The Ramseys are Cleared

[Wudge]

Quite so! And Lacy is one of them. And I'm not just saying that. Look at her conduct in the Univ. of CO case just to start with.

I'll be honest: I always wondered why Mary lacy didn't get more heat from the pro-Ramsey people in the wake of the Karr debacle. After all, she made herself, and by extension her supporters look like a bunch of jerks! It just gives our side more ammunition.

(More on her later)



Well, Jane Osa, there are people who think that someone else did the killing and they did the cover-up. Just saying.

Mary either did not know or forget the cardinal rule for assessing fruitcakes. They can't be pre-assessed.

Fruitcakes come in unlimited shapes, sizes, colors and dispositions; they all have a particlar bent that you simply cannot pre-assess. Though Karr did severely incriminate himself, you simply cannot pre-assess them. Each fruitcake is unique, as Mary learned the hard way.

 

[Wudge]

It's exonerating when they can match it to someone they can prove was there that night.

The matching DNA in multiple places is exonerating evidence. If they had found matching fingerprints on her leggings and underwear (used only to make the point) that, too, would be exonerating evidence.

 

[BBB167893]

She shouldn't have HAD to learn it the hard way, Wudge. That's my whole point. She didn't follow the most basic procedures that a first-year law student would know!

 

[BBB167893]

Fingerprints would be MORE exonerating Wudge. Unlike DNA, you can't just pickup fingerprints any old place.

 

[Wudge]

She shouldn't have HAD to learn it the hard way, Wudge. That's my whole point. She didn't follow the most basic procedures that a first-year law student would know!

I've never defended her handling of the Karr matter. She got excited and rushed to judgment. I know that many, many D.A.s do that as well, however, it's almost always in the other direction.

 

[BBB167893]

Wudge, I'll give you credit: you defend her as well as anyone can defend the indefensible. (And I will be happy to tell you why I feel that way.)

But this whole case has convinced me irrevocably that Shakespeare was right: kill all the lawyers.

 

[Wudge]

Fingerprints would be MORE exonerating Wudge. Unlike DNA, you can't just pickup fingerprints any old place.

DNA is every bit as strong as fingerprints, even moreso if the testing produces a complete DNA profile.

Please reflect on the fact that, by itself, exonerating evidence excludes a person beyond a reasonable doubt. A prosecutor does not have to prove who committed a crime for exonerating evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who did not commit that crime. That's what the matching DNA (one liquid based, two touch based) that was found in multiple places on JonBenet does.

 

[BBB167893]

DNA is every bit as strong as fingerprints, even moreso if the testing produces a complete DNA profile.

Depends on the kind and the location.

A prosecutor does not have to prove who committed a crime for exonerating evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who did not commit that crime. That's what the matching DNA (one liquid based, two touch based) that was found in multiple places on JonBenet does.

Well, I've already heard several authorities disagree with that.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, I'll give you credit: you defend her as well as anyone can defend the indefensible. (And I will be happy to tell you why I feel that way.)

But this whole case has convinced me irrevocably that Shakespeare was right: kill all the lawyers.

The good news for you is that, career wise, a large percentage of lawyers (and law students) figuratively kill themselves. We graduate over 40,000 law students every year from over 200 law schools. A high percentage will never pass the bar exam. And five years down the road, half of those who graduate will not be practicing law.

Still, this case lacked the required evidenced to indict the Ramseys much less prove they killed JonBenet beyond a reasonable doubt. As I said before, the key evidence is the ransom note and the DNA and both greatly favored the defense.

 

[BBB167893]

Good riddance.

Still, this case lacked the required evidenced to indict the Ramseys much less prove they killed JonBenet beyond a reasonable doubt.

you're right, to a point. They lacked the evidence to prove who did what. It's a problem that many prosecutors face. it's called the cross-fingerpointing technique

As I said before, the key evidence is the ransom note and the DNA and both greatly favored the defense.

DNA that was so degraded it couldn't have been left that day, and as for the handwriting favoring the defense:

Carol McKinley stated in the Fox News story that Ramseys sued Fox over: "Many forensic document examiners have given their opinions as to who wrote the note. But the only one to testify before a grand jury in the case was Chet Ubowski, forensic document examiner for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Out of 100 people he analyzed for the Boulder Police Department, he found ONLY ONE person whom he thought may have authored the document, Patsy Ramsey. Investigative sources tell Fox News that the disguised letters and bleeding ink from the felt tipped pen used to write the note kept him from 100 percent ID of Mrs. Ramsey."

and

"The police never bothered to ask Ubowski if he had put his entire analysis of the ransom note into his report. Either way, Ubowski was prepared to say, 'Patsy wrote the note.' The CBI saw this as another missed opportunity" (Schiller 1999a:536-537)

and

"experts from the CBI presented their evaluations into evidence, including Chet Ubowski. He also told Pete Mang, his boss at the CBI, that his gut told him it was her handwriting" (Schiller 1999a:740)

 

[Wudge]

Depends on the kind and the location.



