Poll: If an R confessed, would you accept it?

[madeleine]

Well, there were in fact some experts who doubted it. The ones who haven't been bullied into silence thanks to threats of lawsuits.

Exactly.

Clint Van Zandt comes to mind. He said that day that it was still 50-50.

Yep,I really liked that piece he wrote about it.Subjective and realistic.

And as for arguing with that reasoning, how much time have you got?

"It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim's underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful. "


Yeah,she (ML) made sure that it wasn't innocent transfer,she took time to deal with this but she didn't bother to test the rest of the evidence for the "intruder's" touch DNA,yeah right!

unlikely is not = with impossible

and

ML+unsuccessful is not a big surprise so I wouldn't trust that anyway

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Exactly.



Yep,I really liked that piece he wrote about it.Subjective and realistic.



"It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim's underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful. "


Yeah,she (ML) made sure that it wasn't innocent transfer,she took time to deal with this but she didn't bother to test the rest of the evidence for the "intruder's" touch DNA,yeah right!

unlikely is not = with impossible

and

ML+unsuccessful is not a big surprise so I wouldn't trust that anyway

I agree that testing the rest of the evidence for this DNA is important. If it showed up in a non crime related venue, then that would probably add to RDI argument. The locations and profile of all DNA on all evidence is significant.

 

[BBB167893]

That's something we all can agree on.

 

[BBB167893]

Whoever bumped this one up saved me a lot of trouble.

Let me re-frame the question. In this particular "what-if" scenario, we're talking about a freely offered confession not coerced or forced in any way.

Moreover, I'm not talking about a misplaced expression of guilt from someone who believed they didn't do enough to keep JB safe like "I'm responsible" or "it's my fault," like HOTYH suggests. No, I'm talking a definitive statement like "I did it" or "I killed her because..." THAT's what I'm talking about.

On that, allow me to add that some of you have expressed the idea that you would believe a confession because it would account for certain things. I have great respect for that notion and I would even say that my scenario would involve explanations for certain phenomena. But my main point is that a confession matching the above criteria would not NEED to explain every single thing, and that I would be perfectly content to leave a few things alone.

Now, before that statement causes any aspersions to be cast upon my motives, mindset or methods, allow me to explain myself. I have YET to find a single case, confession or not, where every single thing can be accounted for. That was my whole point: to my way of thinking, a confession from an R would obviate the need to explain everything.

Let me elaborate further: to hear the Rs tell it, there was a double standard in the investigation. Well, there was, but not the way they mean it! The double standard comes from the fact that we KNOW that the Rs were in the house that night, whereas you have to establish a nexus of evidence to show that someone else was. For that reason, a confession by the Rs automatically requires less explanation than that of an intruder. An intruder WOULD have to account for literally everything, but an R would NOT.

Anyone else like to weigh in?

 

[Sophie]

Whoever bumped this one up saved me a lot of trouble.



Anyone else like to weigh in?

Normally I would, Dave, but I don't recall ever having been so pessimistic about LE reaching an appropriate resolution to this case and your question in many ways casts a light on the mad sort of thinking indulged in by Hunter et al when affording the Ramseys such privileges.

 

[BBB167893]

Normally I would, Dave, but I don't recall ever having been so pessimistic about LE reaching an appropriate resolution to this case and your question in many ways casts a light on the mad sort of thinking indulged in by Hunter et al when affording the Ramseys such privileges.

Sophie, you have no idea. I wasn't going to do this, but I feel I have to.

Our parents always told us that talking politics will lead to an argument. Well, I'm about to talk politics, and I'm HOPING to start an argument, and argument that I feel needs--NEEDS-- to be had.

I've often spoken on how Boulder politics in the DA's office hindered this case. But in my view, the "mad sort of thinking indulged in by Hunter et al when affording the Ramseys such privileges" in this case is only a symptom of a MUCH larger problem, a problem that began a long time ago. Bear with me here, folks.

