Colorado CODIS hits from DNA
The Truth Hurts

Royal Oak, MI

#43 Jun 10, 2012
Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
Back to CC?
There is no way you can prove a person's guilt simply by proving he was at the crime scene at the time of the crime. There has to be substantiating evidence proving he committed the crime.
OTOH, if he's shown to be elsewhere at the time the crime was committed, he cannot be guilty since he can't be in two places at the same time.
That is why they tried to PROVE JMK was in Atlanta at the time of the crime. They were unable to do that, so he is still one of the prime suspects in the crime.
And even though they could not place him in Boulder at the time of the crime, he is still one of the primary suspects.
However, had they proven that he WAS in Atlanta or anywhere else other than in or near Boulder at the time of the crime, he would probably have been forgotten as far as the Ramsey case is concerned.
He has NOT BEEN FORGOTTEN.
Uh...NO. He's one of YOUR "primary suspects." Not QUITE the same thing, right? ;)

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#44 Jun 10, 2012
The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh...NO. He's one of YOUR "primary suspects." Not QUITE the same thing, right? ;)
Correct. Just because he was someplace on this planet, you MUST place him in the location of the crime during the crime, or you have no case. JMK is not a suspect anymore. They cannot place him even in the State of Colorado at the time of the crime.

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#45 Jun 10, 2012
deb wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG AGAIN...You obviously don't follow any criminal cases. Read up on some cases - IT'S CALLED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
Circumstantial evidence is good, but you STILL must place the suspect in the vicinity of the crime at the time of the crime, or you have no case in a trial where the suspect pleads "not guilty".

If you cannot prove that the suspect was withing 1000 miles of the crime, how do you suppose any circumstantial evidence will help with a conviction?

Common sense 101.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#46 Jun 11, 2012
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Circumstantial evidence is good, but you STILL must place the suspect in the vicinity of the crime at the time of the crime, or you have no case in a trial where the suspect pleads "not guilty".
If you cannot prove that the suspect was withing 1000 miles of the crime, how do you suppose any circumstantial evidence will help with a conviction?
Common sense 101.
When people are either challenged or in denial, you will find that you are wasting your time trying to explain it over and over again. It should be common sense but you're not dealing with someone with common sense and at some point, responding is just a waste of your time and effort CC.

Like I've been saying with some posters, but in this case, even the puppets and crayons wouldn't be enough. The capacity is just not there, and I'm not sure it's all by choice

It's nice that you keep trying, but you won't succeed. The receiver has to be willing to accept the reality, and here that just won't happen

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#47 Jun 11, 2012
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. Just because he was someplace on this planet, you MUST place him in the location of the crime during the crime, or you have no case. JMK is not a suspect anymore. They cannot place him even in the State of Colorado at the time of the crime.
But he cannot be placed anywhere else either. No one has any proof of where he was that night. So is a perfectly viable suspect, the possible killer of an innocent little girl, allowed a free pass just because he cannot be PROVED to be in Boulder that night?

What are we searching for here? The TRUTH, or the "truth" only in so far as it fits our particular theory?
Puddintane

Elizabethtown, KY

#48 Jun 11, 2012
BrotherMoon wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't a garrote, it was a suspension device. If it was tested the results weren't released. The released DNA info was a ruse by Mary Lacy.
Actually, it was a ligature.

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#49 Jun 11, 2012
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> But he cannot be placed anywhere else either. No one has any proof of where he was that night. So is a perfectly viable suspect, the possible killer of an innocent little girl, allowed a free pass just because he cannot be PROVED to be in Boulder that night?
What are we searching for here? The TRUTH, or the "truth" only in so far as it fits our particular theory?
That makes no difference. If you cannot even place him in the vicinity of the crime, you cannot convict him of the crime. He could be ANYWHERE, but that doesn't mean he was at the location of the crime at the time of the crime.

The defense is simple. The defense says he wasn't in the State of Colorado in 1996, and if you cannot prove that he was, you have an acquittal. Common Sense 101.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#51 Jun 11, 2012
Let me pose another scenario both to this post and the other one I am including:

This sentiment can be argued to infinity, because you can’t always prove it even if they were there, and sometimes you can prove it even if they weren’t there in cases such as murder-for-hire, but simply stated they are equal and reactive opposites, also known as different sides of the same coin.

Just like OS says you don’t have to prove they are at the crime scene you have to prove they were someplace else – again, equal and reactive statements, different sides of the same coin again.

There is another scenario. JMK, according to some, cannot be proven to be in Boulder, and equally cannot be proven to be in Atlanta.

It can be proven the Ramseys were in the home, and it cannot be proven they were someplace else at another location, two sides of another coin.

So where does that leave the Ramseys? It is my opinion they cannot determine who did what, ergo no charges.

So where does that leave JMK?

“Karr's ex-wife has said since then that he was with her in Alabama when the girl died, and members of his biological family say he apparently spent that Christmas in Georgia.”
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/ar...

