The actual vs. desired outcome

[icedtea4me]

for what reason,in between getting her from her bedroom (and choosing to not go out the door that was right there) and taking her to the basement, would an 'intruder' have changed his mind?

Excellent question, JMO8778!


-Tea

 

[JMO8778]

you previously said:

Or, for another example, maybe JBR couldn't be coaxed into leaving on her own will, and the perp didn't want to move her by physical force.

Don't you think, that a cord around JBR's neck and wrists is going to get a little conspicuous after a while out of the house? The force they use on JBR in the house is going to be different than the force they use outside the house, right? They're going to either have to drug her, hit her over the head, or talk her into it, because the cord thing wont fly.

well of course she wouldn't likely want to leave w. a stranger...so what do you mean by 'talk her into it?' are you implying this was someone she knew? (like Santa Bill.for example).He's been ruled out,and so has everyone else she knew that she might leave with(unless you have more suspects in mind).
But I think that's preposterous anyway..here we have a 6yo child,totally exhausted from Christmas day,and IF she even made it to bed that night,I DOUBT she would get up and go anywhere with anyone ! (and perhaps that's just what happened...she didn't want to get up to go on the midnite toilet run!).

 

[BBB167893]

DA won't prosecute the R's', grand jury won't indict the R's , BPD won't arrest the R's, FBI or CBI won't arrest the R's, a federal judge hearing the case in another state wouldn't rule against the R's...

All of which can be challenged.

1) The DA's office. When this one got dropped on Hunter, he had things pretty good. Status quo for almost thirty years. No one rocks the boat. He spent his time plea-bargaining minor cases. He didn't want this. He was cruising toward an easy retirement. He set up a definition of beyond a reasonable doubt that NO ONE could meet! He gave the Ramseys SO MUCh evidence that the FBI was aghast and said he was a fool. He was BUSINESS partners with them! And he was weak. The police wanted to arrest the Ramseys, let them stew in jail for a while, and see which one cracked first. That is a STANDARD ploy in cases like this. He wouldn't do it. Too bad.
He surrounded himself with people who were more like defense attorneys than prosecutors. Trip DeMuth, before ANY evidence was in, decided that the Ramseys couldn't do it. Why? Because he couldn't do it. That kind of thinking has NO PLACE in LE offices. I can forgive the average person for that kind of naivete, but he should KNOW better! One week before Karr's arrest, he said that just because a ten-month-old was dead with 28 fractures, it doesn't mean murder. I KID YOU NOT! This man openly mocked the police presentation of evidence at the FBI meeting. Trip has a thing about "witch hunts." He said the cops were on a witch hunt agianst the Ramseys, a witch hunt against the mother who beat that 10-month-old to death, and now he's afraid of a witch hunt against the DA. That sounds like a DEFENSE attorney talking, like he just stepped out of a Perry Mason episode. None of them had any real expertise with Grand Juries.

Have you read V's Fosterama? It shows that Hunter was undercutting his own WITNESSES! How much worse can you get?

When Keenan (now Lacy took over), it was worse. She had wanted to go after Santa Bill McReynolds from day one. She was biased in the favor of the Ramseys because of their status. She has so much as said so. Lacy is known as a radical feminist who lets her belief in women's innocence cloud her reason. She demonstrated that in the U of CO case. Duke before Duke! She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Number one, Haney was using standard techniques. Two, if you look at the tape, he's being perfectly calm! No threats, no intimidation. He's very calmly giving her a chance to explain the evidence. SHE'S the one cursing and jumping around and acting like she's got a scorpion in her panties! What was LACY watching?!
2) Money. Yeah, I know, "Oh, Dave, that's so cheap," but it's true. if this were a regular, blue-collar family like mine, they would be in prison this very day, right or wrong. This was a weak Da's office. No one really disputes that. They were used to handling indigent non-whites with public defenders, not a former Miss West Virginia whose husband is loaded and whose lawyer owns half the state! Who can hire their own experts! How many of us could do that?

COME ON, HOW MANY!?

