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

[Roy23]

Just so we don't get too far off the subject of this thread...

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.

Agreed.

 

[cynic]

It appears that the IDI camp is quick to embrace any theory including secondary transfer to explain certain “problem” fiber evidence, and yet secondary DNA transfer is considered improbable, a “wildcard” and worse. Seems that what’s good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It appears that the IDI camp is quick to embrace any theory including secondary transfer to explain certain “problem” fiber evidence, and yet secondary DNA transfer is considered improbable, a “wildcard” and worse. Seems that what’s good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

IDI is quick to embrace any theory. OK.

R fiber found on JBR and on objects within their house is expected. R fiber found on their neighbors kids or objects is not expected. Neighbor fiber on R kids or objects seems more likely than complete stranger fiber on R kids or objects.

DNA from a strange male found to be prevalent on the longjohns and mixed with blood in the underwear seems less likely than DNA from a family member. Unless, of course, they were deposited during an assault by an intruder. In this case, DNA from the intruder seems more likely to be prevalent.

Matching DNA found in more than one form, in as many as four (4) places IS prevalent. Maybe its the prevalence that rules out innocent transfer.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Just so we don't get too far off the subject of this thread...

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.

If an R really did it and wanted to confess they would have NO PROBLEM convincing authorities because they could explain stuff. Not everything but key stuff. Like where the cord and tape came from and where did it go. What hit JBR on the head. Stuff like that.

Anyway the whole thing is a moot point because the R's have not waivered from an innocent position for a second, and all new information favors IDI.

 

[DeeDee249]

Now the question here is. Who would it collapse for...Now certain items wasn't tested...Why is that can you answer that..

Now according to Det.Arndlt, JR carry JonBenet up by the waist now why just the longjohns was tested hmmm cause JR touched them...And this intruder's DNA wasn't found on her shirt...Now tell me if I'm wrong here if your SFF would had touch JonBenet in any way like carrying her down stairs wouldn't there be more than one DNA sample..And wouldn't there be more signs even from touch DNA like fibers from the intruder's clothing....But here we have the R's fibers in the most unexplained places...HMMMM

It s also simply beyond belief that an intruder could get his "touch" DNA on JB yet leave NO fibers anywhere else on her. Was it a naked intruder? Then there's be a lot more skin cells, not to mention body hair. Unless it was a SHAVED naked intruder. Oh wait- there WAS some body hair. There was a hair found on the white blanket that was found to be a forearm hair belonging to Patsy. From a blanket taken clean right from the washer/dryer.

 

[cynic]

IDI is quick to embrace any theory. OK.

Not quite what I said.

Matching DNA found in more than one form

What is the more than one form? The only DNA found is JBR's blood and the rest is skin cell based DNA.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Not quite what I said.

What is the more than one form? The only DNA found is JBR's blood and the rest is skin cell based DNA.

Can you share the source for this info?

 

[Ravyn]

Or maybe you can't read right.

I posted 'all over JBR' not 'all over JonBenet's body'. You posted that.

Longjohns and panties are both underwear. Just found in JBR's underwear means just found in her panties and her longjohns. Not on her shirt or socks.

Holdon, I ask you to make up your mind about the DNA...And for me not being able to read right.. Maybe you can't cause you still haven't answer my question about Tom Miller....

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon, I ask you to make up your mind about the DNA...And for me not being able to read right.. Maybe you can't cause you still haven't answer my question about Tom Miller....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he involved in a criminal proceeding that involved the Globe, and there was a plea bargain where the State of Colorado agreed to drop a felony rap against the Globe guy if Globe agreed to pay $100,000 to a Colorado University?

I'm sorry but if thats true I don't think I want to know any more about it. I'll go along with whatever you say about how the R's went after Miller.

 

[Ravyn]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he involved in a criminal proceeding that involved the Globe, and there was a plea bargain where the State of Colorado agreed to drop a felony rap against the Globe guy if Globe agreed to pay $100,000 to a Colorado University?

I'm sorry but if thats true I don't think I want to know any more about it. I'll go along with whatever you say about how the R's went after Miller.

Wow,Tom Miller said PR wrote the RN....And you bring up the Globe...Really!
What ever floats your boat...And would you like to tell me how does this goes with my question? And could this be the same guy that help set up Tom Miller and when he didn't except what he was offer...

 

[cynic]

Can you share the source for this info?

You first, what are the two forms and what is your source?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You first, what are the two forms and what is your source?

Who asked who first? Go ahead, lets see your source.

