The top ten reasons I believe the IDI theory

[DeeDee249]

Oh yes to add to the above, #11 - A lot of what some people assume is true about the case comes from investigators questions, not the Ramsey's answers or actual proven facts. That shows in my opinion only what was in the investigator's minds or what they hoped would get them to confess. It's not real evidence.

The Rs lawyers wouldn't allow them to answer the questions on the "facts". If you read all the interviews, (as I have) you'll see LW did not allow his clients to answer MANY important questions. In some cases, he wouldn't allow the questions to even be asked.

 

[madeleine]

You can belief whatever you like about the touch-dna recovered at the crime-scene, but it has never been identified as either semen or saliva DNA.


.

i think you mean the dna found in her panties,no?(which btw was never said to be TOUCH dna,touch dna can't be saliva or semen, it's skin cells)
and until we know what it is,it's not a + point for neither IDI nor RDI.

if it's touch dna it would favor the RDI transfer theory.
if it's saliva,semen,blood,etc it favors IDI cause we have two types of dna coming from the same donor(touch dna/skin cells on longjohns and something else/saliva,blood,semen,etc in the panties) which would be a problem.

but we DON'T know,so..............

 

[Roy23]

The Rs lawyers wouldn't allow them to answer the questions on the "facts". If you read all the interviews, (as I have) you'll see LW did not allow his clients to answer MANY important questions. In some cases, he wouldn't allow the questions to even be asked.

That is a Lawyer's job Dee Dee. Especially in a case where LE went behind each others backs and went to the media. LE was getting drilled by the media for not containing the crimescene and pulled the old switcheroo by turning them on the Ramseys.

The press proceeded to destroy the Ramsey's all over the country. It was huge. It was then everyone was trying to cash in and get paid. Including Mr. Steve Thomas. Ramsey lawyers didn't have much of a choice. I wish the Ramsey's would have spoken up more but I believe they didn't know enough to help much.

 

[vulture]

In my opinion a lot of what people think about the Ramsey's comes down to > Initial impression from media is that they did it > because they did it, they are capable of anything > because they did it, their behavior is from trying to cover up a murder, not trying to defend themselves > therefore they must have done it. Circular logic.

 

[runsdeep]

In my opinion a lot of what people think about the Ramsey's comes down to > Initial impression from media is that they did it > because they did it, they are capable of anything > because they did it, their behavior is from trying to cover up a murder, not trying to defend themselves > therefore they must have done it. Circular logic.

their direct words and behaviors as seen on camera were highly questionable. i personally ignore anything written in tabloids.

 

[Roy23]

their direct words and behaviors as seen on camera were highly questionable. i personally ignore anything written in tabloids.

Keep in mind they were angry, scared, confused. And everywhere they went , the public was pointing fingers at them. It was a frenzy. And most people don't ignore tabloids and mainstream media.

Maybe the Ramsey's did not handle things properly. But LE handled it abysmally under any circumstance.

 

[vulture]

"their direct words and behaviors as seen on camera were highly questionable" - That's a great example of what I mean, thank you - if you already think they're guilty, you're going to interpret things a different way than if you don't.

 

[runsdeep]

from watching their behaviors and reading "reports" not tabloids--i did not catch onto any fear, anger, confusion. the only behavior i saw that rang true to me was seeing PR doped up for a time after the death.

 

[DeeDee249]

That is a Lawyer's job Dee Dee. Especially in a case where LE went behind each others backs and went to the media.

You are absolutely right, Roy. it IS a defense lawyer's job to keep their client out of jail (this JR admitted) and to work towards acquittal if a trial takes place. IMO, the guilt or innocence really doesn't enter into it. It is usually all about winning the game. But in this case, the very things LW would not allow his clients to answer or be asked prove to ME that he knew they were guilty of something and his only tactic was to keep them from answering questions where the answer would expose their guilt. Had they been in front of the GJ without their lawyers, taking the 5th would do the same thing (expose their guilt).
And I agree LE behaved abysmally, both the detectives and the DA and his assistant- speaking to a double agent like Jeff Shapiro- awful. The tabloids are bad enough without LE getting involved in the middle of an active murder investigation. The entire sordid affair tainted the whole justice system. Add that to the ineptness of the investigation in the early hours and days, and what you have is the reason we are here 15 years later.
Even in the Casey Anthony miscarriage of justice, her lead defense attorney gave a very telling statement after her acquittal. He said that when he went home that night and his little girl asked him what he did that day, he could tell her "I saved a life today". It was never about Casey's guilt or innocence, as I believe they knew she was responsible for her daughter's death. For him, all it really was about was keeping Casey from the death penalty she faced had she been found guilty, because he personally did not believe in the death penalty. So for him, he felt perfectly fine in seeing guilty people go free just so they wouldn't face execution.
Biggest mistake the prosecution made, IMO was to say they would seek the death penalty.

 

[learnin]

Riiight, and this unknown cleanup persons Dna just happened to get under a dead girls fingernails, and commingled with blood in her undewear, not buying it. Whomever left the DNA is the killer IMO.

If you believe the DNA belongs to the killer, then, you have a problem which must be addressed if you are going to use the fingernail DNA, also. If the fingernail DNA belongs to the killer, then, why is it so degraded as opposed to the longjohn DNA? I'm assuming, if the DNA does belong to JBR's killer, that it got there by JBR clamping firmly onto the killer's arm, face, etc. In other words, it must've come from the murderer's skin cells.

We know the fingernail DNA was harvested no more than a day and a half after JBR was killed, yet this DNA was very degraded. The longjohn DNA, also obtained from the murderer's skin cells, was harvested 12 years after JBR's murder and it is not degraded in the slightest. Can you see my point?
JBR scratches skin cells from the murderer; it is collected shortly after the murder and is terribly degraded. The murderer deposits skin cells onto JBR's clothing; this is collected years after the murder and is pristine.

I don't believe the fingernail DNA is a match but if it is, there is one explanation which fits. JBR handled something which left someones DNA on her fingers. She goes to the bathroom thereby transferring the DNA onto her longjohn waistband and crotch area. After doing so, she washed her hands thereby degrading and washing residue DNA underneath her fingernails. If this is true, I believe the DNA could have come from her bicycle handlebar grips.

 

[runsdeep]

You are absolutely right, Roy. it IS a defense lawyer's job to keep their client out of jail (this JR admitted) and to work towards acquittal if a trial takes place. IMO, the guilt or innocence really doesn't enter into it. It is usually all about winning the game. But in this case, the very things LW would not allow his clients to answer or be asked prove to ME that he knew they were guilty of something and his only tactic was to keep them from answering questions where the answer would expose their guilt. Had they been in front of the GJ without their lawyers, taking the 5th would do the same thing (expose their guilt).
And I agree LE behaved abysmally, both the detectives and the DA and his assistant- speaking to a double agent like Jeff Shapiro- awful. The tabloids are bad enough without LE getting involved in the middle of an active murder investigation. The entire sordid affair tainted the whole justice system. Add that to the ineptness of the investigation in the early hours and days, and what you have is the reason we are here 15 years later.
Even in the Casey Anthony miscarriage of justice, her lead defense attorney gave a very telling statement after her acquittal. He said that when he went home that night and his little girl asked him what he did that day, he could tell her "I saved a life today". It was never about Casey's guilt or innocence, as I believe they knew she was responsible for her daughter's death. For him, all it really was about was keeping Casey from the death penalty she faced had she been found guilty, because he personally did not believe in the death penalty. So for him, he felt perfectly fine in seeing guilty people go free just so they wouldn't face execution.
Biggest mistake the prosecution made, IMO was to say they would seek the death penalty.

i admit off topic--i think kc prosecution did not make a mistake in seeking death penalty, the jury had other choices too! i do think in her case was murder in 1st premeditated.

this is the legal system, not the justice system.

 

[Roy23]

If you believe the DNA belongs to the killer, then, you have a problem which must be addressed if you are going to use the fingernail DNA, also. If the fingernail DNA belongs to the killer, then, why is it so degraded as opposed to the longjohn DNA? I'm assuming, if the DNA does belong to JBR's killer, that it got there by JBR clamping firmly onto the killer's arm, face, etc. In other words, it must've come from the murderer's skin cells.

We know the fingernail DNA was harvested no more than a day and a half after JBR was killed, yet this DNA was very degraded. The longjohn DNA, also obtained from the murderer's skin cells, was harvested 12 years after JBR's murder and it is not degraded in the slightest. Can you see my point?
JBR scratches skin cells from the murderer; it is collected shortly after the murder and is terribly degraded. The murderer deposits skin cells onto JBR's clothing; this is collected years after the murder and is pristine.

I don't believe the fingernail DNA is a match but if it is, there is one explanation which fits. JBR handled something which left someones DNA on her fingers. She goes to the bathroom thereby transferring the DNA onto her longjohn waistband and crotch area. After doing so, she washed her hands thereby degrading and washing residue DNA underneath her fingernails. If this is true, I believe the DNA could have come from her bicycle handlebar grips.

Let me spell this out for you Learnin.

The fingernail DNA degradation is mostly based on that the coroner collected the DNA from JBR fingernails and other dead person fingernails using the same set of tweezers. Now who you want to blame that on. Either way, they got a big problem in court no matter who gets indicted. Also, over a 12 year period of time new methods and ways of analyzing DNA changes. In 1996, touch DNA analysis was almost unheard of.

Hope this helps

 

[Roy23]

i admit off topic--i think kc prosecution did not make a mistake in seeking death penalty, the jury had other choices too! i do think in her case was murder in 1st premeditated.

this is the legal system, not the justice system.

I think Dee Dee is right and you are right a little as well. The problem is that they prosecuted the case as a capital murder case. They spent a lot of time on premeditation with the computer searches and Casey's state of mind. Had they not done that, she would be in jail.

I still think the jurors should have gotten her on manslaughter, and I think the prosecution did a great job. In hindsight, they didn't.

 

[learnin]

Let me spell this out for you Learnin.

The fingernail DNA degradation is mostly based on that the coroner collected the DNA from JBR fingernails and other dead person fingernails using the same set of tweezers. Now who you want to blame that on. Either way, they got a big problem in court no matter who gets indicted. Also, over a 12 year period of time new methods and ways of analyzing DNA changes. In 1996, touch DNA analysis was almost unheard of.

Hope this helps

Well, then, the fingernail DNA is worthless, no? The panty DNA was also mixed with JBR's DNA. Yet, it offered a less degraded sample than the fingernail DNA. What we really have here, when it come to DNA, is a good profile taken from the longjohns and a mixed, partial profile taken from the panties. The fingernail DNA is a real stretch. The DNA is important but no where near the slam dunk many think.

 

[Roy23]

Well, then, the fingernail DNA is worthless, no? The panty DNA was also mixed with JBR's DNA. Yet, it offered a less degraded sample than the fingernail DNA. What we really have here, when it come to DNA, is a good profile taken from the longjohns and a mixed, partial profile taken from the panties. The fingernail DNA is a real stretch. The DNA is important but no where near the slam dunk many think.

It might be worthless in court. But just consider this. You mention there is a good sample above. With all the problems, the fact that all the samples match after techniques performed by law enforcement is pretty powerful is it not?

All the samples match. Technically the fingernail DNA has not been completely confirmed to match by LE. Just in some articles. Good reason for that too.

 

[learnin]

It might be worthless in court. But just consider this. You mention there is a good sample above. With all the problems, the fact that all the samples match after techniques performed by law enforcement is pretty powerful is it not?

All the samples match. Technically the fingernail DNA has not been completely confirmed to match by LE. Just in some articles. Good reason for that too.

I would agree if two of the samples were not mixed and then amplified in order to get enough markers to work with. With amplification, subjectivity is introduced. With subjectivity, bias is a possibility.