That was a big part of it: John was able to hire an army of lawyers and PR people and PIs to keep him out of prison. You don't have to take my word for it. Robert Ressler, profiler extraordinaire, said the same. Heck, John Ramsey admitted that he hired them to keep him out of jail! When I was a kid, I was taught the Pledge of Allegiance. That part about justice for all should MEAN something. But there's one set of rules for the rich, one for the rest of us.
3) Specifics. When you have a case where there is evidence that points to both people, you as a prosecutor have to decide who did what. You HAVE to. You can't say "one did it, the other helped, you decide." Can't do that. They never could. One of them (Hofstrom I think) said "So what if she wrote the note? Doesn't mean she killed her daughter." Sad as it is to admit, he's RIGHT! It only proves she wrote the note.
4) The idea that a parent could do this rocks the comfort zone for too many people. Who wants to think that the Girl Scout Den Mother is a murderer? That's what did in the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury looked at the autopsy photos, and despite everything we know about murdering parents and despite all the evidence, they decided, based on NOTHING but emotion and naivete, that no parent could do this. You don't have to take my word for that. I can prove they did that.
Quote:
The pictures were so horrible that the jurors felt it was absolutely inconceivable that any mother on Earth could have been capable of doing such a thing to their own child.

But wait! Here is FBI agent Ron Walker, who was there that morning:
Quote:
Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children.

Is that good enough for anyone?
An arrest was never a question in this case.
Chief Beckner: "Arrest them."
FBI: "Arrest them."
Dream Team Lawyers: "Arrest them."
And on and on. But the DA wouldn't go for it. Do you like the show "Law & Order?" It my favorite. Those DAs work WITH the cops. "Find out this," or "find out that," or "bring me some evidence of this." None of that here.

 

[JMO8778]

Ur the 2nd to get defensive about the physical force thing. Don't you think, that a cord around JBR's neck and wrists is going to get a little conspicuous after a while out of the house? The force they use on JBR in the house is going to be different than the force they use outside the house, right? They're going to either have to drug her, hit her over the head, or talk her into it, because the cord thing wont fly.

Holdon,why would you even mention those 2 things? Of course she had a head injury,but that was done with such force,that it wasn't done just to remove her from the house...it killed her.
As far as drugs,Halycon started an interesting thread here,and Wendy Murphy's thoughts on it were quite interesting.

 

[JMO8778]

:clap:

All of which can be challenged.

1) The DA's office. When this one got dropped on Hunter, he had things pretty good. Status quo for almost thirty years. No one rocks the boat. He spent his time plea-bargaining minor cases. He didn't want this. He was cruising toward an easy retirement. He set up a definition of beyond a reasonable doubt that NO ONE could meet! He gave the Ramseys SO MUCh evidence that the FBI was aghast and said he was a fool. He was BUSINESS partners with them! And he was weak. The police wanted to arrest the Ramseys, let them stew in jail for a while, and see which one cracked first. That is a STANDARD ploy in cases like this. He wouldn't do it. Too bad.
He surrounded himself with people who were more like defense attorneys than prosecutors. Trip DeMuth, before ANY evidence was in, decided that the Ramseys couldn't do it. Why? Because he couldn't do it. That kind of thinking has NO PLACE in LE offices. I can forgive the average person for that kind of naivete, but he should KNOW better! One week before Karr's arrest, he said that just because a ten-month-old was dead with 28 fractures, it doesn't mean murder. I KID YOU NOT! This man openly mocked the police presentation of evidence at the FBI meeting. Trip has a thing about "witch hunts." He said the cops were on a witch hunt agianst the Ramseys, a witch hunt against the mother who beat that 10-month-old to death, and now he's afraid of a witch hunt against the DA. That sounds like a DEFENSE attorney talking, like he just stepped out of a Perry Mason episode. None of them had any real expertise with Grand Juries.

Have you read V's Fosterama? It shows that Hunter was undercutting his own WITNESSES! How much worse can you get?