I sum it up in the book this way:

Hunter had been elected in the late Sixties and never voted out. And he was very much a product of the era that marked his rise, that terrible and terribly romanticized period in time when violent crime was hip revolutionary action, war was fine as long as the "pigs" were dying, and Big Government was seen as the solution to every problem.

But that only scratches the surface. It behooves us to take a look at that era from a legal standpoint and see just what kind of cluster-schtupp could have allowed someone like an Alex Hunter to get into power in the first place. During the 1960s, the Supreme Court of the United States broke from its traditional role in government and embraced judicial activism with a vengeance. And the captain of this ship of fools was none other than the late Earl Warren. Under his stewardship, the Court discovered bizarre "new" rights every week or so, and many of those rulings, which are taught in every law school in the nation, have had an effect on the American legal system that is no less than disastrous.

The first one was Mapp v Ohio from 1961, in which the Court ruled that evidence in a criminal case must be excluded if obtained without a valid search warrant. Even Benjamin Cardozo wondered why the criminal should go free because the constable has blundered. Up until Mapp, if police officers acted improperly, it was up to the department to correct the problem. For almost 180 years, there had been no such provision, and yet America did not suffer an epidemic of abusive police power. Never occurred to them that MAYBE the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

Even worse was the 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona, where the Court ruled that if a suspect was not informed of and/or did not understand his right to silence and an attorney, any confession that was made would be inadmissable as evidence against him. When he was questioned about this, Warren replied that his aim in making the decision was to prevent police officers from using coercive methods during interrogations--methods which had already been banned.

In both instances, the Court applied solutions that were not needed to problems that did not exist, and in so doing made things far worse than they found them. HOW much worse? Well, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis:

After the Miranda decision, the fraction of suspects who confessed dropped from 49 percent to 14 percent in New York. In Pittsburgh, the confession rate fell from 48 percent to 29 percent...Following the decision, the rates of violent crimes solved by police fell dramatically, from 60 percent or more to 45 percent...This means that each year there are 28,000 fewer convictions for violent crimes, 79,000 fewer for property crimes.

Look, I don't know how folks on this forum lean politically, and I don't care, because if there's one thing we should all be able to agree on, it's that we all have a vested interest in making sure that criminals are punished. The Court made it more difficult for that to happen because they put politics ahead of duty. One of my favorite saying concerning this case is that justice should be blind, but it shouldn't be crippled as well. The Warren Court decisions were ground-zero for taking the handcuffs off of the crooks and putting them on the cops.

You have good reason to be pessimistic, Sophie. Alex Hunter didn't appear in a vacuum, which would be bad enough. The damage has been done.

There's an old saying in American politics: you get the government you deserve. Boulder deserved Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, and the rest of them. May they ALL rot together. But JB and all the other victims--past present and future--DAMN well deserve better.

 

[madeleine]

Sophie, you have no idea. I wasn't going to do this, but I feel I have to.

Our parents always told us that talking politics will lead to an argument. Well, I'm about to talk politics, and I'm HOPING to start an argument, and argument that I feel needs--NEEDS-- to be had.

I've often spoken on how Boulder politics in the DA's office hindered this case. But in my view, the "mad sort of thinking indulged in by Hunter et al when affording the Ramseys such privileges" in this case is only a symptom of a MUCH larger problem, a problem that began a long time ago. Bear with me here, folks.

I sum it up in the book this way:

Hunter had been elected in the late Sixties and never voted out. And he was very much a product of the era that marked his rise, that terrible and terribly romanticized period in time when violent crime was hip revolutionary action, war was fine as long as the "pigs" were dying, and Big Government was seen as the solution to every problem.

But that only scratches the surface. It behooves us to take a look at that era from a legal standpoint and see just what kind of cluster-schtupp could have allowed someone like an Alex Hunter to get into power in the first place. During the 1960s, the Supreme Court of the United States broke from its traditional role in government and embraced judicial activism with a vengeance. And the captain of this ship of fools was none other than the late Earl Warren. Under his stewardship, the Court discovered bizarre "new" rights every week or so, and many of those rulings, which are taught in every law school in the nation, have had an effect on the American legal system that is no less than disastrous.

