Peculiar letters from the RN

[BBB167893]

Just like RDI was always asking about the FIBER, then they'd have been asking HOW DID R DNA GET INTO JBR"S UNDERPANTS MIXED WITH HER BLOOD AND SAME ON THE LONGJOHN WAISTBAND. Same argument as fibers in the paint tote, huh??).

I don't think you understand, HOTYH: R DNA would have a much different context. It would be just one more thing in a litany of things.

Whether R or unknown male DNA, it could be innocent transfer, but only if you believe in astronomical probabilities.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but astronomical probabilities are the rule in this case. Every time the coin has been tossed, it's landed on the edge.

RDI explains the sexual assault as part of staging designed to somehow coverup prior abuse. However, the minor aspect of the sexual assault belies that claim.

How do you figure that?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't think you understand, HOTYH: R DNA would have a much different context. It would be just one more thing in a litany of things.

You're missing the point. I'm not sure you can apply your own beliefs to what you think the DA would do, since they haven't done anything you're approving of as yet.

The point is, if the DNA mixed with JBR's blood spot in her underwear, that matched waistband DNA, was in fact OWNED by either parent, then the DA would have the same argument but it would be aimed at the R's instead. The argument is that the DNA can't get to these places innocently.

Just because YOU say 'it would be just one more thing' doesn't mean the DA would not say 'this is the smoking gun evidence'. See what I mean?

 

[BBB167893]

You're missing the point.

Am I, now?

I'm not sure you can apply your own beliefs to what you think the DA would do,

Probably not. I've pretty much given up on trying to think along with their mindset.

since they haven't done anything you're approving of as yet.

That ought to tell you something right there. Not just me who doesn't approve. Plenty of cops, FBI agents and correspondents aren't wild about them either.

The point is, if the DNA mixed with JBR's blood spot in her underwear, that matched waistband DNA, was in fact OWNED by either parent, then the DA would have the same argument but it would be aimed at the R's instead.

Well, I have a few thoughts about that, HOTYH. Like I said, the context would be much different. Indeed, since DNA is so easy to transfer, I myself would hesitate. Moreover, in my opinion (and that's what it is), that's one of the big problems with this case: too much focus on getting a smoking gun, not enough on preparing for what to do if there isn't one. I realize you're probably as tired of hearing this as I am of saying it, but it goes back to that whole dynamic of how a smoking-gun case is handled vs. how a circumstantial case is handled. Maybe you aren't aware of the record, but this DA's office is well-known and has been for some time as an outfit that plea bargains cases rather than trying to build a court case. Up until JB's death, that didn't really matter, because most of the defendants who passed through the Boulder system were poor indigents who could be easily steamrolled into accepting deals rather than taking their chances at trial.

Now I ask you: what do you think the cumulative effect of all that was? I'll wait for your answer before I tell you what I and a lot of other people think.

The argument is that the DNA can't get to these places innocently.

I KNOW what the argument is. And I still don't buy it.

Just because YOU say 'it would be just one more thing' doesn't mean the DA would not say 'this is the smoking gun evidence'. See what I mean?

I do.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

A really good way to look at it is this:

Its the owner of the DNA that the DA now thinks killed JBR. Had the DNA belonged to either parent, they would be tried and convicted on that evidence. Therefore, its not the simple fact that the DNA is non-parental that has the DA excited. Had that DNA been parental, the DA would be on their case instead.

The DA would NOT be finding innocent reasons for parental DNA to be there, as RDI does now with the intruder DNA.

 

[BBB167893]

A really good way to look at it is this:

Its the owner of the DNA that the DA now thinks killed JBR.

I know that. Although, just to be totally accurate, the previous DA thought that. No word on what the current administration thinks.

Had the DNA belonged to either parent, they would be tried and convicted on that evidence.

I doubt it.

Therefore, its not the simple fact that the DNA is non-parental that has the DA excited.

So YOU say. The record says that's exactly why. Like I said before, I'm not implying impropriety, I'm saying it straight-out.

Had that DNA been parental, the DA would be on their case instead.

I wish I could believe that, HOTYH. But that was kind of my point: there's too much reliance on technology and not enough on actual prosecuting.

They shouldn't NEED DNA to make a case.