When Keenan (now Lacy took over), it was worse. She had wanted to go after Santa Bill McReynolds from day one. She was biased in the favor of the Ramseys because of their status. She has so much as said so. Lacy is known as a radical feminist who lets her belief in women's innocence cloud her reason. She demonstrated that in the U of CO case. Duke before Duke! She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Number one, Haney was using standard techniques. Two, if you look at the tape, he's being perfectly calm! No threats, no intimidation. He's very calmly giving her a chance to explain the evidence. SHE'S the one cursing and jumping around and acting like she's got a scorpion in her panties! What was LACY watching?!
2) Money. Yeah, I know, "Oh, Dave, that's so cheap," but it's true. if this were a regular, blue-collar family like mine, they would be in prison this very day, right or wrong. This was a weak Da's office. No one really disputes that. They were used to handling indigent non-whites with public defenders, not a former Miss West Virginia whose husband is loaded and whose lawyer owns half the state! Who can hire their own experts! How many of us could do that?

COME ON, HOW MANY!?

That was a big part of it: John was able to hire an army of lawyers and PR people and PIs to keep him out of prison. You don't have to take my word for it. Robert Ressler, profiler extraordinaire, said the same. Heck, John Ramsey admitted that he hired them to keep him out of jail! When I was a kid, I was taught the Pledge of Allegiance. That part about justice for all should MEAN something. But there's one set of rules for the rich, one for the rest of us.
3) Specifics. When you have a case where there is evidence that points to both people, you as a prosecutor have to decide who did what. You HAVE to. You can't say "one did it, the other helped, you decide." Can't do that. They never could. One of them (Hofstrom I think) said "So what if she wrote the note? Doesn't mean she killed her daughter." Sad as it is to admit, he's RIGHT! It only proves she wrote the note.
4) The idea that a parent could do this rocks the comfort zone for too many people. Who wants to think that the Girl Scout Den Mother is a murderer? That's what did in the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury looked at the autopsy photos, and despite everything we know about murdering parents and despite all the evidence, they decided, based on NOTHING but emotion and naivete, that no parent could do this. You don't have to take my word for that. I can prove they did that.
Quote:
The pictures were so horrible that the jurors felt it was absolutely inconceivable that any mother on Earth could have been capable of doing such a thing to their own child.

But wait! Here is FBI agent Ron Walker, who was there that morning:
Quote:
Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children.

Is that good enough for anyone?
An arrest was never a question in this case.
Chief Beckner: "Arrest them."
FBI: "Arrest them."
Dream Team Lawyers: "Arrest them."
And on and on. But the DA wouldn't go for it. Do you like the show "Law & Order?" It my favorite. Those DAs work WITH the cops. "Find out this," or "find out that," or "bring me some evidence of this." None of that here.

:clap::dance:

 

[DeeDee249]

There was a horrible case here in my local newspapers this past week...a man visting his girlfriend and 3-month old daughter asked to hold his baby girl one last time to kiss her goodbye as they stood on the front porch. Instead, after the new mom handed her baby to the daddy, he grabbed the infant by her ankles and, in front of the horrified mom and grandparents, he slammed the baby repeatedly against the iron railing, crushing her skull and breaking EVERY BONE IN HER TINY BODY. Neighbors hearing the screams called police and held the man down till they got there. There had been no arguments previously. There had been no drinking.


So much for the argument that parents "wouldn't do this to their child".

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So much for the argument that parents "wouldn't do this to their child".

But wait! Here is FBI agent Ron Walker, who was there that morning:
Quote:
Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children.

Is that good enough for anyone?
An arrest was never a question in this case.
Chief Beckner: "Arrest them."
FBI: "Arrest them."
Dream Team Lawyers: "Arrest them."
And on and on. But the DA wouldn't go for it. Do you like the show "Law & Order?" It my favorite. Those DAs work WITH the cops. "Find out this," or "find out that," or "bring me some evidence of this." None of that here.

You can't infer guilt on one person because other people kill thier kids. There's no connection. Is Ron Walker's argument that because other parents killed their kids in in various heinous ways, the R's therefore killed JBR? And weren't his statements to this effect even before the R's were tested for anything? Before any forensics were even done? If so then thats a generalization, not a deduction. I guess they shoot from the hip there.

BTW, I'm guessing but I think if the chief of police really wanted to arrest the R's, they'd have been arrested.