The first one was Mapp v Ohio from 1961, in which the Court ruled that evidence in a criminal case must be excluded if obtained without a valid search warrant. Even Benjamin Cardozo wondered why the criminal should go free because the constable has blundered. Up until Mapp, if police officers acted improperly, it was up to the department to correct the problem. For almost 180 years, there had been no such provision, and yet America did not suffer an epidemic of abusive police power. Never occurred to them that MAYBE the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

Even worse was the 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona, where the Court ruled that if a suspect was not informed of and/or did not understand his right to silence and an attorney, any confession that was made would be inadmissable as evidence against him. When he was questioned about this, Warren replied that his aim in making the decision was to prevent police officers from using coercive methods during interrogations--methods which had already been banned.

In both instances, the Court applied solutions that were not needed to problems that did not exist, and in so doing made things far worse than they found them. HOW much worse? Well, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis:

After the Miranda decision, the fraction of suspects who confessed dropped from 49 percent to 14 percent in New York. In Pittsburgh, the confession rate fell from 48 percent to 29 percent...Following the decision, the rates of violent crimes solved by police fell dramatically, from 60 percent or more to 45 percent...This means that each year there are 28,000 fewer convictions for violent crimes, 79,000 fewer for property crimes.

Look, I don't know how folks on this forum lean politically, and I don't care, because if there's one thing we should all be able to agree on, it's that we all have a vested interest in making sure that criminals are punished. The Court made it more difficult for that to happen because they put politics ahead of duty. One of my favorite saying concerning this case is that justice should be blind, but it shouldn't be crippled as well. The Warren Court decisions were ground-zero for taking the handcuffs off of the crooks and putting them on the cops.

You have good reason to be pessimistic, Sophie. Alex Hunter didn't appear in a vacuum, which would be bad enough. The damage has been done.

There's an old saying in American politics: you get the government you deserve. Boulder deserved Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, and the rest of them. May they ALL rot together. But JB and all the other victims--past present and future--DAMN well deserve better.

:clap:

 

[Sophie]

Sophie, you have no idea. I wasn't going to do this, but I feel I have to.

Our parents always told us that talking politics will lead to an argument. Well, I'm about to talk politics, and I'm HOPING to start an argument, and argument that I feel needs--NEEDS-- to be had.

I've often spoken on how Boulder politics in the DA's office hindered this case. But in my view, the "mad sort of thinking indulged in by Hunter et al when affording the Ramseys such privileges" in this case is only a symptom of a MUCH larger problem, a problem that began a long time ago. Bear with me here, folks.

I sum it up in the book this way:

Hunter had been elected in the late Sixties and never voted out. And he was very much a product of the era that marked his rise, that terrible and terribly romanticized period in time when violent crime was hip revolutionary action, war was fine as long as the "pigs" were dying, and Big Government was seen as the solution to every problem.

But that only scratches the surface. It behooves us to take a look at that era from a legal standpoint and see just what kind of cluster-schtupp could have allowed someone like an Alex Hunter to get into power in the first place. During the 1960s, the Supreme Court of the United States broke from its traditional role in government and embraced judicial activism with a vengeance. And the captain of this ship of fools was none other than the late Earl Warren. Under his stewardship, the Court discovered bizarre "new" rights every week or so, and many of those rulings, which are taught in every law school in the nation, have had an effect on the American legal system that is no less than disastrous.

The first one was Mapp v Ohio from 1961, in which the Court ruled that evidence in a criminal case must be excluded if obtained without a valid search warrant. Even Benjamin Cardozo wondered why the criminal should go free because the constable has blundered. Up until Mapp, if police officers acted improperly, it was up to the department to correct the problem. For almost 180 years, there had been no such provision, and yet America did not suffer an epidemic of abusive police power. Never occurred to them that MAYBE the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

Even worse was the 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona, where the Court ruled that if a suspect was not informed of and/or did not understand his right to silence and an attorney, any confession that was made would be inadmissable as evidence against him. When he was questioned about this, Warren replied that his aim in making the decision was to prevent police officers from using coercive methods during interrogations--methods which had already been banned.

