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

[Ravyn]

But in this case the fiber evidence should be looked at very carefully like the DNA...And finding out someone other than the LE and DA order certains items not to be tested, now why is that you think,well maybe just maybe it really could hurt the R's in this case...But reading certain IDI's scenarios they described JR in alot of it and also at the same time PR....

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I think you're right, Ravyn. I have a minor theory on this (LOL). I think IDI are very one-dimensional in their views of Patsy and John. There's this perception of her as being this perfect, shiny, sweet church lady who just didn't have the temperamental wherewithal to commit this crime and of his being this perfect, dynamic, industrious family man who similarly couldn't harm a fly. RDI may be critical of Patsy but they do at least show her the respect of crediting her with the normal bumps, layers and grooves that we all have and of being a flesh and blood woman who was living with stresses that most us can only imagine.

This isn't for the purposes of bolstering my own RDI convictions. Just an attempt to explain why RDI can envisage PDI/JDI scenarios and accept that there are IDI scenarios that they find much less persuasive while IDI often can't even begin to think of an RDI scenario. Having said that, I know a number of our in-house IDIs are a bit less intransigent on the point.

Misconceptions abound.

I personally have no view on PR or JR because I don't know them.

Do you?

You seem to believe that they would automatically have the same wrinkles, lines, etc. that 'anybody would have'. Its an interesting remark, in view of the fact that in some 80% of filicide cases there are socioeconomic factors. RDI presents itself as the exception to that rule: a rich, well to do family accidentally kills their portrait daughter and covers it up to look like a captial murder complete with handwriting. Although we can't seem to find the thing that hit her head, and then there's the matter of intruder DNA all over JBR.

Perfect shiny church-lady is your characterization. Perfect, dynamic, industrious family man? I don't know that either.

Just so you know, I'm not a defender of the R's, I'm more against the idea of somebody coming to the US to do crime on a child. Is that too remote an idea?

Besides, a false prosecution of the R's actually tends to obfuscate the truth on this child murder.

 

[Ravyn]

Misconceptions abound.

I personally have no view on PR or JR because I don't know them.

Do you?

You seem to believe that they would automatically have the same wrinkles, lines, etc. that 'anybody would have'. Its an interesting remark, in view of the fact that in some 80% of filicide cases there are socioeconomic factors. RDI presents itself as the exception to that rule: a rich, well to do family accidentally kills their portrait daughter and covers it up to look like a captial murder complete with handwriting. Although we can't seem to find the thing that hit her head, and then there's the matter of intruder DNA all over JBR.

Perfect shiny church-lady is your characterization. Perfect, dynamic, industrious family man? I don't know that either.

Just so you know, I'm not a defender of the R's, I'm more against the idea of somebody coming to the US to do crime on a child. Is that too remote an idea?

Besides, a false prosecution of the R's actually tends to obfuscate the truth on this child murder.

Now make up your mind about the DNA, here you say the intruder DNA is all over JonBenet's body...Then in a few post back then the intruder DNA was just found in JonBenet's underwear...


An hostile SSF did this now if this is the case, they would hate every and anything about this country...Sure wouldn't tell JR, they respect his business...Past attacks on this country proves that...Even before 911...

But until you can answer my question with a plausible reason why the R's dream team went after Tom Miller...Then I'm still have to wonder if PR didn't write the RN why bother cause this guy no matter how you look at it really worried them....

And an hostile SSF, most likely would look for a more bigger and powerful fat cat other than JR....

 

[Ravyn]

I would go along with the secondary transfer if there was more than one DNA found, and found in locations like under her foot or on her hands.

But when only one DNA is found only on her underwear, known already to have been handled by a criminal, and at the exclusion of all other items or areas, the argument for secondary transfer collapses.

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

 

[madeleine]

It would be so simple if someone could answer just this one question:Why didn't the Ramsey's take the note for serious?THEY didn't believe for ONE second that it was a SFF who will excecute their daughter if they don't follow the instructions .