The DA would NOT be finding innocent reasons for parental DNA to be there,

Why not? They tried to do that with all of the other evidence against them. I've got a list, if you'd like to see it.

as RDI does now with the intruder DNA.

Cheap shot, HOTYH.

I swear, it's like you didn't read a word I wrote.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Why not? They tried to do that with all of the other evidence against them. I've got a list, if you'd like to see it.



Cheap shot, HOTYH.

I swear, it's like you didn't read a word I wrote.

Not true. I read, just don't agree alot.

I think you're saying that the only way the DA finds the DNA incriminating to its owner is if it belongs to an unknown. If the DNA were owned by JR, for example, it would be rationalized as having gotten there innocently somehow.

I can easily disagree with this viewpoint because it relies on a premise that the DA is automatically biased in favor of the R's, without any proof that is the case. The premise has no basis in fact.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Its the owner of the DNA that the DA now thinks killed JBR. Had the DNA belonged to either parent, they would be tried and convicted on that evidence.

I doubt it.

I don't, not for a minute. It would go back to the grand jury and they would return probable cause for arrest and trial.

This is the only rational outcome for parental DNA mixed with blood in the underpants worn by a child sexual assault and murder victim. Wouldn't even have to match other crime scene DNA to arrest, that would just be more corroborating evidence.

There is no other way, SD. I don't care if the DA is best friends with the R's, there is no other way. I'm surprised you can't see this. That is, parental DNA mixed with blood on underwear is going to be looked at in one and only one way by a grand jury. There is only one interpretation.

 

[Ravyn]

Is this the same DA that said the detectives were being to hard on PR and also people believed that this DA was in firm belief a woman could not kill her child even after how many cases that have shown other wise to this fact...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Is this the same DA that said the detectives were being to hard on PR and also people believed that this DA was in firm belief a woman could not kill her child even after how many cases that have shown other wise to this fact...

If you say so.

Doesn't really matter, though, because if parental DNA were found mixed with blood in JBR's underwear, it wouldn't matter what the DA thought anymore. Its not like they have ultimate power or control...

 

[Ravyn]

If you say so.

Doesn't really matter, though, because if parental DNA were found mixed with blood in JBR's underwear, it wouldn't matter what the DA thought anymore. Its not like they have ultimate power or control...

Maybe not the R's with the ultimate power but who to say their lawyers didn't Holdon..Is this not likely cause tell the truth something sure is holding this case from moving towards the truth to what happen that night..

 

[voynich]

Do those box letters stay the same from start to finish?

How could handwriting experts say it's a match to PR's known exemplars if she deliberately wrote w/box letters?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Maybe not the R's with the ultimate power but who to say their lawyers didn't Holdon..Is this not likely cause tell the truth something sure is holding this case from moving towards the truth to what happen that night..

I am here to tell you that their lawyers don't have ultimate power. Neither do the R's, or the DA. Thats all propaganda and hype.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Do those box letters stay the same from start to finish?

How could handwriting experts say it's a match to PR's known exemplars if she deliberately wrote w/box letters?

Box letters, huh? Thanks for the characterization. Can I use that?

To answer your question, they do vary. There's a lot of 'boxed' letters and there's a lot of 'partially boxed' letters and a lot of 'unboxed' letters. More than 1500 letters to look at.

 

[Ravyn]

I am here to tell you that their lawyers don't have ultimate power. Neither do the R's, or the DA. Thats all propaganda and hype.

Well the oddest thing to me is the Ramsey's went after Tom Miller for PR's handwritting, went after a tabloid ,and Fox News Network,and even ST..And I guess cause they were proving their innocence..But yet the R's still didn't go after Henry Lee or Cycil Wecht for writting about them sexually abusing JB..And even making public statements to this fact...And some will say the R's were following their lawyers lead,but what kind of defense is this...Some times to me it would seem the best defense is not to follow your lawyer blindly cause some of these actions really don't help in proving innocence..Explain these actions to me..Why not go after what would damage the R's the most..Or maybe this is where the R's advised the lawyers this is the area they need to steer away from..Alot of times seems to be tactics and countermeasures going on in this case of the R's and their dream team..