Well, I've already heard several authorities disagree with that.

Those "authorities" have no idea what exonerating evidence is then.

I am sure you are familiar with the fact that, by itself, DNA has freed a large number of wrongfully convicted prisoners. The DNA evidence freed them because it is exonerating evidence. It proved who did not commit the crime (the prisoner).

In some cases, while they are in the process of releasing the prisoner, authorities are able to match up that DNA with another person, and that person eventually ends up being convicted. However, it is not a requirement for authorities to match up the DNA before they release the person whom the DNA proved was wrongfully convicted.

By itself, it proves beyond a reasonable doubt who did not commit the crime. That's exonerating evidence.

HTH

 

[Wudge]

Good riddance.


SNIP


They lacked the evidence to prove who did what.


SNIP

DNA that was so degraded it couldn't have been left that day, and as for the handwriting favoring the defense:

Carol McKinley stated in the Fox News story that Ramseys sued Fox over: "Many forensic document examiners have given their opinions as to who wrote the note. But the only one to testify before a grand jury in the case was Chet Ubowski, forensic document examiner for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Out of 100 people he analyzed for the Boulder Police Department, he found ONLY ONE person whom he thought may have authored the document, Patsy Ramsey. Investigative sources tell Fox News that the disguised letters and bleeding ink from the felt tipped pen used to write the note kept him from 100 percent ID of Mrs. Ramsey."

and

"The police never bothered to ask Ubowski if he had put his entire analysis of the ransom note into his report. Either way, Ubowski was prepared to say, 'Patsy wrote the note.' The CBI saw this as another missed opportunity" (Schiller 1999a:536-537)

and

"experts from the CBI presented their evaluations into evidence, including Chet Ubowski. He also told Pete Mang, his boss at the CBI, that his gut told him it was her handwriting" (Schiller 1999a:740)

"They lacked the evidence to prove who did what." We agree. I only assess the evidence in any case. In this case, the evidence was lacking.

As for Chet, he told the Grand Jury he could not exclude Patsy. That's what other handwriting experts said as well. No expert, including Chet, ever said Patsy's handwriting matched the ransom note. Like the DNA, the handwriting assessments also favored the defense.

 

[BBB167893]

Those "authorities" have no idea what exonerating evidence is then.

Perhaps I did not articulate myself well. I meant to say that they think it's good to use the evidence to include suspects, but it's premature to exonerate anyone, per Mary lacy's own words. DNA can only exclude in cases of rape, Wudge. Even I know that. Otherwise, it can include, not exclude.

I am sure you are familiar with the fact that, by itself, DNA has freed a large number of wrongfully convicted prisoners. The DNA evidence freed them because it is exonerating evidence. It proved who did not commit the crime (the prisoner).

I know, but I think you'll find that the vast majority of those cases involved a sexual attack as well.

"They lacked the evidence to prove who did what." We agree. I only assess the evidence in any case. In this case, the evidence was lacking.

Well, I'll agree TO A POINT.

As for Chet, he told the Grand Jury he could not exclude Patsy. That's what other handwriting experts said as well.

Right. But you HAVE to take into account that she was KNOWN to be in the house that night.

No expert, including Chet, ever said Patsy's handwriting matched the ransom note.

Never said so in court. You know and I know that what an expert tells the cops and prosecutors many times is not what they are allowed to say in court. That's just a fact.

Like the DNA, the handwriting assessments also favored the defense.

Tell me, Wudge: have you ever seen the side-by-side comparisons of Patsy's letters with the note letters? because if you haven't, you're really missing out. RiverRat would be more than happy to help you out, I'm sure. Sadly, I can only find them in a book no longer in print and I don't have a webcam. (Speaking of which, could someone on here who's friends with acandyrose please ask her nicely to fix that link! It's be a great favor to me! PLEASE?!)

I'm sure that if a jury ever saw those charts, no amount of expert opinion in the world would convince them she didn't write it, okay? They would not care. And I know that because most people I know are like me: we believe our own eyes, not what someone tells us, no matter how many letters or numbers come after their names. Maybe that's wrong. I'll leave that up to you. It's like I keep telling you: I can't NOT SEE what my eyes see. It's as simple as that. And no amount of lawyer BS can change that. It's just how I am. Seeing is believing.

 

[twinkiesmom]

I'm not sure that I understand why it's not possible for JonBenet to have put the larger underwear on herself that morning and was never really even redressed. Patsy doesn't seem like she was the type to pay much attention to household things such as bowls, spoons, and opened packages.

