First Prev
of 2
Next Last
learnin

Onaga, KS

#21 Jan 29, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
As you say,“A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.” Therefore, I am correct in my assessment of Kolar’s DNA argument:
On page 426 of his book Kolar writes,“If I understand the DNA evidence correctly, I would propose that this trace evidence could be interpreted in either of two ways.”
The first of his two ways is to say that “the intruder theory must be expanded to incorporate the existence of six perpetrators…” His second way is to “legitimately argue that the numerous unidentified DNA samples collected in this case are explainable, and that their origin has nothing to do whatsoever with the death of Jonbenet.”
These two positions are extreme positions and there is a range in between them that Kolar ignores “either purposefully or out of ignorance.”
As for Lacey’s reasoning regarding ALL the unidentified DNA, I have no comment. I don’t know her reasoning and I’m not much of a supporter of hers. I can only tell you my reasoning – it ALL represents (because of locations found!) potential suspects who must be identified and investigated. Although I do not know how Lacey views all the DNA, I do know from her “letter” that the DNA was only one aspect of her ‘exoneration” of the Ramseys. And, please, let’s not argue over the exoneration, I don’t think it’s a meaningful document or worth much as far as further investigation or any possible indictment, etc. goes.
Also, I am not presenting a false dichotomy when I say that they Ramseys would have walked had there been a trial. A dichotomy presents two usually extreme (opposite) options, I am only stating one: they would have walked. Of course, I could be wrong; right?

AK
AK,
I admire, what I perceive to be in you, an effort at being open minded. However, if science has advanced to the point where we're going to scrape around on victim's clothing for stray DNA, then, we must not let this unknown DNA (which is clinging to all of us) to override the abundance of other evidence which points in a different direction.
It has been pointed out, in various articles presented heretofore, that, when dealing with trace DNA evidence and amplification, etc., a good amount of subjectivity enters into the equation. How do we know if Bode did not interject subjectivity into it's opinion that this scraped DNA sample really matched the amplified DNA in JBR's panties? We don't. Mary Lacy, for whatever reason, was hellbent on an intruder. I, for one, am not going to be sidetracked by an amplified source of panty DNA being matched to a DNA source found by scraping around on clothing 15 years after the crime. The other evidence, overwhelmingly, points to parental cover-up.
Steve Eller

United States

#22 Jan 29, 2013
learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
AK,
I admire, what I perceive to be in you, an effort at being open minded. However, if science has advanced to the point where we're going to scrape around on victim's clothing for stray DNA, then, we must not let this unknown DNA (which is clinging to all of us) to override the abundance of other evidence which points in a different direction.
It has been pointed out, in various articles presented heretofore, that, when dealing with trace DNA evidence and amplification, etc., a good amount of subjectivity enters into the equation. How do we know if Bode did not interject subjectivity into it's opinion that this scraped DNA sample really matched the amplified DNA in JBR's panties? We don't. Mary Lacy, for whatever reason, was hellbent on an intruder. I, for one, am not going to be sidetracked by an amplified source of panty DNA being matched to a DNA source found by scraping around on clothing 15 years after the crime. The other evidence, overwhelmingly, points to parental cover-up.
Hi Learnin. Very persuasuve and well formulated post. I agree. If I had to debate with an IDI proponent, I would choose Anti K not only for his objectivity but his sharp mind and willingness to have a rational discourse. But I must vehemently disagree with his emphasis on a trace DNA match being the sine quo non of this case. I think the real mystery of this case is whether Alex Hunter was a petrified incompetent bungling DA or someone who would make the character of Harvey Dent blush with shame.
Steve Eller

United States

#24 Jan 29, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
Hunter didn't have a prosecutable case as presented by the investigators or the Grand Jury because there was no distinction as to who did what between John and Patsy.
The problem is he interfered with the investigation based on an aversion to pressure tactics and in favor of progressive politics.
The Grand Jury's opinion of child abuse leading to death was wrong, especially including both the Ramseys in the abuse.
Even with the Grand Jury's ambivalence Alex Huner had a very prosecutable case, based on Colorado law and according to the statute under which they indicted they could both be charged with actions that led to her murder either by commission or omission of other acts. I respectfully disagree with you about the child abuse. Feces scattered all over the House? Let any Family making less than a million a year permit something like this while being exemplary in every other way, and the children will be taken away faster than a New York minute.
learnin

Greeley, KS

#25 Jan 29, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Learnin. Very persuasuve and well formulated post. I agree. If I had to debate with an IDI proponent, I would choose Anti K not only for his objectivity but his sharp mind and willingness to have a rational discourse. But I must vehemently disagree with his emphasis on a trace DNA match being the sine quo non of this case. I think the real mystery of this case is whether Alex Hunter was a petrified incompetent bungling DA or someone who would make the character of Harvey Dent blush with shame.
One would hope, Steve, that Hunter is no more than what many say he was and that being a DA who was scared to lose the case. This would fall under your description of a "petrified incompetent bungling DA." If so, then, the shame on the Boulder Co. voters who elected him to the office. If the other shoe fits, let's hope this web unravels so that justice can be done for the innocent victim(s) and the guilty perps.
Steve Eller

United States

#26 Jan 29, 2013
learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
One would hope, Steve, that Hunter is no more than what many say he was and that being a DA who was scared to lose the case. This would fall under your description of a "petrified incompetent bungling DA." If so, then, the shame on the Boulder Co. voters who elected him to the office. If the other shoe fits, let's hope this web unravels so that justice can be done for the innocent victim(s) and the guilty perps.
ABSOLUTELY!

