No intruder?

[BBB167893]

Let's not confuse it with NO EVIDENCE either.

You're only off by one word, far as I go.

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 believe it. There's too much going against it. It goes back to my holistic approach, the one you dislike so much.

I don't hold with this 'tertiary transfer' theory,

I gathered.

because it is so unlikely in comparison to it having been put there by it's owner.

If seen in a VACUUM, it's unlikely. Trouble is, when you take it in with everything else, the probability of innocent transfer goes up considerably.

 

[SunnieRN]

Wrong again:



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.

I wasn't wrong. This is what you wrote.

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.

First you said they were convicted of the crime, now you say they were not. Maybe since it is late where you are, you need to re read your own posts.

 

[MurriFlower]

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

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.

Well, I think we all agree (except those who disagree with me on principal LOL) that the initial evidence (from 6am 26th December 1996) was the most critical and that for various reasons the BPD did not give it as much attention as we now know it deserved. That is pretty much lost.

But by their own admission, they suspected the parents from early on, that very day really, so if they were going to find incriminating evidence against them, then that is when it would have been found. There has been another 14 years to come up with something. To think that now (unless one of the two remaining Rs confesses) there is still evidence against them to be discovered is optimistic.

However, the touch DNA, matched with the panty DNA has the potential in future to lead to an IDI conviction. As I have been trying to say, if someone is matched and further investigation uncovers additional evidence, then it's case solved. But if it is someone who has already been looked at, then a whole new investigation is needed to re-examine these people from the beginning, not relying on evidence (samples) already collected, which may or may not be reliable.

 

[SunnieRN]

I am currently having Ramseyspeak flashbacks. The statements were ever changing, ever morphing.

 

[Agatha_C]

Oh my Gosh, they have cloned themselves...... :Benny_monkeysmilies

 

[SunnieRN]

Rofl Agatha! Thanks!!

 

[UKGuy]

Well, I think we all agree (except those who disagree with me on principal LOL) that the initial evidence (from 6am 26th December 1996) was the most critical and that for various reasons the BPD did not give it as much attention as we now know it deserved. That is pretty much lost.

But by their own admission, they suspected the parents from early on, that very day really, so if they were going to find incriminating evidence against them, then that is when it would have been found. There has been another 14 years to come up with something. To think that now (unless one of the two remaining Rs confesses) there is still evidence against them to be discovered is optimistic.

However, the touch DNA, matched with the panty DNA has the potential in future to lead to an IDI conviction. As I have been trying to say, if someone is matched and further investigation uncovers additional evidence, then it's case solved. But if it is someone who has already been looked at, then a whole new investigation is needed to re-examine these people from the beginning, not relying on evidence (samples) already collected, which may or may not be reliable.

MurriFlower,

As I have been trying to say, if someone is matched and further investigation uncovers additional evidence, then it's case solved.

There may be an innocent explanation for the touch-dna, its not DNA unless you wish to mislead?

The touch-dna may belong to a then 7-year old boy, who knows? Its existence does not mean it belongs to an intruder.

The probability that it belongs to an intruder is close to zero, why, because this prescient intruder left no crime-scene evidence.

.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

There may be an innocent explanation for the touch-dna, its not DNA unless you wish to mislead?

The touch-dna may belong to a then 7-year old boy, who knows? Its existence does not mean it belongs to an intruder.

The probability that it belongs to an intruder is close to zero, why, because this prescient intruder left no crime-scene evidence.

.

There may be an innocent explanation for the touch-dna, its not DNA unless you wish to mislead?

What do you mean it's not DNA unless you wish to mislead?

 

[SunnieRN]

Wow MF, up early, or up late?

 

[MurriFlower]

Wow MF, up early, or up late?

Just having breakfast. [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast[/ame]

 

[Agatha_C]

Now you give a source...lol... That was funny Murri, I'll give you that..

 

[otg]

Just having breakfast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast

Now, THAT was funny!
. . . . :dance:
.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, I think we all agree (except those who disagree with me on principal LOL) that the initial evidence (from 6am 26th December 1996) was the most critical and that for various reasons the BPD did not give it as much attention as we now know it deserved. That is pretty much lost.

No argument.

But by their own admission, they suspected the parents from early on, that very day really, so if they were going to find incriminating evidence against them, then that is when it would have been found.

That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

here has been another 14 years to come up with something. To think that now (unless one of the two remaining Rs confesses) there is still evidence against them to be discovered is optimistic.

I'm an eternal optimist, Murri. Anyone who knows me will tell you that. That said, I admit that a confession from one of the other two would be the kicker, and that's not likely to happen, not for now anyway. But you may have misunderstood me. I'm not saying so much that new evidence against them may be discovered. I'm saying that if Boulder were to have someone who knows how to build a case against them with the evidence they HAVE NOW, we probably wouldn't be here, at least not as we are now. I know how much you hate it when I bring up other cases, but people have gone to prison, even death row, with less, and I mean a LOT less, than the police amassed against the Rs.

However, the touch DNA, matched with the panty DNA has the potential in future to lead to an IDI conviction.

The potential? I'll grant that. But having the potential to lead to a conviction is a far cry from giving the prime suspects a pass! That's what I'm saying.

As I have been trying to say, if someone is matched and further investigation uncovers additional evidence, then it's case solved.

That's something you and I can agree on.

But if it is someone who has already been looked at, then a whole new investigation is needed to re-examine these people from the beginning, not relying on evidence (samples) already collected, which may or may not be reliable.

Must be a Christmas miracle, Murri! I can't find anything to fight with you over!