 

[Roy23]

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

I can answer this. But you won't like it.

At the onset of this case many fibers and a small amount of DNA (not touch DNA) was found in the underpants of JBR. It will be argued by RDI but fiber evidence is not nearly as pertinent for many reasons at this point. One is that it is expected to be found from Ramsey garments because it is their house. It can be explained in many forms even if the Ramsey's stories somewhat contradict. In an intruder scenario it doesn't mean a thing either because the intruder is not known and the crime occured in the Ramsey home and his clothes, garments are long gone. Had the crime occured outside of the home it would be a different story. Like a car or somewhere else.

The DNA is different. First of all, we still have differing accounts of what exactly they do have. We know of the small amount in JBR's blood in the underpants. We also have accounts of it under JBR's fingernails that have some markers present that is consistant with the other DNA. Let's not argue it now. At the time, the protagonists and antagonists argue for and against that it could be from a factory worker since it was sealed in a new pack. That is where the case stood as far as the DNA because they could not match it to family members, family friends, and Codis to be frank about it.

At the time there was not "Touch DNA" technology. Touch DNA by itself has many issues. RDI and some IDI's have argued as much. Keep in mind that no one is arguing at the time that foreign DNA is present, just how it got there. In the Ramsey case, experts felt it could be a critical tool. RDI's are arguing why such limited testing was done on the longjohns for touch DNA. Because the best experts in the world suggested that this was best. Why? Touch DNA from the Ramsey's is certainly going to be on JBR. They all knew that. The experts, AT FIRST, wanted to test a small area from what they knew about the crime that had an intruder done this he would have handled. That was the waistband area. Just doing that was more effective at that time than testing everywhere and would be so in a court of law too. Dont blame Lacy for that. Anyhow they hit the proverbial homerun. Thus, it did not and could not come from a factory worker unless you just want to be blind about the whole thing.

At this point, we do not know how much has been tested since then. I know about DNA so I can tell you that even though we want more, they are not going to give it to us. It doesn't matter if they found John's or Patsy's touch DNA because it is expected to be there. This is how they see it, the experts. Now Sophie, Dave's brother, and I have brought up a point that if the Ramsey's hired an accompliss then than would certainly be a reason to not exonerate the R's. But I think they find that idea prepostorous. The unknown DNA is real to the experts and comes from a real person who was there that night. And since this test was successful along with what they already knew, the case has turned 180 degrees. RDI has to accept that fact although you don't have to agree with it. Because this is where we are and anything else they have done they will not release to us anymore.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I believe RDI has trancient DNA smeared around by JBR herself to various places. Its sort of a wildcard explanation--handles any DNA anywhere in any amount. This wildcard explanation came into play only after matching DNA was found in other locations on JBR. Prior to that it was underwear factory worker.

RDI's explanations seem to evolve as needed to suit new information. For example, now PR is believed by RDI to have deliberately misspelled some RN words and different exemplar words, but it was never even mentioned for the first several years.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Now make up your mind about the DNA, here you say the intruder DNA is all over JonBenet's body...Then in a few post back then the intruder DNA was just found in JonBenet's underwear...

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.

 

[Roy23]

I believe RDI has trancient DNA smeared around by JBR herself to various places. Its sort of a wildcard explanation--handles any DNA anywhere in any amount. This wildcard explanation came into play only after matching DNA was found in other locations on JBR. Prior to that it was underwear factory worker.

RDI's explanations seem to evolve as needed to suit new information. For example, now PR is believed by RDI to have deliberately misspelled some RN words and different exemplar words, but it was never even mentioned for the first several years.

Smeared DNA of two different sources. Surely that argument will not be made. If they so felt to do so, LE or DNA experts could debunk that right now. A defense lawyer would be laughed out of a courtroom with that. Lacy gave us our little nugget and we won't get anything else.

 

[Roy23]

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.

The thing is that by now they could have found it in numerous other places and surely they would find it from the Ramsey's too but they are only going to release what they have to fix their mistakes.