I believe JMK’s whereabouts were verified by more than just his ex-wife who said one thing and then recanted. I believe they did verify it with other family members as well, which is what this article implies, although there will be people who dispute the article as well.

What does it all add up to? More fodder for discussion.
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
If you cannot prove that the accused was at the crimescene at the time of the crime, there is no way you can prove his guilt.
Common sense 101.
CC
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Capricorn,
You are correct, but it is fun to deal with this kind of stupidity. Anyone who believes you can attain a conviction without being able to prove that the accused was at the general vicinity of the crime when the defense is that he wasn't there, has to be quite stupid.
The ONLY way this can be done, is IF you have a guilty plea, and if the accused location at the time of the crime is questionable, I doubt that any court would accept the guilty plea in a murder case.
CC

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#52 Jun 11, 2012
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, then she was strangled with the "suspension device" ! LOL!!!
Since it had a handle, and it was used to strangle, it was a garrote.
How do you know it was used to strangle?

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#53 Jun 11, 2012
Hi DrS,
Yes, on a contract murder, you don't have to be proven to be at the scene of the crime, or the location, but this isn't the case here.

The JMK claim, is not a contract murder, but him committing the ACT of murder in Boulder, CO.

With his confession, and a guilty plea, the courts CAN accept his guilty plea, and therefore convict him.

HOWEVER, if a guilty plea is given, but a credible alibi is given that he was nowhere near the scene of the crime, there is no way the courts will accept the guilty plea. The reason, is you do not want to convict an innocent regardless of the thought that he is asking for it.

If the case goes to trial, and the defense says he was not even in the vicinity, and the prosecution cannot prove that he was, THAT is an acquittal regardless of any evidence, confession, or court refused guilty plea.

If the JMK case went to trial, the defense would say that JMK was not in the State of CO at the time of the crime. Since there is no evidence to prove that he was, DNA,or anything else would be moot.

Result? ACQUITTAL.
CC

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#54 Jun 11, 2012
DrSeussMd wrote:
Let me pose another scenario both to this post and the other one I am including:
This sentiment can be argued to infinity, because you can’t always prove it even if they were there, and sometimes you can prove it even if they weren’t there in cases such as murder-for-hire, but simply stated they are equal and reactive opposites, also known as different sides of the same coin.
Just like OS says you don’t have to prove they are at the crime scene you have to prove they were someplace else – again, equal and reactive statements, different sides of the same coin again.
There is another scenario. JMK, according to some, cannot be proven to be in Boulder, and equally cannot be proven to be in Atlanta.
It can be proven the Ramseys were in the home, and it cannot be proven they were someplace else at another location, two sides of another coin.
So where does that leave the Ramseys? It is my opinion they cannot determine who did what, ergo no charges.
So where does that leave JMK?
“Karr's ex-wife has said since then that he was with her in Alabama when the girl died, and members of his biological family say he apparently spent that Christmas in Georgia.”
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/ar...
I believe JMK’s whereabouts were verified by more than just his ex-wife who said one thing and then recanted. I believe they did verify it with other family members as well, which is what this article implies, although there will be people who dispute the article as well.
What does it all add up to? More fodder for discussion.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I totally agree with you on this one Seuss.

I also believe that the police got an alibi and that his ex wife realized after the fact that she may have lost out on either 15 minutes of fame like he did and his girlfriends did, along with some cash that was being made at the time for anything that related to Karr

I also remember that they spent that holiday with his dad, and that they NEVER went there without JMK and they were there. It stands to reason that they checked with other people and know he was in Atlanta. The only person who won't swear to it is now the ex wife after she did swear to it, so that is quite hinky.

I also think that she realized too late that her alibi helped him and helping him is not something she really wanted to do. I think in this case, the ex is full of ..... and wanted to get a little something out of the whole thing

I believe the police know where he was and it was in Atlanta, verified by more people than his ex

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#55 Jun 11, 2012
I understand, I was just giving scenarios.
Bakatari wrote:
Hi DrS,
Yes, on a contract murder, you don't have to be proven to be at the scene of the crime, or the location, but this isn't the case here.

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#56 Jun 11, 2012
BrotherMoon wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know it was used to strangle?
The autopsy report.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/1168...
JB was strangled with the garrote.

Since: Feb 12

Flushing, MI

#57 Jun 11, 2012
Bakatari wrote:
Even IF you got a hit from a criminal or former criminal, it would be best not to get your hopes high. This case is NOT a DNA case.
Again, it is not unlawful to touch longjohns or underwear.
IF they got the alleged DNA from the garrote, or from semen, or from in JB's body cavities, it would be a different story, but that is not the case. A DNA match only proves that the contrubor's DNA was in contact with the items where it was found.
CC
*** I find it hard to believe that the garrote had zero skin cells from the perp. The cord was wrapped twice around JonBenet's neck and then pulled with the force needed to take down a 300 lb. man. Trained authorities should have found shin cells in this area.

