Which is strongest RDI evidence?

[Holdontoyourhat]

So- you're OK with how Det. Arndt failed to secure the crime scene and allowed JB's body to be compromised?

So you think Det. Arndt mishandled the case, and that has precluded justice for JBR?

If there was an intruder who left inadequate evidence to track, then Det. Arndt's actions have not precluded justice for JBR. Her actions would have no bearing on it.

Can you describe how Det. Arndt could've succeeded in securing the crime scene, disallowed JBR's body to be compromised, and how this would necessarily achieve justice for JBR?

 

[madeleine]

it just crossed my kind.why did ML test the long johns but not/and the panties?it's obvious that if someone unknown handled her clothes/body he left his touch DNA on the panties (waistband) as well.
this is what i don't get if IDI.he left NO prints,nothing,just some touch DNA on her long johns.he was so clever not to leave anything behind but stupid enough to remove gloves when changing the child's underwear?hard to believe.he didn't take the gloves off when writing the RN.he misteriously entered and exited the house through the basement window but didn't leave any traces.
if ML really believed in IDI why didn't she test more?more of the same unknown DNA would have made the IDI scenario more believable.LS had a good idea,JB had a bruise on her shoulder,why not test her shirt,if someone pushed or hit her,his touch dna must be on it.
did they test other items as well but found nothing?if so,i understand why it wasn't in their best interest to go public with it.
this was just a silly game.she tested the long johns because she thought the smae unknown DNA on TWO separate items proves something or at least raises a little doubt.but then why not go all the way and test more,test everything.if she did but found nothing ,the silence is very telling.cause how do you explain an intruder who uses gloves but removes them only when redressing the child.so he bothers to wipe her off to remove evidence but on the other hand doesn't protect himself by removing his gloves.doesn't make sense.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Are you OK with the FBI misdirecting the case by stating "look at the parents," exclusively, before any forensic testing was even done? Seems to me thatwas mishandling, and precluded justice for JBR if intruder because it may have caused LE to fully ignore other possibilities..

 

[madeleine]

Are you OK with the FBI misdirecting the case by stating "look at the parents," exclusively, before any forensic testing was even done? Seems to me thatwas mishandling, and precluded justice for JBR if intruder because it may have caused LE to fully ignore other possibilities..

yes I always found that a bit cocky,what that FBI agent did (according to ST).we know better,we are are the FBI,look at the parents.
BUT what were the BDP?stupid children who just follow advices without investigating?
i don't blame the FBI for this.if I blame someone it's the BPD.the BPD was in charge not the FBI,the FBI just had an opinion,it was one agent.he did nothing wrong.if the BPD took that line and misinterpreted it's their fault.the FBI agent NEVER said,look ONLY at the parents and no further.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

yes I always found that a bit cocky,what that FBI agent did (according to ST).we know better,we are are the FBI,look at the parents.
BUT what were the BDP?stupid children who just follow advices without investigating?
i don't blame the FBI for this.if I blame someone it's the BPD.the BPD was in charge not the FBI,the FBI just had an opinion,it was one agent.he did nothing wrong.if the BPD took that line and misinterpreted it's their fault.the FBI agent NEVER said,look ONLY at the parents and no further.

"We are a group of individuals that represent a small FOREIGN faction."

"We respect your business but not the COUNTRY that it serves."

So, the FBI said to "look at the parents" despite what the ransom note author stated. You're right, that was more than cocky. Almost derelict of duty if it comes to pass that a foreign faction who was already known to disrespect the country that JR's business served, sanctioned a cross-border high profile child murder for reasons that you dont know but they do.

 

[madeleine]

"We are a group of individuals that represent a small FOREIGN faction."

"We respect your business but not the COUNTRY that it serves."

So, the FBI said to "look at the parents" despite what the ransom note author stated. You're right, that was more than cocky. Almost derelict of duty if it comes to pass that a foreign faction who was already known to disrespect the country that JR's business served, sanctioned a cross-border high profile child murder for reasons that you dont know but they do.

weird that NOBODY took the note serious.it also said we execute and behead your daughter if you call police or talk to a stray dog.not only did the R's call the police but also invited friends over.
maybe this was a sign for the cops,if the parents think the RN is a joke then something must be wrong.
AND the key player,the father-the RN was directed at him,said it has to be an INSIDE job.

 

[Tadpole12]

LS concedes, some blame may be directed towards the Ramseys as they may have been ill-advised. :



JOY BEHAR SHOW
JonBenet Murder Case Reopened; Triple Murder Trial; The Courageous Kelly McGillis

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1010/04/joy.01.html

Aired October 4, 2010




BEHAR: I just feel as though this family was dragged around for a long time.

SCHILLER: Well, that was partly their own fault because they went and hired a PR representative. They were somewhat ill-advised by certain attorneys. The short and long is they took the wrong road at the time of the crime. That doesn`t mean they were guilty, but it did point the finger at them because of the way they dealt with the police department.

BEHAR: Yes. Why did they do that? Why did they get a PR firm right away? It did make them look guilty. It made them look like they had to cover something up.

SCHILLER: Well, you have to remember this --
(CROSSTALK)

SCHILLER: Yes, go ahead.

SILVERMAN: I was just going to say, looking guilty is one thing but actually facing a court trial is quite another. I think their lawyers did a good job. They were never charged with anything in a court of law. Certainly the court of public opinion, but that`s changed, too.
A lot of people are thinking the Ramseys might have been among the worst victimized people in the history of America. Not only suffering the loss of their daughter, but all the accusations and innuendo that went with it.

SCHILLER: And you know, they`re represented by Lynn Wood who is a fine attorney who represents people that are victimized by the media and by the police department. He has settled several major claims that the Ramseys have had against the media and individuals.