In both instances, the Court applied solutions that were not needed to problems that did not exist, and in so doing made things far worse than they found them. HOW much worse? Well, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis:

After the Miranda decision, the fraction of suspects who confessed dropped from 49 percent to 14 percent in New York. In Pittsburgh, the confession rate fell from 48 percent to 29 percent...Following the decision, the rates of violent crimes solved by police fell dramatically, from 60 percent or more to 45 percent...This means that each year there are 28,000 fewer convictions for violent crimes, 79,000 fewer for property crimes.

Look, I don't know how folks on this forum lean politically, and I don't care, because if there's one thing we should all be able to agree on, it's that we all have a vested interest in making sure that criminals are punished. The Court made it more difficult for that to happen because they put politics ahead of duty. One of my favorite saying concerning this case is that justice should be blind, but it shouldn't be crippled as well. The Warren Court decisions were ground-zero for taking the handcuffs off of the crooks and putting them on the cops.

You have good reason to be pessimistic, Sophie. Alex Hunter didn't appear in a vacuum, which would be bad enough. The damage has been done.

There's an old saying in American politics: you get the government you deserve. Boulder deserved Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, and the rest of them. May they ALL rot together. But JB and all the other victims--past present and future--DAMN well deserve better.

Dave, that is an awesome post. It speaks to everything that is great about you and to every reason why we simply have to get your book published.

I hesitate to get involved in any political debate on here lest I appear like some sort of superior Limey trying to tell you how to run your affairs or some sort of superior European who believes in the hereditary superiority of the Franco-German-Italian axis. I am sure, though, that you are all aware of much I love the US and how I contend that you should avoid doing anything we do since we are the poster country for how to do things wrong so please don't infer any criticism of the US from what I say.

Anyway, here goes:


Dave, I think what you say is absolutely right and I think it also strikes at the very heart of why the well-meaning, idealistic common law systems of criminal justice are no match for modern crime and modern science. I was only dimly aware of the specifics of the evolution of American justice through the Warren years and the Miranda decision etc but it does seem that the rights of the perpetrator have all-but surpassed the rights of the victim and of society. I can see - in glorious Technicolor - how this applies to the Ramsey case. The irony is that the approach doesn't work to the general good in any way, shape or form: instead of just wrongly protecting the Ramseys, it created a legion of other suspects whose lives have been ruined, cost far more money than it needed to cost, made everyone concerned look like an idiot and didn't even serve effectively to clear the Ramseys since so many of us still believe they have guilty knowledge of the crime. It's almost breath-taking in its range of evils, the 'Boulder model.'

ETA: In all truth, when I see the passion for justice on here and the work you guys put into the case, my spirits tend to get raised on the basis that such industry and decency can't go unrewarded and the fact that a Eureka! moment could easily emerge from the discussions. It's possibly just January Blues making a positive outcome look so improbable right now.

ETA: One thing I have noticed is that elsewhere you do see people attributing political leanings to those who take a different view of the case. For example, an IDI called an RDI a Democrat and probable believer in anthrophogenic global warming minutes before another IDI called an RDI a far right fundmentalist. It would be quite an interesting area of study, I think. Reminds me of getting banned from The Daily Mail site for arguing with its approach to the McCann case - not before I'd been called a pinko liberal Guardian-reader by its usual readership ?!!?

ETA: I keep seeing more in your post, Dave, but your point about when Hunter was elected is very interesting. It puts me in mind of his pious airs when claiming that his approach was all about it utter conviction in the presumption of innocence. Thick-skinned hypocrite: if he'd presumed the Ramseys were innocent, he would have acted in an entirely different manner.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave, that is an awesome post. It speaks to everything that is great about you and to every reason why we simply have to get your book published.

