. A person could have committed a similar crime either before or after JBR, but not be convicted of it until some time in the future. That means that DNA could still be matched at any time or there may even be a match that hasn't yet been entered in the system.

 

[MurriFlower]

Isn't it, though! But, to be honest, I shouldn't have expected much.



I happen to disagree on both counts. VEHEMENTLY.



Perhaps "discount" is not the right word. It might be more appropriate to say that they should put it on the back burner and concentrate on other elements. Let me put it this way: think of yourself as a general in war. Tanks are a good thing to have, but they're not the only thing. You need air support and artillery and men on the ground. If you can't coordinate all of them, you won't win the battle.



Maybe it would be irresponsible. As for your other assertions, I have my own ideas about them.

I think I got the general gist. You believe they shouldn't have placed so much importance on the DNA, however, they had quite a few years of persuing evidence against the Rs BEFORE this touch DNA became available, so I don't think that's a valid point.

 

[MurriFlower]

YEAH! Let's not get things confused.

Let's not confuse it with NO EVIDENCE either. It may not be from the person who actually "pulled the string" or "did the bash", but this person was there at the time, so was involved. I don't hold with this 'tertiary transfer' theory, because it is so unlikely in comparison to it having been put there by it's owner.

 

[BBB167893]

I think I got the general gist. You believe they shouldn't have placed so much importance on the DNA,

Yeah, that's part of it. I also happen to believe that they placed importance on it for the wrong reasons.

however, they had quite a few years of persuing evidence against the Rs BEFORE this touch DNA became available, so I don't think that's a valid point.

I don't think that's a very good comparison, Murri. In fact, I'm sure it isn't. Different investigators, different agendas. Except one had the other as a roadblock; the other had NO restraints.