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#58 Jun 11, 2012
DrSeussMd wrote:
I understand, I was just giving scenarios.
<quoted text>
OK, but in the JB case, no one can prove that it was a contract murder. While there might be some speculation by IDIs, there is no evidence that supports it.

Without a credible confession, you will never get a conviction in the JB case. In THIS case, there simply isn't enough evidence to convict anyone who does not want to be convicted outside of the Ramsey family. There probably isn't enough evidence to convict a family member of the murder even if you are sure one of them did it.
CC

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#59 Jun 11, 2012
CC,

I get that. I used it as a hypothetical example of "A" crime where the person didn't have to be there. I did NOT use it relating to the Ramsey case.
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, but in the JB case, no one can prove that it was a contract murder. While there might be some speculation by IDIs, there is no evidence that supports it.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#60 Jun 11, 2012
Bakatari wrote:
Hi DrS,
Yes, on a contract murder, you don't have to be proven to be at the scene of the crime, or the location, but this isn't the case here.
The JMK claim, is not a contract murder, but him committing the ACT of murder in Boulder, CO.
WITH HIS CONFESSION, AND A GUILTY PLEA, THE COURTS CAN ACCEPT HIS GUILTY PLEA, AND THEREFORE CONVICT HIM. HOWEVER, if a guilty plea is given, but a credible alibi is given that he was nowhere near the scene of the crime, there is no way the courts will accept the guilty plea. The reason, is you do not want to convict an innocent regardless of the thought that he is asking for it.
If the case goes to trial, and the defense says he was not even in the vicinity, and the prosecution cannot prove that he was, THAT is an acquittal regardless of any evidence, confession, or court refused guilty plea.
If the JMK case went to trial, the defense would say that JMK was not in the State of CO at the time of the crime. Since there is no evidence to prove that he was, DNA,or anything else would be moot.
Result? ACQUITTAL.
CC
Common Sense 101: If a defendant enters a GUILTY PLEA, why would he then claim he was NOT in the state at all at the time of the crime? He would, in order to verify his claim of guilt, say he WAS there at the time and even if there was no evidence such as DNA or anything else to prove he was, the question would be moot.

The common-sense part that you don't get is, an alibi that has been refuted and left in doubt removes the "credibility" from the alibi.

The ex-wife, after trying to find proof he was in Atlanta at the time of the crime, was unable to do so. His family, after saying they would produce photos of him in Atlanta with the rest of the family, was unable to do so. In fact, the ONE picture they produced showing the family grouped together, could not even be proved to be taken during Christmas since the baby in the picture was not the size he would have been at the time. Therefore, the photo was judged to have been taken at a different time than was claimed. Notable too, was the fact that JMK was NOT present in the photo.

So, without besmircking the motivation behind either party who was unable to prove their prior claims, suffice it to say that both were wrong and their claims were unproven thus inadmissable in ANY COURT OF LAW.

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#61 Jun 11, 2012
Justice1313 wrote:
<quoted text> *** I find it hard to believe that the garrote had zero skin cells from the perp. The cord was wrapped twice around JonBenet's neck and then pulled with the force needed to take down a 300 lb. man. Trained authorities should have found shin cells in this area.
I agree. It would be extremely difficult to believe that a person would pull down on longjohns and panties without wearing gloves, then put on gloves to make and use the garrote. A LOT more pressure had to be used to tighten the ligature than the pressure used to pull down the longjohns, and that is IF the longjohns were pulled down.

We must remember, that the victim was found fully clothed, so we are NOT sure if the murderer touched the longjohns, but we ARE sure that he/she touched the murder weapon.
CC

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#62 Jun 11, 2012
DrSeussMd wrote:
CC,
I get that. I used it as a hypothetical example of "A" crime where the person didn't have to be there. I did NOT use it relating to the Ramsey case.
<quoted text>
We agree. There isn't enough evidence in this case to convict anyone at this time. However, to convict ANYONE in this case, you MUST place that person at the vicinity of the crime.
CC

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#63 Jun 11, 2012
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>We agree. There isn't enough evidence in this case to convict anyone at this time. However, to convict ANYONE in this case, you MUST place that person at the vicinity of the crime.
CC
No, a POI/suspect must be proven to have been elsewhere. The term used is "alibi".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News Patsy Ramsey Dies After Battle With Ovarian Cancer (Jun '06) 8 min Texxy 21
Vasectomy 18 min detectress 9
Jameson's Windfall (May '07) 3 hr robert 791
Music for the soul 4 hr Steve Eller 252
GSLDPD99178617 - the DNA that matters! 4 hr Right44 149
Jameson's latest stunt... 4 hr Jolamom 53
Head Blow and Strangulation (Feb '15) 5 hr Texxy 80
Censorship re: Ramsey Case? 6 hr Steve Eller 46
More from around the web