 

[voynich]

Box letters, huh? Thanks for the characterization. Can I use that?

To answer your question, they do vary. There's a lot of 'boxed' letters and there's a lot of 'partially boxed' letters and a lot of 'unboxed' letters. More than 1500 letters to look at.

Sure!

Does this variance change from beginning of letter to end? Do the letters at the end more strongly resemble PR handwriting or less, as it starts out of course the author may try to consciously hide her handwriting but as she marches on, her true handwriting may be more apparent.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Sure!

Does this variance change from beginning of letter to end? Do the letters at the end more strongly resemble PR handwriting or less, as it starts out of course the author may try to consciously hide her handwriting but as she marches on, her true handwriting may be more apparent.

"..of course the author may try to consciously hide her handwriting..."

"Of course she would because it makes sense" isn't proof she did. Nobody knows for certain that PR or anybody else bothered to mask their handwriting. It makes more sense to me that whoever wrote 1500+ characters on 2 1/2 pages wasn't in the least worried about leaving their own handwriting.

Since the handwriting is not uniformly boxed, it would need to be answered why would someone disguise their handwriting only sometimes. That makes no sense.

The length of the RN indicates an author not concerned about handwriting. The fact that 'boxing' wasn't uniformly applied from beginning to end suggests boxing wasn't part of a ransom note author's decision to disguise handwriting.

 

[Tadpole12]

I don't, not for a minute. It would go back to the grand jury and they would return probable cause for arrest and trial.

This is the only rational outcome for parental DNA mixed with blood in the underpants worn by a child sexual assault and murder victim. Wouldn't even have to match other crime scene DNA to arrest, that would just be more corroborating evidence.

There is no other way, SD. I don't care if the DA is best friends with the R's, there is no other way. I'm surprised you can't see this. That is, parental DNA mixed with blood on underwear is going to be looked at in one and only one way by a grand jury. There is only one interpretation.

Hi Hotyh.

There is only one interpretation. - Hotyh

Ya. That's it exactly.
If the same pattern had appeared with respect to the Ramseys, it would have been the absolute.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi Hotyh.

"..of course the author may try to consciously hide her handwriting..."

"Of course she would because it makes sense" isn't proof she did. Nobody knows for certain that PR or anybody else bothered to mask their handwriting. It makes more sense to me that whoever wrote 1500+ characters on 2 1/2 pages wasn't in the least worried about leaving their own handwriting.

I've considered that, that the perp believed they would remain anonymous, or that the crime, time constraints ... necessitated a hand written note.

Since the handwriting is not uniformly boxed, it would need to be answered why would someone disguise their handwriting only sometimes. That makes no sense.

The length of the RN indicates an author not concerned about handwriting. The fact that 'boxing' wasn't uniformly applied from beginning to end suggests boxing wasn't part of a ransom note author's decision to disguise handwriting.

ah,
you get writing fatigue, sometimes the quality of your natural script diminishes after a few pages.
Or even when using a font type the last page may not be as exact as the first, unless the script type is second nature.

I've always wondered about the third page of the rn, how it seems 'rushed' or atleast has been described as such. I wonder, given the modifications of the standard applied test, if the rn pages were individually compared and tested against PR exemplars, where would PR pacement on the scale be. If the third page of the rn was the sole source of comparison, would PR be excluded?

 

[BBB167893]

Not true. I read, just don't agree alot.

Fair enough. I sometimes get the feeling that my points are passed over.

I think you're saying that the only way the DA finds the DNA incriminating to its owner is if it belongs to an unknown. If the DNA were owned by JR, for example, it would be rationalized as having gotten there innocently somehow.

Correct. That's what I'm saying.

I can easily disagree with this viewpoint because it relies on a premise that the DA is automatically biased in favor of the R's, without any proof that is the case.

Without any proof? Would you like to see a LIST? I'm sure Tricia could weigh in on that subject, as well.

The premise has no basis in fact.

Oh, doesn't it now? I'd be more than happy to go over it with you!

 

[BBB167893]

Is this the same DA that said the detectives were being to hard on PR and also people believed that this DA was in firm belief a woman could not kill her child even after how many cases that have shown other wise to this fact...

It sure is! It's not "if we say so." That's what happened.