Since: May 11

Seattle, WA

#27 Jan 29, 2013
learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
One would hope, Steve, that Hunter is no more than what many say he was and that being a DA who was scared to lose the case. This would fall under your description of a "petrified incompetent bungling DA." If so, then, the shame on the Boulder Co. voters who elected him to the office. If the other shoe fits, let's hope this web unravels so that justice can be done for the innocent victim(s) and the guilty perps.
It's all making sense now..like Linda Arndt's little lights going off. I can hear AH talking to Lou Smit now,.."go ahead and take a look Lou, you see things others don't" and that's all it took for Smit to become the 'fox' to chase the phantom intruder. Stroke an ego and you've got yourself a tool.
Fleet White said the 'fix is in' on the first day..looks like he was right.
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#28 Jan 29, 2013
Learnin and Steve Eller, I’m embarrassed by your kind words and remarks about me. But, as some here know and Learnin should remember I can be obnoxious and rude and I am very far on the other side of the fence. Of course, I’ve always tried to be funny while being rude and obnoxious, but as they say – comedy is not pretty.

The DNA is not the sine quo non for me. I understand the significance of it, its exculpatory value (for anyone and everyone that it does not match) and its power of incrimination (for anyone who matches). But, for me, it is not a very interesting or revealing aspect of this case. It simply supports one position and opposes another and doesn’t give us much beyond that in terms of understanding what happened or why or how or anything else.


AK

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#29 Jan 30, 2013
And I can be a hair less than cordial when frustration sets in as well, my apologies for yesterday, I will try to be better today.
Anti-K wrote:
Learnin and Steve Eller, I’m embarrassed by your kind words and remarks about me. But, as some here know and Learnin should remember I can be obnoxious and rude and I am very far on the other side of the fence. Of course, I’ve always tried to be funny while being rude and obnoxious, but as they say – comedy is not pretty.
The DNA is not the sine quo non for me. I understand the significance of it, its exculpatory value (for anyone and everyone that it does not match) and its power of incrimination (for anyone who matches). But, for me, it is not a very interesting or revealing aspect of this case. It simply supports one position and opposes another and doesn’t give us much beyond that in terms of understanding what happened or why or how or anything else.

AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#30 Jan 30, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
It's all making sense now..like Linda Arndt's little lights going off. I can hear AH talking to Lou Smit now,.."go ahead and take a look Lou, you see things others don't" and that's all it took for Smit to become the 'fox' to chase the phantom intruder. Stroke an ego and you've got yourself a tool.
Fleet White said the 'fix is in' on the first day..looks like he was right.
Hi there RT,

FW hit the nail right on the head. It is painfully obvious with every revelation that Haddon had it all under control, and of course AH in his pocket from day one
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#31 Jan 30, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
And I can be a hair less than cordial when frustration sets in as well, my apologies for yesterday, I will try to be better today.
<quoted text>
No worries. We’ve all had our moments. And, I know I’ve had mine! Have a nice day!


AK

Since: May 11

AOL

#32 Jan 30, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi there RT,
FW hit the nail right on the head. It is painfully obvious with every revelation that Haddon had it all under control, and of course AH in his pocket from day one
Hiya Cap:D
I'm thinking back to the days after the murder when suddenly the original detectives were replaced by ones that weren't even there. The ruin of Eller (a JRDI) and LArndt (also JRDI) was not coincidental, if you ask me.
learnin

Onaga, KS

#33 Jan 30, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Learnin and Steve Eller, I’m embarrassed by your kind words and remarks about me. But, as some here know and Learnin should remember I can be obnoxious and rude and I am very far on the other side of the fence. Of course, I’ve always tried to be funny while being rude and obnoxious, but as they say – comedy is not pretty.
The DNA is not the sine quo non for me. I understand the significance of it, its exculpatory value (for anyone and everyone that it does not match) and its power of incrimination (for anyone who matches). But, for me, it is not a very interesting or revealing aspect of this case. It simply supports one position and opposes another and doesn’t give us much beyond that in terms of understanding what happened or why or how or anything else.

AK
I remember those days, AK. Since returning, after a long absence, your posts have been interesting to read even though I might not agree on all things.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
"Note-Free Case Discussion" 44 min Legal__Eagle 95
Haapy Thanksgiving 4 hr Legal__Eagle 16
JonBenet Investigation (Nov '11) 10 hr JBI 1,617
Note-odd detail? 14 hr Note 2,400
Upcoming National Enquirer story - JonBenet Ram... (Oct '10) 15 hr berrytea333 35
koldkase patsy wrote the note Wed Legal__Eagle 18
ICU2 's Child Trafficking Tue Legal__Eagle 6
More from around the web