 

[BBB167893]

You seem to believe that they would automatically have the same wrinkles, lines, etc. that 'anybody would have'. Its an interesting remark, in view of the fact that in some 80% of filicide cases there are socioeconomic factors.

Let me give you another stat, HOTYH. In cases where a child is murdered in the house, 97% of the time it's one of the parents or a live-in lover. Someone in the house. That's awfully funny, isn't it?

RDI presents itself as the exception to that rule: a rich, well to do family accidentally kills their portrait daughter and covers it up to look like a captial murder complete with handwriting.

Works for me.

Perfect shiny church-lady is your characterization. Perfect, dynamic, industrious family man? I don't know that either.

Actually, HOTYH, those are the characterizations the RST would have us believe.

I'm more against the idea of somebody coming to the US to do crime on a child. Is that too remote an idea?

Quite frankly, HOTYH, I wish our government was as diligent on that idea as you are!

Besides, a false prosecution of the R's actually tends to obfuscate the truth on this child murder.

I could go either way on that. A trial would have at least allowed them to clear their names.

But that's not the point. My question was, if one or both of the Rs gave a simple, straightforward, non-coerced confession not given under any duress, would it be accepted as the truth?

 

[BBB167893]

But until you can answer my question with a plausible reason why the R's dream team went after Tom Miller...Then I'm still have to wonder if PR didn't write the RN why bother cause this guy no matter how you look at it really worried them....

Don't hold your breath.

 

[BBB167893]

At the onset of this case many fibers and a small amount of DNA (not touch DNA) was found in the underpants of JBR. It will be argued by RDI but fiber evidence is not nearly as pertinent for many reasons at this point. One is that it is expected to be found from Ramsey garments because it is their house. It can be explained in many forms even if the Ramsey's stories somewhat contradict.

Except the fibers were ONLY found in highly incriminating areas and no workable explanation has been given. JR wouldn't give any explanation at all, and PR just dug herself deeper. Lou Smit was asked point-blank if the fibers were incriminating. Want to know his exact response? "Sure."

I know these things. The subject takes up almost an entire chapter. Big part of the presentation and all.

 

[BBB167893]

I believe RDI has trancient DNA smeared around by JBR herself to various places. Its sort of a wildcard explanation--handles any DNA anywhere in any amount.

Actually, RDI did not come up with that. An FBI criminologist on Bill O'Reilly's show did. Just keeping it straight.

 

[Roy23]

Actually, RDI did not come up with that. An FBI criminologist on Bill O'Reilly's show did. Just keeping it straight.

He must have really needed a paycheck.

 

[madeleine]

Don't get us started on IDI&RST experts and paychecks

 

[BBB167893]

He must have really needed a paycheck.

She, actually. And to that end, she said that it's a double-edged sword: as DNA testing methods get more and more sensitive, the more likely they are to detect DNA which is irrelevant to whatever case is being investigated.

I don't know what the motivation was. I wasn't even necessarily vouching for it. I was just keeping it honest. Speaking of which, I'm not sure what is meant by this "two different sources" business.

 

[BBB167893]

Don't get us started on IDI&RST experts and paychecks

You just ain't whistling "Dixie," madeleine! "People in glass houses," and all that.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

 

[Roy23]

She, actually. And to that end, she said that it's a double-edged sword: as DNA testing methods get more and more sensitive, the more likely they are to detect DNA which is irrelevant to whatever case is being investigated.

I don't know what the motivation was. I wasn't even necessarily vouching for it. I was just keeping it honest. Speaking of which, I'm not sure what is meant by this "two different sources" business.

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.

When the perpetrator is unknown to the victim, it is pretty powerful though don't you think? 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. So while there are experts that sit on Nancy Grace that are paid to take a contrasting view, these guys don't know the whole story now. They have become like Lawyers.

You will argue but the DNA in the panties is not skin cells. I can't prove it but I feel confident about it. I am also confident that a ton more testing was and has been done. It is certainty Dave. 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.

Anyhow, I know I am writing but no one will really be listening.