 

[DeeDee249]

Of course it doesn't mean that the Rs killed their child just because other people have. But is does mean that it can and does happen, and that to exclude a parent from guilt JUST because they are a parent is poor logic, especially in a case where evidence leads right to them.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Of course it doesn't mean that the Rs killed their child just because other people have. But is does mean that it can and does happen, and that to exclude a parent from guilt JUST because they are a parent is poor logic, especially in a case where evidence leads right to them.

Who excludes the R's just because they're parents. Thats ridiculous. Of course parents kill their kids, it happens too often. Only not in JBR's case. The DNA under her fingernails, the unsourced cord fiber in her bed, and the unsourced handwriting all say intruder.

The evidence only leads right to them if you've construed the evidence to suit a preconceived notion of what happened.

The original intention was probably to either kidnap JBR for long term that required some preparation in the basement, or to murder JBR after some kind of interaction in the basement.

 

[JMO8778]

The original intention was probably to either kidnap JBR for long term that required some preparation in the basement, or to murder JBR after some kind of interaction in the basement.

and the items needed to do that just happened to be right there...how convenient !

 

[icedtea4me]

The original intention was probably to either kidnap JBR for long term that required some preparation in the basement,

Preparation in the basement? So, like, they were assembling a car down there?


-Tea

 

[Rino]

The original intention was probably to either kidnap JBR for long term that required some preparation in the basement, or to murder JBR after some kind of interaction in the basement.

That simply sounds silly

 

[Solace]

You can't infer guilt on one person because other people kill thier kids. There's no connection. Is Ron Walker's argument that because other parents killed their kids in in various heinous ways, the R's therefore killed JBR? And weren't his statements to this effect even before the R's were tested for anything? Before any forensics were even done? If so then thats a generalization, not a deduction. I guess they shoot from the hip there.

BTW, I'm guessing but I think if the chief of police really wanted to arrest the R's, they'd have been arrested.

You do? Then why were they not arrested. I believe it was Alex Hunter who gave the press conference and said there is not enough evidence to convict. Supposing and wanting is not going to make it so. We are dealing with what is. Now what you hope it to be or think it to be.

By the way Alex thought Patsy was guilty.

 

[Solace]

That simply sounds silly

You aint kiddin!

 

[coloradokares]

All of which can be challenged.

1) The DA's office. When this one got dropped on Hunter, he had things pretty good. Status quo for almost thirty years. No one rocks the boat. He spent his time plea-bargaining minor cases. He didn't want this. He was cruising toward an easy retirement. He set up a definition of beyond a reasonable doubt that NO ONE could meet! He gave the Ramseys SO MUCh evidence that the FBI was aghast and said he was a fool. He was BUSINESS partners with them! And he was weak. The police wanted to arrest the Ramseys, let them stew in jail for a while, and see which one cracked first. That is a STANDARD ploy in cases like this. He wouldn't do it. Too bad.
He surrounded himself with people who were more like defense attorneys than prosecutors. Trip DeMuth, before ANY evidence was in, decided that the Ramseys couldn't do it. Why? Because he couldn't do it. That kind of thinking has NO PLACE in LE offices. I can forgive the average person for that kind of naivete, but he should KNOW better! One week before Karr's arrest, he said that just because a ten-month-old was dead with 28 fractures, it doesn't mean murder. I KID YOU NOT! This man openly mocked the police presentation of evidence at the FBI meeting. Trip has a thing about "witch hunts." He said the cops were on a witch hunt agianst the Ramseys, a witch hunt against the mother who beat that 10-month-old to death, and now he's afraid of a witch hunt against the DA. That sounds like a DEFENSE attorney talking, like he just stepped out of a Perry Mason episode. None of them had any real expertise with Grand Juries.

Have you read V's Fosterama? It shows that Hunter was undercutting his own WITNESSES! How much worse can you get?

When Keenan (now Lacy took over), it was worse. She had wanted to go after Santa Bill McReynolds from day one. She was biased in the favor of the Ramseys because of their status. She has so much as said so. Lacy is known as a radical feminist who lets her belief in women's innocence cloud her reason. She demonstrated that in the U of CO case. Duke before Duke! She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Number one, Haney was using standard techniques. Two, if you look at the tape, he's being perfectly calm! No threats, no intimidation. He's very calmly giving her a chance to explain the evidence. SHE'S the one cursing and jumping around and acting like she's got a scorpion in her panties! What was LACY watching?!
2) Money. Yeah, I know, "Oh, Dave, that's so cheap," but it's true. if this were a regular, blue-collar family like mine, they would be in prison this very day, right or wrong. This was a weak Da's office. No one really disputes that. They were used to handling indigent non-whites with public defenders, not a former Miss West Virginia whose husband is loaded and whose lawyer owns half the state! Who can hire their own experts! How many of us could do that?