Wish me luck, Sophie. I'm meeting with a publisher this afternoon. I'll know more then.

I hesitate to get involved in any political debate on here lest I appear like some sort of superior Limey trying to tell you how to run your affairs or some sort of superior European who believes in the hereditary superiority of the Franco-German-Italian axis. I am sure, though, that you are all aware of much I love the US and how I contend that you should avoid doing anything we do since we are the poster country for how to do things wrong so please don't infer any criticism of the US from what I say.

Anyway, here goes:


Dave, I think what you say is absolutely right and I think it also strikes at the very heart of why the well-meaning, idealistic common law systems of criminal justice are no match for modern crime and modern science. I was only dimly aware of the specifics of the evolution of American justice through the Warren years and the Miranda decision etc but it does seem that the rights of the perpetrator have all-but surpassed the rights of the victim and of society. I can see - in glorious Technicolor - how this applies to the Ramsey case. The irony is that the approach doesn't work to the general good in any way, shape or form: instead of just wrongly protecting the Ramseys, it created a legion of other suspects whose lives have been ruined, cost far more money than it needed to cost, made everyone concerned look like an idiot and didn't even serve effectively to clear the Ramseys since so many of us still believe they have guilty knowledge of the crime. It's almost breath-taking in its range of evils, the 'Boulder model.'

:applause:

ETA: One thing I have noticed is that elsewhere you do see people attributing political leanings to those who take a different view of the case. For example, an IDI called an RDI a Democrat and probable believer in anthrophogenic global warming minutes before another IDI called an RDI a far right fundmentalist. It would be quite an interesting area of study, I think. Reminds me of getting banned from The Daily Mail site for arguing with its approach to the McCann case - not before I'd been called a pinko liberal Guardian-reader by its usual readership ?!!?

The thing about this case is that people from all across the political spectrum are on both sides. I've seen IDIs among lefty lawyers like Pozner and Merritt and far-rightists like Ann Coulter. Same deal for RDI.

ETA: I keep seeing more in your post, Dave, but your point about when Hunter was elected is very interesting. It puts me in mind of his pious airs when claiming that his approach was all about it utter conviction in the presumption of innocence. Thick-skinned hypocrite: if he'd presumed the Ramseys were innocent, he would have acted in an entirely different manner.

No kidding. Mark Fuhrman wrote in his book how the DA's office overturned heaven and earth to investigate anyone not named "Ramsey."

 

[Ames]

well- thats a sticky one SD....what if John confesses that Patsy was the one who killed JB.How would we know if he's telling the truth, with her being dead ? what if he's covering for himself...
But, if he confesses that HE HIMSELF did it, or Burke confesses that he himself (or either one of the parents did it) , then thats a different story...

I agree! If a Ramsey pointed the finger at Patsy, she is not here to defend herself. UNLESS, they had some sort of proof. If it was a Ramsey that is living...and they confessed...then yep, I would have no reason to doubt that they are telling the truth. Why in the world would someone confess to that awful murder, if they didn't do it?

 

[BBB167893]

I agree! If a Ramsey pointed the finger at Patsy, she is not here to defend herself. UNLESS, they had some sort of proof. If it was a Ramsey that is living...and they confessed...then yep, I would have no reason to doubt that they are telling the truth. Why in the world would someone confess to that awful murder, if they didn't do it?

:clap: :clap:

 

[Sophie]

Something else, Dave, that always amazes me, is the way IDI just call the BPD a gang of Nazis who wanted to pin it on the Ramseys. I know there are dodgy cops and even the odd dodgy police department but they are hardly institutionally endorsed and are very much the exception. Does anyone really think that any policeman/woman who saw what had happened to JonBenet would want to pin this on anyone other than the person who did it and risk more children's lives by letting the real perp under the radar?

