Very very good. How many times have I used the tinfoil hat comment to no avail.
Unknown male DNA and the panties discussion
- Thread starter Smelly Squirrel
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
New Posts
-
CA - Court upholds Menendez brothers' convictions
- Latest: I am not Sherlock H.
Very very good. How many times have I used the tinfoil hat comment to no avail.
vlpate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 7,113
- Reaction score
- 2,935
One only has to look at the Kennedy clan to see how quickly money trumps justice. Too bad the Rams didn't spend a penny of their money trying to find the intruder that their handful of misguided supporters have been espousing for years.
roseofsharon
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,851
- Reaction score
- 13
Still trying to wrap my head around why a person(s) would stage an elaborate crime scene, then call 911 knowing the police would search the house and surely come upon this crime scene in the home at some point, write a ransom note in their own handwriting.
Why not dispose of the body before calling 911 -- doesn't make sense.
imo
I don't agree with that. We simply do not know enough about the DNA to make a fair judgment. We are supposed to take the word of former D.A. Mary Lacy that there is no innocent reason for it being on JB's panties and longjohns. But Mary Lacy is the one who exercised extremely poor judgment in the John Mark Karr fiasco. How reliable is Lacy? Should we bet the farm on what she says?
All options are still on the table. IDI is still a real possibility, IMO. But after hearing the great show last Sunday, I think the Rs still have to be the prime suspects.
As has been mentioned, there are multiple possibilities for the DNA evidence which allow for the Ramseys being guilty.
I could say the same to you, and, as a matter of fact, I will.
I addressed this in a previous post.
The Mark Beckner that you have created bears no resemblance to the real Mark Beckner. As I mentioned before, you are attempting to rewrite history with a fictional cast of your own making.
The fact of the matter is this. Mark Beckner and the BPD were not involved with the investigation of the JonBenet case during the dark reign of Mary Lacy. That is an irrefutable fact and I will present my sources below. Stan Garnett turned the case over to the BPD in addition to convening an independent task force to review the evidence.
If the BPD, Beckner, and the task force found strong evidence pointing to an intruder and agreed with Lacy’s assertions regarding the infallibility of the DNA evidence, why not keep the Ramseys cleared??? After all, there are a number of people who have been cleared over the years and remain cleared.
You talk about reading between the lines, how about reading between the lines of the un-exoneration of the Ramseys.
There has only been one time period during which the Ramseys were not cleared and it was when the BPD was not in any way connected with the case, the way Lin Wood wanted it, with his puppet in charge.
1996 – 2000: Ramseys not cleared, BPD in charge
2001 – 2008: Ramseys cleared unofficially early on, then officially in 2008. BPD not in charge.
2009 – present: Ramseys not cleared, BPD in charge.
July 9, 2008 - Police chief issues statement regarding JonBenet Ramsey case
www.boulder-police.com
Police chief issues statement regarding JonBenet Ramsey case
The Boulder Police Department is issuing the following statement from Chief Mark Beckner in relation to the JonBenet Ramsey case:
"The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The Boulder Police Department concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet. We remain committed to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice. That is, and always will be, our goal.
The investigation of this case has been under the direction of the DA's office for a number of years now and it would be inappropriate for us to discuss the details of this case publicly. We will, of course, continue to assist the DA's office in any way that we can, and we are hopeful that this new development will lead to the identification and successful prosecution of this child's killer.
We will be issuing no further statements at this time."
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9532&Itemid=2934
A little history helps set the stage for the above comment.
The Boulder PD was excluded from active investigation of the case, by Lacy, who was an IDI proponent and terrified of Lin Wood.
"John and Patsy Ramsey have asked the Boulder County district attorney to find another police agency to investigate fresh leads into their daughter JonBenet's Christmas 1996 slaying."
"If that doesn't happen, the Ramseys may sue to force the Boulder Police Department to turn its case over to another agency, L. Lin Wood, the family's attorney, said Monday."