 

[UKGuy]

What do you mean it's not DNA unless you wish to mislead?

MurriFlower,

I mean there is a distinction or difference between the two.

DNA includes semen or blood samples under its remit.

touch-dna is assumed to be skin-cells which can be transferred by second parties.

Semen DNA has a one-to-one relationship with its owner. Touch-dna lacks this attribute.

.

 

[MurriFlower]

No argument.

That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

I'm an eternal optimist, Murri. Anyone who knows me will tell you that. That said, I admit that a confession from one of the other two would be the kicker, and that's not likely to happen, not for now anyway. But you may have misunderstood me. I'm not saying so much that new evidence against them may be discovered. I'm saying that if Boulder were to have someone who knows how to build a case against them with the evidence they HAVE NOW, we probably wouldn't be here, at least not as we are now. I know how much you hate it when I bring up other cases, but people have gone to prison, even death row, with less, and I mean a LOT less, than the police amassed against the Rs.

Well, to you there is enough, but when I looked at your list of 'evidence' there was only really the RN handwriting and the four red fibers on the tape that could have incriminated them and that would only be on the basis that the handwriting could be proven to have been hers and that the red fibers could have proven to be hers. Separately or together, these wouldn't have been enough, and could probably be discounted in a second by a good trial lawyer. The rest of your evidence is circumstantial and really only of value if you already believed in their guilt. However, ONE GOOD PIECE of evidence might be enough to tip the balance, and like LC case, get a jury to convict.

The potential? I'll grant that. But having the potential to lead to a conviction is a far cry from giving the prime suspects a pass! That's what I'm saying.

I don't disagree that they were 'given a pass', because after that length of time with no evidence against them and this new evidence for an IDI, there was no reason to continue to have them under the 'umbrella of suspicion'. Let's face it, they are still there (except for PR) and if they were to find a key piece of evidence against them, they would soon 'unclear' them.

That's something you and I can agree on.

Must be a Christmas miracle, Murri! I can't find anything to fight with you over!

Wow!! You know, when I woke up early this morning, there was this big star in the east.............!!

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

I mean there is a distinction or difference between the two.

DNA includes semen or blood samples under its remit.

touch-dna is assumed to be skin-cells which can be transferred by second parties.

Semen DNA has a one-to-one relationship with its owner. Touch-dna lacks this attribute.

.

What you said is that I was deliberately misleading by referring to the touch DNA as DNA.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Do you think that semen, saliva or blood, (all of which are liquid), could NOT be transferred by a third party??

You continually state that the touch DNA is like a poor cousin to these other fluids, but it has the exact same properties, is analysed in exactly the same fashion and has no more or less ability to be transferred by a third party.

I think that is is you who are being misleading here. The touch DNA indicates an IDI involved, and you can't discount that.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, to you there is enough,

That's right.

but when I looked at your list of 'evidence' there was only really the RN handwriting and the four red fibers on the tape that could have incriminated them and that would only be on the basis that the handwriting could be proven to have been hers and that the red fibers could have proven to be hers.

I'm surprised you allowed THAT much. The thing here is that the ONLY way you COULD prove any of that is to bring it before a jury, something the DA was not known for doing.

Separately or together, these wouldn't have been enough, and could probably be discounted in a second by a good trial lawyer.

Maybe not, but my argument is that you can build on it.

The rest of your evidence is circumstantial and really only of value if you already believed in their guilt.

Circumstantial? Yes, just like 90% of the cases tried here in the US. As for only being of value if you already believed in their guilt, I have to balk on that one, because it convinced me at a time when I did NOT believe in their guilt!

But even if I agreed with that, it wouldn't take much for a good prosecutor to establish that in the jury's mind. Just put the Rs themselves on the stand! One of the biggest screw-ups in a case not lacking screw-ups was not letting Mike Kane, a prosecutor with a winning record and tough as nails to boot get them before the Grand Jury.

However, ONE GOOD PIECE of evidence might be enough to tip the balance, and like LC case, get a jury to convict.

Assuming you're right about that, doesn't it bother you that the police were never given the opportunity to GET that one good piece?

I don't disagree that they were 'given a pass',

I don't see how anyone COULD disagree!

because after that length of time with no evidence againstthem

"No evidence against them" my Irish a**!

and this new evidence for an IDI,

You THINK.

there was no reason to continue to have them under the 'umbrella of suspicion'.

There was no reason to CLEAR them, either! Fortunately, this new man seems a bit more clear-headed.

Let's face it, they are still there (except for PR) and if they were to find a key piece of evidence against them, they would soon 'unclear' them.

Wow, Murri. I always imagined ME being the one to say that!

Wow!! You know, when I woke up early this morning, there was this big star in the east.............!!

In my case, it was a big flurry of snow!

 

[otg]

Must be a Christmas miracle, Murri! I can't find anything to fight with you over!

:applause::clap::applause::clap::applause:
.

 

[madeleine]

The touch DNA indicates an IDI involved, and you can't discount that.

Not the touch DNA but if there are two types of DNA,for ex TOUCH DNA on the long johns and blood,semen or saliva in the panties,then yes this raises the possibility of someone unknown (to us at least) to have been there that night when JB was killed or redressed.


BUT!

this doesn't mean IDI= stranger
this could also very well mean an "INTRUDER" (intruder to US only but very well known to the Ramseys) - like an accomplice,cleaner,helper in the cover up (doctor,etc)

 

[madeleine]

you just can't prove that the DNA owner KILLED JB,end of story IMO
it's like with the RN,if PR wrote it that doesn't mean she KILLED JB.period.