It's fair to say that the BPD made some mistakes but most of them related to being way too kind to the Ramseys in the early days then being hamstrung by the DA's office. The charge that they had it in for the Ramseys is risible.

 

[BBB167893]

Something else, Dave, that always amazes me, is the way IDI just call the BPD a gang of Nazis who wanted to pin it on the Ramseys. I know there are dodgy cops and even the odd dodgy police department but they are hardly institutionally endorsed and are very much the exception. Does anyone really think that any policeman/woman who saw what had happened to JonBenet would want to pin this on anyone other than the person who did it and risk more children's lives by letting the real perp under the radar?

It's fair to say that the BPD made some mistakes but most of them related to being way too kind to the Ramseys in the early days then being hamstrung by the DA's office. The charge that they had it in for the Ramseys is risible.

You said it all right there.

 

[Becky319]

I voted yes with the assumption the question meant confessed for themselves not for Patsy or someone else not around. Therefore, I don't expect any confession.

 

[jaded cat]

If it was written in her hand and notarized before she died, yes. I would accept a confession from JR if, as someone mentioned, it's done at a police station by real LE folks.

Since that's not going to happen, I'll just keep thinking what I've always thought.

 

[jaded cat]

Sophie, you have no idea. I wasn't going to do this, but I feel I have to.

Our parents always told us that talking politics will lead to an argument. Well, I'm about to talk politics, and I'm HOPING to start an argument, and argument that I feel needs--NEEDS-- to be had.

I've often spoken on how Boulder politics in the DA's office hindered this case. But in my view, the "mad sort of thinking indulged in by Hunter et al when affording the Ramseys such privileges" in this case is only a symptom of a MUCH larger problem, a problem that began a long time ago. Bear with me here, folks.

I sum it up in the book this way:

Hunter had been elected in the late Sixties and never voted out. And he was very much a product of the era that marked his rise, that terrible and terribly romanticized period in time when violent crime was hip revolutionary action, war was fine as long as the "pigs" were dying, and Big Government was seen as the solution to every problem.

But that only scratches the surface. It behooves us to take a look at that era from a legal standpoint and see just what kind of cluster-schtupp could have allowed someone like an Alex Hunter to get into power in the first place. During the 1960s, the Supreme Court of the United States broke from its traditional role in government and embraced judicial activism with a vengeance. And the captain of this ship of fools was none other than the late Earl Warren. Under his stewardship, the Court discovered bizarre "new" rights every week or so, and many of those rulings, which are taught in every law school in the nation, have had an effect on the American legal system that is no less than disastrous.

The first one was Mapp v Ohio from 1961, in which the Court ruled that evidence in a criminal case must be excluded if obtained without a valid search warrant. Even Benjamin Cardozo wondered why the criminal should go free because the constable has blundered. Up until Mapp, if police officers acted improperly, it was up to the department to correct the problem. For almost 180 years, there had been no such provision, and yet America did not suffer an epidemic of abusive police power. Never occurred to them that MAYBE the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

Even worse was the 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona, where the Court ruled that if a suspect was not informed of and/or did not understand his right to silence and an attorney, any confession that was made would be inadmissable as evidence against him. When he was questioned about this, Warren replied that his aim in making the decision was to prevent police officers from using coercive methods during interrogations--methods which had already been banned.

In both instances, the Court applied solutions that were not needed to problems that did not exist, and in so doing made things far worse than they found them. HOW much worse? Well, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis:

After the Miranda decision, the fraction of suspects who confessed dropped from 49 percent to 14 percent in New York. In Pittsburgh, the confession rate fell from 48 percent to 29 percent...Following the decision, the rates of violent crimes solved by police fell dramatically, from 60 percent or more to 45 percent...This means that each year there are 28,000 fewer convictions for violent crimes, 79,000 fewer for property crimes.