Daily Camera, Matt Sebastian, October 29, 2002
And
"Wood said he expects to file a civil lawsuit against the Boulder Police Department by the end of the year seeking compensatory damages for the Ramseys, and possibly seeking to transfer the investigation to another law enforcement agency."
Daily Camera,Katherine Vogt (Associated Press) November 20, 2002
One month later…
Based on the above and after consultation with Chief Beckner, I have made a decision to conduct further investigation from within my office, using our investigative resources.
Mary Keenan, Letter to Lin Wood, December 20, 2002
Lin Wood: There's no doubt in my mind, because I met with Mary Keenan before she took this case over in December. I've met with her since then. I know what she has said. I know the actions she has taken, and it's very clear that the days of the criminal investigation of John and Patsy Ramsey are over.
Larry King Live, July 11, 2003
Lin Wood: "Well, I think the timing of the decision on Friday may have been affected by my letter. I did write Mary Keenan. I've been trying for over three and a half years as the attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey to get this case out of the hands of the Boulder Police Department
NBC Today Show, Katie Couric interview with Lin Wood, Dec 23, 2002
The fact that the BPD would no longer be involved in the investigation of the JonBenet case is echoed in the following press release from Beckner:
Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner today announced that the JonBenet Ramsey investigation will be taking a new direction. Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan and Chief Beckner have agreed that the District Attorney will follow-up on new leads and information in the case. This will involve the assignment of DA investigators who have not previously worked on the Ramsey case. This is an investigative strategy that has been discussed in the District Attorney’s Office and the Police Department for several weeks.
"The primary reason for this change is an attempt to further the investigation in a positive manner," said Chief Beckner. "The interests of the Boulder Police Department have always been to do what is in the best interests of the investigation. This is a strategy to address concerns expressed by the Ramseys and their attorney that the Boulder Police Department is not following up additional leads. This may provide the Ramseys and their attorney greater comfort in forwarding what they believe is new information or leads that need to be investigated."
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3623&Itemid=0
"Keenan didn't tell Boulder residents of her decision to take an active role in the case, but she did tell Ramsey attorney Wood. In a letter to him, she said the Boulder police investigation of the Ramseys had been "exhaustive and thorough," that she would proceed without any further investigation by police, using her department's own investigators, that she would focus on new leads or leads not previously investigated, that she would work "cooperatively" with retired detective Smit who is the prime advocate of the intruder theory, that she would make "every effort to communicate openly with you," and that she would not go to the press to publicize her decision."
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS Publish date: June 13, 2003:
The Boulder district attorney's office is devoting 70 to 100 hours a week to the JonBenet Ramsey case, a commitment that could increase with the recent hiring of an investigator.
District Attorney Mary Keenan listed five people who have worked on the case to varying degrees since her office took jurisdiction of the investigation from the Boulder Police Department late last year.
Personnel include a full-time investigator, an assistant district attorney, a computer-savvy investigator just finishing his trip through police academy, retired Colorado Springs homicide detective Lou Smit and Keenan
John Mark Karr was detained in Bangkok, Thailand, on August 16, 2006
On August 28, 2006, the Boulder County District Attorney's Office announced the charges against Karr were dropped.
"The DNA could be an artifact," Lacy said in August. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else."
…
"Where you have DNA, particularly where it's found in this case, prosecuting another (suspect) that doesn't match that DNA is highly problematic," she said. "It's not impossible, but it's highly problematic - and it doesn't make any difference who it is.
Mary Lacy Press Conference Re: John Mark Karr – August 29, 2006
(Rocky Mountain News, December 23, 2006)
The best-case scenario for prosecutors would be slam-dunk DNA evidence linking John Mark Karr to the battered and strangled body of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey.
Without it, experts say, it's still possible — but much more difficult — to build a strong murder case against the 41-year-old teacher who has said he was there when the girl died 10 years ago but stopped short of an outright confession
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_467797.html#ixzz1LMaRzKHr
DNA swiped from John Mark Karr after his arrest last week in connection with the JonBenet Ramsey murder might be irrelevant, in part because "something got screwed up" when samples were taken from the crime scene in 1996, a former investigator on the case said.