C'mon, do you have a source that the DNA mixed with blood in JBR's underwear is skin cell DNA? If you do you're special among us.

 

[Ravyn]

Who asked who first? Go ahead, lets see your source.

C'mon, do you have a source that the DNA mixed with blood in JBR's underwear is skin cell DNA? If you do you're special among us.

A question if the intruder used an object on JonBenet, how would he leave this DNA we are always talking about cause they didn't find sperm...I mean they said a drop right in the underwear...

 

[cynic]

Who asked who first? Go ahead, lets see your source.

C'mon, do you have a source that the DNA mixed with blood in JBR's underwear is skin cell DNA? If you do you're special among us.

You are the one that mentioned more than one form. What are the forms?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You are the one that mentioned more than one form. What are the forms?

I dunno.

I was convinced of IDI before there was DNA. Before the media went IDI because of the DNA. I assume there would need to be two forms of DNA to effectively rule out or reduce innocent transfer probability, as trancient skin cell DNA could be present on JBR's hands and spread wherever (although the 'unknown male DNA mixed with blood' in the underwear seems pretty conspicuous regardless of type, doncha think?).

Whereas you seem to know that both were skin cell. Is there a source for this?

 

[Roy23]

You are the one that mentioned more than one form. What are the forms?

They think it is saliva. Finding skin cells at that point would almost indicate that it would have to be a large piece from like a cut. And that is not the case since they did not find intruder blood.

You can't really tell what the source is definitively unless it is sperm or blood. But at the time finding small tranference of skin cells was not on the radar at that time. Thus, they deduce saliva.

It only matters here to us. The investigation team doesn't care.

 

[Roy23]

It s also simply beyond belief that an intruder could get his "touch" DNA on JB yet leave NO fibers anywhere else on her. Was it a naked intruder? Then there's be a lot more skin cells, not to mention body hair. Unless it was a SHAVED naked intruder. Oh wait- there WAS some body hair. There was a hair found on the white blanket that was found to be a forearm hair belonging to Patsy. From a blanket taken clean right from the washer/dryer.

Dave,

I wish you would handle this one. I will touch on it.

This is not factual. No one can or have ever said that an intruder did not leave fiber evidence. First of all, they could never determine a foreign fiber because they don't know what the intruder is wearing. They have said that some Ramsey fibers were found that make them raise their eyebrows.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Dave,

I wish you would handle this one. I will touch on it.

This is not factual. No one can or have ever said that an intruder did not leave fiber evidence. First of all, they could never determine a foreign fiber because they don't know what the intruder is wearing. They have said that some Ramsey fibers were found that make them raise their eyebrows.

The only place that I know of where it is claimed that there were no undentified fibers is here on this forum.

Crimelibrary and Smit news articles openly refer to fibers from an unknown source. That there were no unidentified fibers at the crime scene or on JBR is an RDI myth. A falsehood that RDI will lead you to believe.

It relates also to the RDI claim that an intruder left no evidence. Yet we can't source the DNA, fibers, cord, tape, blunt instrument, handwriting, or even the pineapple definitively to the R's either. Thats like more than half the crime scene evidence can't even be definitively sourced to the house at all.

 

[BBB167893]

I see where we are headed here. I totally agree that some types of DNA testing is a scary proposition. Each new method should be considered carefully before being brought in and used in a case.

Agreed.

When the perpetrator is unknown to the victim, it is pretty powerful though don't you think?

I thought the whole point of DNA was to find a perpetrator to match it to, not deciding that there was an unknown perp first. The police in this case got a lot of heat from R-paid "experts" for supposedly deciding who did it and then trying to build a case on it. Well, the shoe's on the other foot now.

I think the problem some of you have is that you don't trust the DNA experts in this case.

It ain't Mary Lacey, it is the best DNA people who ARE FAMILIAR TO ALL ASPECTS OF THE CASE.

Highly doubtful.

You will argue but the DNA in the panties is not skin cells.

How do you know what I will or won't argue? For all I know, it could be.

I am also confident that a ton more testing was and has been done. It is certainty Dave.

I'd like to believe that, Roy. But with all that's happened in this case...

And either way, they checked a lot of people in contact with JBR as well as I am sure JBR wasn't wearing the same long johns and panties for weeks on end.

It wouldn't have to be weeks.

 

[BBB167893]

R fiber found on JBR and on objects within their house is expected.

HOTYH, I thought you said that the cord and tape were not in the house...:innocent: