Why the DNA may NOT be important

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Evidence doesn't point in any single direction.
And I have no idea what you're talking about when you say lack of means implicating the Ramseys. Their house. Their child. Of anyone in this world the Ramseys had the best means (capability, accessibility) to get the murder done.

As for motive...you don't have to prove motive in court so it's basically window dressing. But for the sake of argument, Ramseys are still #1 for motive~the molestation. Either cover up for previous assault (s) or accidental death.
The intruder motive, based on the evidence known, appears to be a politically motivated kidnapping by a group who molested a little girl days before her death, successfully convinced her to keep her mouth shut, kidnapped her complete with a pineapple snack and no struggle then couldn't wait to get her out if the house before molesting her again. Then once they killed her, they didn't think to pick up the RN but wiped down the body. But no... it was all about the money :floorlaugh:

Sure it does. It absolutely gives direction. What would be the point in gathering it then.

I don't see any specific Intruder motive. For me it is as simple as someone who wanted to kidnap/kill her. There are a lot of child murderers who kill for no reason than hate and evil.

There is no way to know motive until you find the killer. At this point we have evidence that points to an intruder. Anything else is speculation.

I don't think any of this is a laughing matter.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

All the evidence, and there is a ton of it, points to Patsy as the sole perpetrator of the deliberate murder of Jonbenet.

Acutally none of it does. No evidence is directly connected to Patsy, John or BR.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It's all about the totality of the evidence. There is no one "smoking gun" but pieces that fit together to complete the whole. Some pieces are missing and I'm afraid will always be lost. But I am all but sure, in my opinion, that one or more of the R's had a part in what happened on December 25, 1996 in their home.




Jmo

It really isn't. The totality of evidence has value only when there is no DNA present. Then you have no choice. But every investigation starts at the DNA. They don't go anywhere until they can source it and find out where it works in the case.

The problem in this case is that people want to talk about totality of the evidence but that only matters in a circumstantial case with no direct evidence. Here we have direct evidence. And until that is sourced and investigated nothing else has any value. IMO

 

[2 percent]

Sure it does. It absolutely gives direction. What would be the point in gathering it then.

I don't see any specific Intruder motive. For me it is as simple as someone who wanted to kidnap/kill her. There are a lot of child murderers who kill for no reason than hate and evil.

There is no way to know motive until you find the killer. At this point we have evidence that points to an intruder. Anything else is speculation.

I don't think any of this is a laughing matter.

Let me remind you, the poster said "total lack" of motive, means and evidence implicating the Ramseys. A crime that happened in their house, to their daughter.
[modsnip]

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Let me remind you, the poster said "total lack" of motive, means and evidence implicating the Ramseys. A crime that happened in their house, to their daughter.
[modsnip]

No. Because children are murdered in their homes by people other than their parents. And in this case there is no direct evidence to the parents and the body of the child.

 

[Montjoy]

The problem in this case is that people want to talk about totality of the evidence but that only matters in a circumstantial case with no direct evidence. Here we have direct evidence. And until that is sourced and investigated nothing else has any value. IMO

I don't think you know what 'direct evidence' means. That applies to any evidence that does not require one to make an inference -- so, basically, it means witness testimony of a crime being committed. DNA evidence, fingerprints, ballistics -- basically, anything you might call 'forensic evidence' -- is all circumstantial.

 

[2 percent]

No. Because children are murdered in their homes by people other than their parents. And in this case there is no direct evidence to the parents and the body of the child.

There is no direct evidence of an intruder either.

Direct evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.[1] Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.[2]

For example: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who testifies that he saw the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime, or a forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant’s gun shot the bullet that killed the victim both give circumstantial evidence from which the defendant’s guilt may be inferred.

In direct evidence a witness relates what he or she directly experienced. (Usually the experience is by sight or hearing, though it may come through any sense, including [smell,] touch or pain. State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.)

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't think you know what 'direct evidence' means. That applies to any evidence that does not require one to make an inference -- so, basically, it means witness testimony of a crime being committed. DNA evidence, fingerprints, ballistics -- basically, anything you might call 'forensic evidence' -- is all circumstantial.

There are cases where dna is direct evidence but I will concede to the correction because I should be saying Direct link instead of Direct evidence.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There is no direct evidence of an intruder either.

Direct evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.[1] Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.[2]

For example: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who testifies that he saw the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime, or a forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant’s gun shot the bullet that killed the victim both give circumstantial evidence from which the defendant’s guilt may be inferred.

In direct evidence a witness relates what he or she directly experienced. (Usually the experience is by sight or hearing, though it may come through any sense, including [smell,] touch or pain. State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.)

So you eliminate the Intruder because there is no direct evidence but not the Ramseys.. That is a little selective. :facepalm:

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

All the evidence points to Patsy and Patsy supplied the motive: she said JonBenet was in a heaven with a God awaiting her mother's arrival. Patsy put her there to have that fantasy.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

All the evidence points to Patsy and Patsy supplied the motive: she said JonBenet was in a heaven with a God awaiting her mother's arrival. Patsy put her there to have that fantasy.

No. Nothing is linked only and directly to her.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Everything is Patsy's; from the house to the daughter to the books to the art supplies to the motive to the guilt: it's all Patsy, all deliberate, all psychotic.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Everything is Patsy's; from the house to the daughter to the books to the art supplies to the motive to the guilt: it's all Patsy, all deliberate, all psychotic.

Plenty of people are murdered in their house by intruders. Plenty of people are killed with objects from the home.

The rest is just opinion and has no foundation.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

All the evidence collected and presented to the public foundationally proves Patsy killed JonBenet deliberately. Plenty of mothers kill their children deliberately.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

All the evidence collected and presented to the public foundationally proves Patsy killed JonBenet deliberately.

Actually the evidence collected shows DNA that points to someone that is not related in any way to the ramseys. That is fact.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

There is no matching DNA from any of the samples collected. No conclusion can be drawn from the miniscule amount of degraded material that was an artifact from the production/delivery process. Mary Lacy is an unprosecuted felon.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There is no matching DNA from any of the samples collected. No conclusion can be drawn from the miniscule amount of degraded material that was an artifact from the production/delivery process. Mary Lacy is an unprosecuted felon.

There is but it is okay if you don't want to acknowledge it. It does not make it less true.

The rest does not warrant comment.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

There is no reliable, verifiable report that shows any matching DNA. In fact the known reports show otherwise.

Mary Lacy and Bode had a match like Lacy and Tracey had the killer.

 

[2 percent]

So you eliminate the Intruder because there is no direct evidence but not the Ramseys.. That is a little selective. :facepalm:

No, it's not. Direct evidence has nothing to do with my theory of the crime and I never claimed it did.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There is no reliable, verifiable report that shows any matching DNA. In fact the known reports show otherwise.

Mary Lacy and Bode had a match like Lacy and Tracey had the killer.

There is Touch DNA and DNA from her panties that match. That is just fact.