Bill Wise, former first assistant with the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, said that although DNA "absolutely could be one of the biggest things in the case," it could also be nothing.
Some of the DNA taken from the 6-year-old pageant queen's fingernails and underwear was "degraded," Wise said. He said the tool used to take samples wasn't clean.
"It had foreign DNA on it," he said.
Daily Camera, 08/22/2006
July 9, 2008
Lacy exonerates the Ramseys:
Mr. John Ramsey,
As you are aware, since December 2002, the Boulder District Attorney's Office has been the agency responsible for the investigation of the homicide of your daughter…
…
Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence
Later that same day…
July 9, 2008 - Police chief issues statement regarding JonBenet Ramsey case
The Boulder Police Department is issuing the following statement from Chief Mark Beckner in relation to the JonBenet Ramsey case:
"The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The Boulder Police Department concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet. We remain committed to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice. That is, and always will be, our goal.
The investigation of this case has been under the direction of the DA's office for a number of years now and it would be inappropriate for us to discuss the details of this case publicly. We will, of course, continue to assist the DA's office in any way that we can, and we are hopeful that this new development will lead to the identification and successful prosecution of this child's killer.
As Lacy’s term in office drew to a close Alex Hunter had this to say:
Hunter said the case is most likely to be solved if it's sent back to the Boulder Police Department, which handed over the investigation in 2002 to Hunter's successor, District Attorney Mary Lacy.
Hunter said he's not sure police Chief Mark Beckner wants the case, but he said that department is better equipped to solve it because there's a better chance of continuity in its leadership. The DA's position is an elected one, and term limits will force Lacy out of office in 2008.
The police also have a better relationship with the FBI, Hunter said.
Lacy disagreed with the need for a change and defended the investigation led by her office, which will have a team of six investigators by next year.
"I think all of law enforcement would say Tom Bennett is top-notch," Lacy said of her lead investigator.
Beckner couldn't be reached for comment.
By Vanessa Miller, Daily Camera Staff Writer
Saturday, December 23, 2006
More from Alex Hunter…
At the same time, however, he was critical of several decisions made in the case over the years, including some of those of his successor, Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy.
It's wrong, Hunter said, for the investigation to remain under her authority, as it has since it was transferred to her office from Boulder police in December 2002.
"I don't think anything like that has ever happened, such a transfer," said Hunter. "It may have been a highlight in (Boulder Police Chief Mark) Beckner's whole career to be able to say goodbye to this, outside the door. You know, 'Here, Mary, it's yours.' But I think it's unfortunate for a couple of reasons."
For one, Hunter, said, district attorneys' offices are typically not equipped as fully functioning investigative agencies, with all the contacts, relationships and resources of a police department.
"Another question is . . . what happens when Mary Lacy leaves" when her last term expires in January 2009?
"Then, does it stay there? No, it needs to come back to the Boulder Police Department sooner or later, in my opinion," Hunter said.
Hunter admitted, however, "I'm not sure Beckner wants it back - or whoever his successor might be. But that's where it should be."
Unlike his predecessor, Mary Lacy, who has made clear her view that an intruder killed JonBenet, Garnett said he doesn’t have any preconceived notions about the case or where any future investigation should lead.
“District attorneys have to be very thoughtful and very sober and clear-eyed,” Garnett said. “I have very high regard for Mary Lacy, and I’m not a person who second guesses other people’s decisions. But I’ve been elected by the people of Boulder County to use my own judgment.”
JonBenet Ramsey: 12 years later, Cold case gets fresh look
Daily Camera, Heath Urie, December 26, 2008
7 months later, at a news conference, Beckner had the chance to personally rubber stamp the Ramsey exoneration that ML granted, but did not.
Reporter: Mary Lacy cleared the Ramseys in this case, are they still cleared?
Beckner: Again, in keeping our focus on where we go from here, I don’t want to answer that question for a couple of reasons.
One, we are bringing in people on this task force that are going to have a fresh perspective, they are people who have never worked on this case, who are well known in the law enforcement and the district attorney field who can come in and look at this case, lay out the evidence on the table and tell us what they think, challenge us, ask us questions, give us ideas.
I think, to say anything, I would have to get into the evidence, and I don’t want to do that.
And secondly, I don’t want to set any expectations or biases for people coming into this committee.
If the police chief stands here and says, I think this, or, I think that, they may come in with some bias, we don’t want that, we want them to tell us what they think.
Press conference, February 2, 2009
He did not say, yes, the Ramseys are cleared, and we are bringing in a task force to investigate the intruder theory, did he?
Why not? The DNA is such compelling evidence, right?
"Understand there are six years of information that we're not fully aware of when the case has been with the district attorney's office. That's stuff we need to get caught up on," Beckner said during the news conference.
In response to a question about previous problems between two entities, Beckner said he did not think that would be an issue.
"We're looking now toward the future and we're focused on: what are the next steps?" said Beckner. "I think we see eye to eye on where this case needs to go, what steps need to take place, so I think you're going to see a strong working team."
There’s no question, whatsoever, that Beckner was not involved in any meaningful way in Mary Lacy’s 8 year long dog and pony show. To say otherwise is baseless speculation.
For Immediate Release
Feb. 2,2009
Public Information Officer
Boulder Police Department
Police reactivate Ramsey case, appoint advisory multi-agency task force
The Boulder Police Department is reactivating its investigation into the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, effective immediately. This action was taken in consultation and agreement with newly elected Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett.
This unsolved homicide is going into its 13th year. The department plans to approach it as a cold case and has invited veteran investigators from a variety of state and federal agencies to participate in an advisory task force. The group will meet in the upcoming weeks to assist Boulder investigators to review all the evidence in the case, help to identify any additional testing that might be done and explore all possible theories about what happened the night JonBenet was killed. Detectives with the Boulder Police Department will perform all follow-up investigative work while maintaining their regular caseloads.
While the list of participants in the advisory task force is still being finalized, the following
agencies have agreed to send one or more representatives:
• Colorado Bureau of Investigation
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Boulder District Attorney's Office
• Telluride Police Department
• Boulder County Sheriff s Office
• Jefferson County Sheriffs Office
• Attorney General's Office
• Denver District Attorney's Office
• Denver Police Department
Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner and the district attorney are in agreement that a traditional law enforcement/prosecution relationship is appropriate in this and other cold cases. Police resources will be used to investigate the crime. The district attorney's office will prosecute any suspect or suspects, if the evidence is deemed sufficient.
"After more than 12 years, the bottom line is that we still have an unsolved homicide," Chief
Beckner said. "This effort will be focused on reviewing the case and evidence from beginning to end in the hope that we will come up with new ideas on efforts that could lead to additional evidence. We are doing this for JonBenet."
The department does not plan to give regular updates about the work of this task force, unless there is a significant development or a determination is made that releasing information would be helpful to the ongoing investigation.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/find/library/records/bpdprramseyfeb208.pdf
And then, finally, Stan Garnett said what Mark Beckner didn’t, the Ramseys are no longer exonerated.
This statement was made nearly two years after the task force to review the evidence was convened.
Obviously the DNA evidence is not nearly as impressive as Lacy would have us believe or the task force would have reported as much, and the Ramseys would have remained cleared.
On a Denver radio show, KHOW’s Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman interviewed Boulder DA, Stan Garnett.
Dan Caplis: And Stan, so it would be fair to say then that Mary Lacy’s clearing of the Ramseys is no longer in effect, you’re not bound by that, you’re just going to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Stan Garnett: What I’ve always said about Mary Lacy’s exoneration is that it speaks for itself.
I’ve made it clear that any decisions made going forward about the Ramsey case will be made based off of evidence…
Dan Caplis: Stan, when you say that the exoneration speaks for itself, are you saying that it’s Mary Lacy taking action, and that action doesn’t have any particular legally binding effect, it may cause complications if there is ever a prosecution of a Ramsey down the road, but it doesn’t have a legally binding effect on you, is that accurate?
That is accurate, I think that is what most of the press related about the exoneration at the time that it was issued.
…
Craig Silverman: I’d say the headline out of our show is once again you established out of your questioning of Stan Garnett that that letter (of exoneration) isn’t worth the paper it’s written on as far as Stan Garnett is concerned.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5701132&postcount=1"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - The Ramseys are no longer “cleared” according to Stan Garnett[/ame]
The fallibility of the DNA evidence in the case can be seen by viewing the posts below:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6303080&postcount=40"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6332780&postcount=76"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6332787&postcount=77"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6332795&postcount=78"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=187565&postcount=22"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA[/ame]
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=187607&postcount=38"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA[/ame]
vlpate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 7,113
- Reaction score
- 2,935
Because they loved her and didn't want her to rot away somewhere - and because Patsy's a narcissist and figured she could pull it off. She pulled off a miracle cancer cure while part of a study at Bethesda (if I recall the name correctly), and talked about it to whomever would listen - she was the soul survivor of the study, and yet not one medical journal reported her "miracle" result.
vlpate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 7,113
- Reaction score
- 2,935
Thank you....I didn't know about Garnett. Excellent, informative post.
It makes perfect sense. JB wasn't killed on purpose. JR himself said "we didn't mean for this to happen". He actually SAID that. An odd thing to say, isn't it? Why would you say that if she really was kidnapped? What parent "means" for their child to get kidnapped?
Try to imagine the horror of that night for the parents. They loved their daughter. Abusive parents love their kids, as hard as that is to imagine.
Having the horrible death of your little girl occurring that night, and having to figure out how to explain it, a kidnapping excuse looked pretty good to them. I agree that the parents just could not "dispose" of her. Leaving her outdoors somewhere to be gnawed on by animals and found by cadaver dogs just was not an option.
The way her body was left- fully clothed and wrapped gently in her own blanket- fairly screams "parental involvement". The operative word is "involvement" because they may be covering up for another family member.
NO intruder would take the time to redress her and wrap her up, not to mention even knowing that the blanket was in the basement dryer.
The whole crime scene does not make sense whether you think it was the Rs or an Intruder. Why would an intruder demand ransom, then abuse the victim sexually and leave her dead body in the house?
If it was the Rs, there are several reasons I could think of why they did not dump the body. If Patsy was acting alone, she could not easily leave the house without Burke and John knowing about it.
If Patsy and John were acting together, they would have to think quickly of a place to dump the body, but time may have been running out on them. Also, if she/he/they leave the house to get rid of the body, and the body is found, let's say in the woods somewhere, then Patsy and/or John could more easily be tied to the murder if a footprint or a hair or a fiber is found near the scene where the body is dumped. He/She/They might have deemed it too risky to leave the house. What if one of their neighbors saw them leaving in their car in the middle of the night?
Remember: what goes on in the house, stays in the house.
I notice that just in the past week alone, people have brought up a lot of things worth listening to, pilgrim. Damn shame you chose to ignore them.
Yeah, we KNOW that's your opinion, Roy. You've made it obvious since the day you waltzed in here three years ago that the DNA is all that matters to you and that it gives you an excuse not to consider anything else. Well, as long as I'm around, that's not gonna work.
You're damn right, pilgrim! And I'm working like heck to make sure that happens!
I lost count. Not that it mattered, because it's a bunch of garbage anyway. "Tinfoil hat," my fat scaly butt. We can't not see what's right there, you know? I don't have a "stupid" button I can push to get stupid.
It doesn't get any plainer than that!
Hubris. It's not just for Greek tragedies anymore!
Smelly Squirrel
(Taylor's Version)
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 4,137
- Reaction score
- 19,565
Koldkase, I'm finally responding...
You portray your opinion as fact with the language you use. When you say "one thing that is clear" as you just did, you are indicating what follows is factual and not opinion. Or earlier, saying "it's undeniable that they are guilty" is giving a statement of fact about the guilt, not an opinion. Undeniable means factual.
Nothing there refutes IDI.
That's not a fact. You're making shortcuts with the sketchy reporting we have.
Proof for this statement of fact?
Proof?
In your opinion.
"Minute particles?" What's that supposed to mean? That wording right away betrays your bias as a non-objective observer.
If there were any other case, you would not be scoffing at DNA evidence. Sometimes DNA found is unrelated to the crime in question, but there's no good reason to ever presume that without proper investigation.
I don't say the evidence cannot point to the Ramseys. I'm not black and white about it, don't project. The evidence is conceivably consistent with RDI but it is NOT CONCLUSIVE for RDI, not by a longshot.
YES, I AGREE, WE ARE. That's why I don't get the uncompromising certitude about it. Explain that.
I am discussing it too and I'm pointing out how you're posing what are only your opinions as fact. Disagreement and criticism are risks of posting.
A lot of the evidence is ambiguous for any explanation.
Of course.
Huh? When did I say anything like that? I don't know that she was previously molested. I believe it's possible JB was molested. I also believe it's possible it happened without anyone knowing. I suppose it's possible JB was molested and PR knew and didn't care, but that's much less likely. I believe it unlikely JR molested her in any case. There's no evidence about him otherwise to suggest it.
In your opinion. I believe LE and Ramseys both are to blame for the non-communication. It was unfortunate how it worked out.
She didn't even know about that allegation until she was questioned in June. And who knows if and when LE believed that. She answered what they asked of her.
It's not conclusive.
Whoa, I don't think it's a fact she was molested. I don't know how much LE investigated it, but I think it's safe to say they have.
Nonsense. First, not everything you're claiming is a fact. It's mostly your characterization. Secondly, IDI doesn't need to deny prior molestation. . There is scant evidence otherwise to suggest a Ramsey molested her.
Right, I doubt that either way.
That doesn't follow.
Conjecture.
You keep saying "refuse" as though I'm denying something definitively proven I'm resisting. Prior molestation is not proven. It's possible but unproven.
It's seems you refuse to be accept that the evidence is limited and inconclusive and want to make it say more than it does.
Prior abuse doesn't favor RDI over IDI. Too many unknowns around it. It could fit either either scenario.
I don't know, it depends on many things, like how much she was out of PR's sight. Any alleged prior abuse may have happened once or twice, not everyday.
Who says they weren't trying to? You don't know their internal conversations. Perhaps PR believes she was never out of her sight enough for it to have happened and so thinks it's impossible. It's not a fact it ever happened. Perhaps LE doesn't give it much weight neither. I don't know why you insist it must be so.
Countless times? Both could be true - that the Ramseys were trying to find the killer, but that the investigators weren't so interested. You don't know as much about went on as you portray. None of this proves RDI anyway.
So is he lying or not? Make up your mind.
Such a minor point, that.
What lie? Can you point to the quotes that are proven lies and the proof of the lies, and not just your characterization as such?
More of your circular argument of assuming prior molestation, and more of your prejudicial characterization.
I mentioned probabilities in considering explanations against evidence. So, anyway, you said,
So I guess you didn't mention that because it was relevant to the case, but just intended that as an irrelevant, sidebar comment that had no bearing on the case? OK, then, it's ignored as irrelevant.
I have looked into it and there is disagreement about it. It's not a fact that "she clearly wrote the note" as you stated.
No worse than your "But to satisfy your need to minimize the actual mountain of evidence against the Ramseys"
Good one.
You haven't even said who did what. Do you really think you can take what you just presented to me to any objective court or audience and convince them? Sorry, but that is laughable. It would only work on your RDI choir.
Fact-based? Another good one.
Wrong. I have a problem with opinions posed as fact. It's nothing personal against you, but your words. It's a discussion forum, so your words are open game.
Now comes the ludicrous, conspiracy theory paranoia.
And proves what?
There's that fact word again, and again you're playing loosely with it. It's a fact according to who? An anonymous source?
How do you know that scale doesn't exist or that nobody reported it that way to JR? How do you know they both didn't get it from the same source? Or how do you know JR didn't get it from Hunter? Have you seen those same analysts comment on it?
That "fact" word again.
So now the ransom note provides doubt? You're all over the place.
This is all irrelevant to the Ramseys' actual guilt anyway.
Obviously because of the massive conspiracy.
Another circular argument.
Says the person who wants to ignore the DNA evidence.
Nope, never has been, even without the DNA. Karr was in 2006. The longjohn DNA was 2008. The Ramseys weren't close to being tried before that.
Many unproven assumptions.
If you're referring to your signature, i have that turned off and don't see any. But if you're trying to hide behind a disclaimer of "it's just my opinion," then you shouldn't have just used the word "fact" at least 10 times in the body of your post. :seeya:
You portray your opinion as fact with the language you use. When you say "one thing that is clear" as you just did, you are indicating what follows is factual and not opinion. Or earlier, saying "it's undeniable that they are guilty" is giving a statement of fact about the guilt, not an opinion. Undeniable means factual.
Nothing there refutes IDI.
That's not a fact. You're making shortcuts with the sketchy reporting we have.
Proof for this statement of fact?
Proof?
In your opinion.
"Minute particles?" What's that supposed to mean? That wording right away betrays your bias as a non-objective observer.
If there were any other case, you would not be scoffing at DNA evidence. Sometimes DNA found is unrelated to the crime in question, but there's no good reason to ever presume that without proper investigation.
I don't say the evidence cannot point to the Ramseys. I'm not black and white about it, don't project. The evidence is conceivably consistent with RDI but it is NOT CONCLUSIVE for RDI, not by a longshot.
YES, I AGREE, WE ARE. That's why I don't get the uncompromising certitude about it. Explain that.
I am discussing it too and I'm pointing out how you're posing what are only your opinions as fact. Disagreement and criticism are risks of posting.
A lot of the evidence is ambiguous for any explanation.
Of course.
Huh? When did I say anything like that? I don't know that she was previously molested. I believe it's possible JB was molested. I also believe it's possible it happened without anyone knowing. I suppose it's possible JB was molested and PR knew and didn't care, but that's much less likely. I believe it unlikely JR molested her in any case. There's no evidence about him otherwise to suggest it.
In your opinion. I believe LE and Ramseys both are to blame for the non-communication. It was unfortunate how it worked out.
She didn't even know about that allegation until she was questioned in June. And who knows if and when LE believed that. She answered what they asked of her.
It's not conclusive.
Whoa, I don't think it's a fact she was molested. I don't know how much LE investigated it, but I think it's safe to say they have.
Nonsense. First, not everything you're claiming is a fact. It's mostly your characterization. Secondly, IDI doesn't need to deny prior molestation. . There is scant evidence otherwise to suggest a Ramsey molested her.
Right, I doubt that either way.
That doesn't follow.
Conjecture.
You keep saying "refuse" as though I'm denying something definitively proven I'm resisting. Prior molestation is not proven. It's possible but unproven.
It's seems you refuse to be accept that the evidence is limited and inconclusive and want to make it say more than it does.
Prior abuse doesn't favor RDI over IDI. Too many unknowns around it. It could fit either either scenario.
I don't know, it depends on many things, like how much she was out of PR's sight. Any alleged prior abuse may have happened once or twice, not everyday.
Who says they weren't trying to? You don't know their internal conversations. Perhaps PR believes she was never out of her sight enough for it to have happened and so thinks it's impossible. It's not a fact it ever happened. Perhaps LE doesn't give it much weight neither. I don't know why you insist it must be so.
Countless times? Both could be true - that the Ramseys were trying to find the killer, but that the investigators weren't so interested. You don't know as much about went on as you portray. None of this proves RDI anyway.
So is he lying or not? Make up your mind.
Such a minor point, that.
What lie? Can you point to the quotes that are proven lies and the proof of the lies, and not just your characterization as such?
More of your circular argument of assuming prior molestation, and more of your prejudicial characterization.
I mentioned probabilities in considering explanations against evidence. So, anyway, you said,
So I guess you didn't mention that because it was relevant to the case, but just intended that as an irrelevant, sidebar comment that had no bearing on the case? OK, then, it's ignored as irrelevant.
I have looked into it and there is disagreement about it. It's not a fact that "she clearly wrote the note" as you stated.
No worse than your "But to satisfy your need to minimize the actual mountain of evidence against the Ramseys"
Good one.
You haven't even said who did what. Do you really think you can take what you just presented to me to any objective court or audience and convince them? Sorry, but that is laughable. It would only work on your RDI choir.
Fact-based? Another good one.
Wrong. I have a problem with opinions posed as fact. It's nothing personal against you, but your words. It's a discussion forum, so your words are open game.
Now comes the ludicrous, conspiracy theory paranoia.
And proves what?
There's that fact word again, and again you're playing loosely with it. It's a fact according to who? An anonymous source?
How do you know that scale doesn't exist or that nobody reported it that way to JR? How do you know they both didn't get it from the same source? Or how do you know JR didn't get it from Hunter? Have you seen those same analysts comment on it?
That "fact" word again.
So now the ransom note provides doubt? You're all over the place.
This is all irrelevant to the Ramseys' actual guilt anyway.
Obviously because of the massive conspiracy.
Another circular argument.
Says the person who wants to ignore the DNA evidence.
Nope, never has been, even without the DNA. Karr was in 2006. The longjohn DNA was 2008. The Ramseys weren't close to being tried before that.
Many unproven assumptions.
If you're referring to your signature, i have that turned off and don't see any. But if you're trying to hide behind a disclaimer of "it's just my opinion," then you shouldn't have just used the word "fact" at least 10 times in the body of your post. :seeya:
Smelly Squirrel
(Taylor's Version)
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 4,137
- Reaction score
- 19,565
It's meaningless for those not interested in finding the truth.
*Rolling eyes* at the circular, self-serving pronouncement.
Smelly Squirrel
(Taylor's Version)
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 4,137
- Reaction score
- 19,565
No more than a murder without kidnapping.
It doesn't work so well without the entry point. Why do I read all the time from RDI, "no evidence of an intruder"?
No, he may have left DNA. Possibly the unidentified brown fibers as well.
Sure, but then it still means we don't have the info.
Yes, and we are at a disadvantage about it all.
Please don't if it involves grand conspiracies lacking any discernible motivation or plausibility.
It is easier, but then you're trying to say what is the likely behavior. I'm hearing that they "had to" do it in such and such way, when that's not really the case.
The kidnapping story makes them leave behind more evidence traceable to them, plus the incongruous discovery of the body in the house.
I love all these mindreaders on the board. You should all be in Vegas at the poker tables.
But it's not only a matter of trust. I trust my granddad, but not to read the writing on the medicine bottle.
Smelly Squirrel
(Taylor's Version)
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 4,137
- Reaction score
- 19,565
Dave, what are these ridiculous things? And how are they much more ridiculous than for RDI?
Smelly Squirrel
(Taylor's Version)
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 4,137
- Reaction score
- 19,565
Wow, that's a bizarre and crass thing to say. Patsy's not allowed to believe her remission was a miracle?
vlpate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 7,113
- Reaction score
- 2,935
I didn't state anything about Patsy being allowed to believe her remission was a miracle. I am not being crass, I'm making an observation that many have made for years. No one else survived that trial except Patsy - one would think this would have made the medical journals. No question, this would be considered a miracle in my book.
IMO, Patsy is a narcissist and I stand by my opinion that she had a hand in JonBenet's murder and believed she would get by with it.