COME ON, HOW MANY!?

That was a big part of it: John was able to hire an army of lawyers and PR people and PIs to keep him out of prison. You don't have to take my word for it. Robert Ressler, profiler extraordinaire, said the same. Heck, John Ramsey admitted that he hired them to keep him out of jail! When I was a kid, I was taught the Pledge of Allegiance. That part about justice for all should MEAN something. But there's one set of rules for the rich, one for the rest of us.
3) Specifics. When you have a case where there is evidence that points to both people, you as a prosecutor have to decide who did what. You HAVE to. You can't say "one did it, the other helped, you decide." Can't do that. They never could. One of them (Hofstrom I think) said "So what if she wrote the note? Doesn't mean she killed her daughter." Sad as it is to admit, he's RIGHT! It only proves she wrote the note.
4) The idea that a parent could do this rocks the comfort zone for too many people. Who wants to think that the Girl Scout Den Mother is a murderer? That's what did in the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury looked at the autopsy photos, and despite everything we know about murdering parents and despite all the evidence, they decided, based on NOTHING but emotion and naivete, that no parent could do this. You don't have to take my word for that. I can prove they did that.
Quote:
The pictures were so horrible that the jurors felt it was absolutely inconceivable that any mother on Earth could have been capable of doing such a thing to their own child.

But wait! Here is FBI agent Ron Walker, who was there that morning:
Quote:
Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children.

Is that good enough for anyone?
An arrest was never a question in this case.
Chief Beckner: "Arrest them."
FBI: "Arrest them."
Dream Team Lawyers: "Arrest them."
And on and on. But the DA wouldn't go for it. Do you like the show "Law & Order?" It my favorite. Those DAs work WITH the cops. "Find out this," or "find out that," or "bring me some evidence of this." None of that here.

:clap: :clap: :woohoo:

 

[BOESP]

Who excludes the R's just because they're parents. Thats ridiculous. Of course parents kill their kids, it happens too often. Only not in JBR's case. The DNA under her fingernails, the unsourced cord fiber in her bed, and the unsourced handwriting all say intruder.

The evidence only leads right to them if you've construed the evidence to suit a preconceived notion of what happened.

The original intention was probably to either kidnap JBR for long term that required some preparation in the basement, or to murder JBR after some kind of interaction in the basement.

The evidence leads away from the Ramseys only if one ignores the body of evidence that points to them. The reason they were not arrested was the DA's office could not prove which parent did what, which would likely have resulted in a hung jury.

Unfortunately, the DA's office wanted to play softball and tried to wait for a confession. That's a lazy way to conduct an investigation and very presumptuous of Hunter to think he could manipulate Patsy and John into doing his job for him. I don't recall ever reading a procedure that says you should have tea parties and chit-chats and take handwriting exemplars in the home of an ADA, hoping that the person under the umbrella of suspicion will confess. The confession may have come had Hunter authorized the cops to question Patsy and John separately on the 26th or the 27th, alone, except with a lawyer if they so desired. By not doing what most parents of a dead child would do (cooperate with the investigation) Patsy made herself look guilty, as did John. Even Lou Smit said it should have been done and he was right about that. John Ramsey's lame excuse of the cops trying to frame him is ridiculous. One only has to view the videos of the interviews to see that as the lie it is.

The facts are the parents were in the house when it happened (only an hour or two at most, supposedly after they'd gone to bed), no convincing evidence suggests there was an Intruder (unless one has already decided it was an Intruder and only wants to do linear thinking); the body was found in the house with a ransom note the FBI deemed likely to be bogus; the body was wrapped in a blanket and hidden nearly as far away as possible from view, which is a classic clue pointing toward a family or friend's involvement; fiber evidence from Patsy and John's clothing variously being found either entwined with the ligature device, on JonBenet's genitals and underneath the body in a blanket that was downstairs; there is also that pineapple in JonBenet's upper digestive tract.