I don't think there's any conceivable way JBR wore those big panties underneath snug leggings without the extra fabric showing...Patsy may not have been big on hygiene, but she was big on image...and those huge undies would have shown up under size 6 leggings...both unattractive and uncomfortable.

 

[Chrishope]

In this case, the reason the touch DNA is exonerating evidence is because it was found in two places on JonBenet's leggings and also perfectly matched the liquid based DNA that was found on Jon Benet's underwear.

If you mean exonerating in the mind of the typical juror, then probably yes. If you mean exonerating as a matter of logic, no way.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Tell me, Wudge: have you ever seen the side-by-side comparisons of Patsy's letters with the note letters? because if you haven't, you're really missing out. RiverRat would be more than happy to help you out, I'm sure. Sadly, I can only find them in a book no longer in print and I don't have a webcam. (Speaking of which, could someone on here who's friends with acandyrose please ask her nicely to fix that link! It's be a great favor to me! PLEASE?!)

I'm sure that if a jury ever saw those charts, no amount of expert opinion in the world would convince them she didn't write it, okay? They would not care. And I know that because most people I know are like me: we believe our own eyes, not what someone tells us, no matter how many letters or numbers come after their names. Maybe that's wrong. I'll leave that up to you. It's like I keep telling you: I can't NOT SEE what my eyes see. It's as simple as that. And no amount of lawyer BS can change that. It's just how I am. Seeing is believing.

I've seen side-by-sides of both Patsy's handwriting and Karr's handwriting. To me, Karr's handwriting looked to be a match moreso than Patsy's handwriting. Nevertheless, real handwriting experts did not find that the handwriting of either of them matched the ransom note.

As for jurors pretending they are handwriting experts and overridding the testimony of Court recognized experts, that would be wrong. However, in reaching their decision, juries are presumed to follow the Judge's jury instructions.

 

[BBB167893]

I've seen side-by-sides of both Patsy's handwriting and Karr's handwriting. To me, Karr's handwriting looked to be a match moreso than Patsy's handwriting.

You CAN'T be serious.

Nevertheless, real handwriting experts did not find the handwriting of either of them matched the ransom note.

Ah ah! None could say so in court. Big difference. (among many things I could point out.)

As for jurors pretending they are handwriting experts and overridding the testimony of Court recognized experts, that would be wrong.

Maybe it is wrong, but you can't tell me it doesn't happen.

Besides, I wouldn't mind using those charts in my closing arguments, if I made them.

However, in reaching their decision, juries are presumed to follow the Judge's jury instructions.

Yeah, but do they always? These are people, not computers. Look, I may not know as much about law as you do, but I know people. I know what they're like, and the ones I've met aren't that different from me. I don't live in the world of legal niceties and evidentiary theories, I live in the real world with laypeople like me.

You understand the point I'm trying to make?

 

[twinkiesmom]

I don't see it. The location of the point of force that caused her fracture is near the *top* of her head. The most likely explanation for this is blunt force trauma with a hand held object. The only possible way I see this damage caused by the corner of a counter or tub is if she was picked up and the top of her head used like a battering ram. I'm not saying that this type of damage is not possible from a fall or shove. Just that the location of the initial impact is very unlikely to have been caused by the kind of fall you describe.

Reefshadow, are you an MD?

I agree with you about this point..I think the flashlight is still in the running as the source of the headblow...and it was carefully wiped down.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Yeah, but do they always? These are people, not computers. Look, I may not know as much about law as you do, but I know people. I know what they're like, and the ones I've met aren't that different from me. I don't live in the world of legal niceties and evidentiary theories, I live in the real world with laypeople like me.

You understand the point I'm trying to make?

Jurors most certainly do not always follow jury instructions. I tell law students that if they want to meet a jury, go online.

I've seen a decay in jury quality to a point to where I believe it is time that we either have professional jurors (especially in capital cases) or we require all prospective jurors to first pass an applied logic test before they can be considered for voir dire.

I have long said that if the Ramseys had been indicted, there was a very good chance they would have been convicted. Obviously, my position is not based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. My position is based on my belief that many stealth jurors would have made it into the jury box.

 

[LI_Mom]

In this case, the reason the touch DNA is exonerating evidence is because it was found in two places on JonBenet's leggings and also perfectly matched the liquid based DNA that was found on Jon Benet's underwear.

HTH

Yes, I understand.

But I don't know if you can 100% rule out the possibility that the child transferred dna she picked up innocently from under her nails TO her own vaginal area & to her own waistband.

IF they would confirm that this same male DNA can be matched on the other items we KNOW the perp had to touch, I'd be convinced.

They open the door BUT they won't walk through. Why?