Look, I don't know how folks on this forum lean politically, and I don't care, because if there's one thing we should all be able to agree on, it's that we all have a vested interest in making sure that criminals are punished. The Court made it more difficult for that to happen because they put politics ahead of duty. One of my favorite saying concerning this case is that justice should be blind, but it shouldn't be crippled as well. The Warren Court decisions were ground-zero for taking the handcuffs off of the crooks and putting them on the cops.

You have good reason to be pessimistic, Sophie. Alex Hunter didn't appear in a vacuum, which would be bad enough. The damage has been done.

There's an old saying in American politics: you get the government you deserve. Boulder deserved Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, and the rest of them. May they ALL rot together. But JB and all the other victims--past present and future--DAMN well deserve better.

Wow, just...OMG, wow. While in some instances those laws may have harmed LE, they offer protection and rights to the accused. I remember being outraged back in the 70s when some murderer was released from prison due to a technical error in his trial. My father, retired Marine colonel and fairly conservative, pointed out to me that if we don't make the police follow the rules then the police can make whatever rules they want!

It can't be ok for the police to come into your house and see something illegal, then go back to the police station and issue a warrant for your arrest for that illegal thing.

Look how many people are being released from prison because of faulty convictions. DNA has been the biggest boon to LE since the invention of the thrown rock.

I don't want to live where the police have the right to stack the deck against me.

I'm also quite certain the BPD used whatever means necessary to get info from the not-rich. Police will lie. My BiL is a police officer in a small town SE of us. I mentioned once that if I was ever arrested for something serious, I would immediately ask for a lawyer. He grinned real big and told me, as far as he was concerned, I was guilty. WTF? Because I asked for my lawyer?

I'm disable, take prescription painkillers and am a medical marijauna patient for extreme chronic pain. I have short term memory issues and am not able to articulate well under stress. Lock me in a small room with 2 men pressing in on me, I'll confess to killing JFK! I was 8 years old and living in Japan so it's not possible but I'd say anything to make it stop.

We the people have to be protected from the abuses of those in charge.

 

[DIRK SCHILLER]

just a question,
would you accept it if police found a match for that touch dna and it wasn´t any of the R´s ?
(not telling the R´s did not do it) just a question

 

[UKGuy]

just a question,
would you accept it if police found a match for that touch dna and it wasn´t any of the R´s ?
(not telling the R´s did not do it) just a question

DIRK SCHILLER,
Not sure I understand. If it was not an R, and the DNA is identified, it does not have to follow that the DNA owner killed JonBenet?

There might be foreign DNA elsewhere on JonBenet's person, that has been ignored because it does not assist the R's agenda, but the owner of this DNA may actually be JonBenet's killer?

And the DNA in her underwear and on the longjohns etc may have been introduced during the autopsy procedure?

There should not really be any DNA in JonBenet's underwear since they were clean on her, and I presume her killer was wearing gloves etc, otherwise there would be more DNA available.




.

 

[DeeDee249]

just a question,
would you accept it if police found a match for that touch dna and it wasn´t any of the R´s ?
(not telling the R´s did not do it) just a question

Of course I'd accept that the DNA belonged to someone else. But unless that "someone else" was proved to be in Boulder that night and had been in the R home, it still doesn't link that person to the crime.

For that to happen (link them to the crime) their DNA would have to be at the crime scene or elsewhere in the home and not just on two articles of clothing. Their DNA has to be on the specific items that were PART OF THE CRIME.
What WAS part of the crime was the garrote cord, the paintbrush and tote it came from, the tape on her mouth. And THOSE items do NOT have the touch DNA on them. And for that person to be involved in the crime, his touch DNA has to be there as well.
What WAS found on those items can all be sourced to the parents.

 

[sandover]

For those who want to see the Ramseys just before Patsy's death... New Hope TV recently posted the full one hour interview from Hawaii given just a short time before Patsy died. Lots of grist here for those who are fascinated by body language and word choice...

Part 1 is here, and Part 2 can be reached on the page: [ame="http://vimeo.com/39449004"]Connecting Point: John & Patsy Ramsey Part I on Vimeo[/ame]