While I have no problem believing Patsy or John necessarily knew JonBenet had eaten pineapple, the fact that she did and the fact that it forensically matched the pineapple in the Ramsey home tells me they lied about her being awake. I won't be convinced with a lame "the Intruder took her down for a snack" argument. That is too far-fetched to be unbelievable. This death has many earmarks of a domestic homicide, probably accidental in my opinion. It lacks a number of earmarks of either a kidnapping or molestation gone wrong by an Intruder.

I'd like to believe the Ramseys are innocent. I also feel sorry for Patsy. If she didn't kill JonBenet then she knows who did, as does John. Their entire public personae shows me they were mostly interested in covering their own behinds and not finding that Intruder who they say killed their little girl.

The desired outcome was for everyone to go to bed and get some rest. Something happened to prevent that. People truly interested will read what is publicly available and form their own opinions.

 

[BOESP]

Holdon, I failed to add that had the Ramseys been interviewed/interrogated in the beginning like most parents in these type cases, had they been innocent, the police could have moved on. Their uncooperative attitude shouted to the world that they had something to hide.

By they way, you now say "unsourced fibers" found in JonBenet's bed. Last week you said they were from the ligature cord used around her neck. What changed your mind?

Finally, we've already discussed the DNA under JonBenet's fingernails and in her panties. Is there a reason you won't concede that the DNA in the panties was degraded and that the DNA under her nails probably means nothing. Her hands, according to Patsy, hadn't been washed that day that Patsy knew of. DNA under the fingernails in an amount expected from an encounter and fight with an Intruder might convince me of something but that's not what was found under JonBenet's nails. Unsourced, trace amounts of DNA are probably found under just about everyone's fingernails, even when they just get out of the shower. This is not a DNA case unless there is a sample of DNA the public doesn't know about.

Did you read both sides of the issue concerning the handwriting samples and the ransom note? Do you understand that Patsy's defense team had her interest to protect and they are not going to say anything that might incriminate her? I'd still appreciate it if you would give me the link to the Ressler article you used to support the Ramsey's innocence. I can't find that article doing an Internet search but if you say you have a copy, could you tell me where I might obtain one too? The one I found implicates the Ramseys.

 

[Toltec]

Preparation in the basement? So, like, they were assembling a car down there?


-Tea

bwaahaaahaaa!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The facts are the parents were in the house when it happened (only an hour or two at most, supposedly after they'd gone to bed), no convincing evidence suggests there was an Intruder (unless one has already decided it was an Intruder and only wants to do linear thinking); the body was found in the house with a ransom note the FBI deemed likely to be bogus; the body was wrapped in a blanket and hidden nearly as far away as possible from view, which is a classic clue pointing toward a family or friend's involvement; fiber evidence from Patsy and John's clothing variously being found either entwined with the ligature device, on JonBenet's genitals and underneath the body in a blanket that was downstairs; there is also that pineapple in JonBenet's upper digestive tract.

The fact the parents were in the house adds nothing to any argument whatsoever. They had a legitimate reason to be there. As do their fibers, all over JBR and her stuff. Oh, but not the cord. It had no legitimate reason to be there. It kinda came and went with the murder. Very much like the child garroting, sexually assaulting, strangling, headbashing, ransom note writing personality, which also came and went with the murder. Maybe you've come to think the parents flick that personality on and off like a switch.

Many of the things that are closest to the murder, came and went with the murder. What is that an earmark of?

Intruder.

 

[DeeDee249]

Also, if the fingernail DNA were truly from a fight with an "intruder", there would be blood mixed with the skin cells (from scratching). AND it would be fresh, not degraded as it was.
We CANNOT lose sight of the fact that it is KNOWN and ADMITTED that Coroner Meyer did not follow proper procedure when collecting the fingernail DNA. He used the SAME nailclipper for each finger. Proper procedure requires that a separate, sterile clipper be used for EACH finger.
THAT is why the fingernail DNA is useless. That, and the fact that she had not washed her hands nor bathed in a few days.