Even with clear cut, black and white facts, we human beings have a tendency to introduce bias in our acceptance and interpretation of data. Just consider the differing opinions that "experts" will give on a wide variety of evidence. Now, introduce DNA data that has been manipulated and amplified and you introduce a distinct possibility that the interpreters of this data, with the tendency of the interpreter to want to be of assistance in a criminal case, could have been too willing to interpret stutter and artifact as markers, etc.

I'm not saying this is what happened. I'm simply saying that the more you have to mess with data, the more you introduce error into the equation.

 

[BBB167893]

"There are those in the IDI camp, who I will not name--YET--who seem to think that they have a stranglehold on truth and who view RDIs as lunatics who only exist to provide them with amusement when they deign us worthy to speak to, similar to the old Bedlam inmates that English toffs used to pay to gawk at. Well, speaking purely for myself, I'm NOT stupid, I'm NOT ignorant and I HAVEN'T lost my mind, at least not yet. "

Hi, I am Roy 23 and I am one of these people.

At least YOU admit it!

But, let me say that I do not deem RDI's useless nor ALL of them lunatics. Some of them, yes I do. A better word is they have been misled.

I'm tempted to recall the old, "in a mirror, darkly" line, Roy. That's how I look at a lot of IDIs.

I appreciate RDI to an extent and I just hope that in time we will have an answer. And even though I am certain I am not wrong, I will be singing your praises if you just happened to be right. I will buy you all a beer, coke, and shake your hands if you will let me.

Even I must admit, I've learned the value of a devil's advocate.

 

[BBB167893]

Question to those who believe IDI, Would you have a different view if there was no DNA evidence that was unidentified ? ie take out the DNA evidence , what have you got?

NOTHING! And I say that as an ex-IDI myself!

Also, speaking as a former member of the flock, I know that there are some IDIs who probably would have a different view, FairM. But not all of them. Like I said in my first post on this thread, IDI has a NEED, psychologically, for the Ramseys to be innocent. And while I'm sometimes taken aback by how STRONG that need can be, I'm not the least bit mystified as to the cause.

And ref to ST, he really misled in his book because he did mention a few times about people being cleared due to their DNA not matching, that chap in prison for example, sorry SuperDave I know you have explained this a thousand times, well I feel like I've read your explanation a thousand times now but it keeps cropping up doesnt it, prob no thanks to ST's book!

You're not telling me anything I don't know, FairM! And yes, I'm getting a little tired of having to go over that same ground over and over!

I will say this though. Speaking as a prospective author myself, sometimes you have to simplify things for an audience of laypeople. I'm not saying that he SHOULD have done that, but I understand it.

I have to take umbrage with your characterization of the "chap" in prison, though. I'm assuming you mean John Brewer Eustace. Well, a thorough reading of that section makes it pretty clear that there were already problems with Eustace's confession, PLUS an inability to establish that he had been there. The DNA was just icing on the cake, as I've always said.

But I get where you're coming from.

 

[BBB167893]

You are making my best point for me. The DNA. I believe LE was worried about the collection of the DNA. Look at OJ. i mean they had his blood. LE in California miscalculated some percentages and a couple of small protocols were violated and it helped him walk. But it was still his blood.

I got to call you on that assertion, pilgrim. There was no big issue with the DNA that helped Simpson walk. The DNA was fine. The problem was the JURY.

They have cleared people on the DNA. Even from the beginning.

Hey, FairM! You see what I mean?

But it is a DNA case if you listen and don't rely on books and magazines that are 7 to 15 years old.

It's exactly those old books and magazines we SHOULD be paying attention to, pilgrim. You'd be well to do so yourself. The people who wrote those actually KNEW something about this case and did some WORK on it.

 

[BBB167893]

They are eliminating persons from it.

That doesn't mean they SHOULD be!

Having DNA is a 6 year old child's underwear that matches DNA on the leggings based on how they would have suspected an assault along with finally advancing the fingernail DNA to a match suggests something really powerful. I understand that RDI is gonna discount it for many reasons.

Damn right.

But when they tell me they want to put it in CODIS and they are crossing off persons of interest because DNA doesn't match, I think you guys are missing it. And missing it BIG.

SOMEBODY's missing something all right!