BEHAR: So do you guys -- before I leave, do you both think that the killer is still out there? What is your opinion, Larry, or Craig?

SCHILLER: Well, I mean the facts are the facts. And they are that somebody perpetrated this crime. Whether the person is alive or dead, we don`t know. Whether the police will solve it by accident, by pure luck or by technology that may, in essence, give them the final decision.

BEHAR: All right. All right. Thank you, Larry.

 

[madeleine]

I understand lawyering up but a PR firm?was that priority?who the heck cares about image when losing a child?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I understand lawyering up but a PR firm?was that priority?who the heck cares about image when losing a child?

I believe the PR firm's job was to deal with all media requests like if a show wanted an interview, they would go through the PR firm instead of calling John and Patsy directly. I can't really blame them for having that since I'm sure they were getting hundreds of interview requests.

A PR firm was also hired during Samantha Runnion's case:

In 2002 RMS was called to assist Erin Runnion following the kidnap and murder of her then nearly six-year-old daughter, Samantha Runnion. RMS was tasked with handling the media storm surrounding this highly-publicized incident. Following Samantha's death, media were hounding Erin to speak, in detail, about her daughter’s tragic death. Erin was overwhelmed and needed assistance to manage the deluge of media and offer counsel on which interviews to take and on which to pass. In addition, a front line of defense was needed when dealing with these editors to not only find out what the purpose/angle of the story, but to also establish boundaries with the press and determine what questions were off-limits. Both Erika Schulte and Shana Starr, of RMS, handled all press for Erin and subsequently helped to launch her foundation in honor of Samantha – The Joyful Child Foundation. We continue to work with Erin and the foundation to this day.

If Erin can have a PR firm help her, then why can't the Ramseys? I just can't fault anyone who is thrown in the national spotlight who gets a PR firm or media consultant to help them deal with the press.

Now, I'm reading a website about the R's lawyers. John had three lawyers, Patsy had two lawyers and a civil attorney for both of them. Is it normal to have that many attorneys for a case that hasn't gone to trial?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

weird that NOBODY took the note serious.it also said we execute and behead your daughter if you call police or talk to a stray dog.not only did the R's call the police but also invited friends over.
maybe this was a sign for the cops,if the parents think the RN is a joke then something must be wrong.
AND the key player,the father-the RN was directed at him,said it has to be an INSIDE job.

Hmm. Foreign, country, execute, behead...

Wierd that even though NOBODY has solved this crime after 14 years, that NOBODY still takes the note serious. That cocky investigators still discount the FFDI possibility when really they dont even know who did it or why.

Guess we'll be waiting some more.

Its true that you don't know who murdered JBR or why, and are assuming the ransom note content to be fully discountable anyway. That seems to be the most profound oversight and mishandling of the investigation IMO.

 

[wonderllama]

Holdon, there's a massive reason why nobody takes that note seriously.

The entire premise of the note is that the author HAS the child.
So when it is discovered that the author in fact DOESN'T have the child because she's still in the house, the focus turns to...well, WHY doesn't the author have the child.

Answer - Because she's in the house....but then WHY is she in the house?
Why is she DOWNSTAIRS in the house?

It seems awfully inept to go to the trouble of writing such a long note if you can't even do the basics of your desire, that is, kidnap the child.

There is no logical reason for them being downstairs. Even if you think someone came in through a window in the basement, it's a convoluted effort to exit the same way when you're passing other doors at ground level (as opposed to climbing out from the basement.

That's why the note contents are discounted, because in a factual case, the requests and the actual tale the note tells is fiction.

 

[BBB167893]

Are you seriously saying that by them saying she is "in a better place now" that it somehow points towards guilt? Such a stretch,there. Just about everyone I know says the same thing when they lose a loved one. It's a coping mechanism, we all want to believe that the deceased truly IS in a better place.

Not to step on madeleine, but this was noticed at the time as being at odds with the general actions of parents who have lost children to violence. Indeed, it wasn't just a case of saying that JB was "in a better place;" Patsy came right out and said that JB was BETTER OFF DEAD.

 

[BBB167893]

'mishandling' isn't a case given as presented here. Its not known that anybody did anything that precluded justice.

It ISN'T? What, are you kidding?? I can think of a whole LIST of things that precluded justice in this case, all due to wrong actions or just flat-out INACTION.

 

[BBB167893]

Are you OK with the FBI misdirecting the case by stating "look at the parents," exclusively, before any forensic testing was even done? Seems to me thatwas mishandling, and precluded justice for JBR if intruder because it may have caused LE to fully ignore other possibilities..

HOTYH, you haven't been talking to Alex Hunter by any chance, have you?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon, there's a massive reason why nobody takes that note seriously.

There is no valid reason except denial. There seems to be a denial that FFDI, despite the fact that there is no way to rule it out. Face it, you don't know who or why, do you?

That's why the note contents are discounted, because in a factual case, the requests and the actual tale the note tells is fiction.

The actual tale the note tells is fiction, is your claim only. Yet stated as fact. Why do you do that?

I suggest listing the assertions made by the ransom note author, one by one, and seeing just exactly which ones you can factually rule out. My guess is you're unable to factually rule out even one of them, given the evidence at hand...

 

[wonderllama]

There is no valid reason except denial. There seems to be a denial that FFDI, despite the fact that there is no way to rule it out. Face it, you don't know who or why, do you?



The actual tale the note tells is fiction, is your claim only. Yet stated as fact. Why do you do that?

I suggest listing the assertions made by the ransom note author, one by one, and seeing just exactly which ones you can factually rule out. My guess is you're unable to factually rule out even one of them, given the evidence at hand...

We have your daughter.
No they didn't.
The End.

 

[eleven]

We have your daughter.
No they didn't.
The End.

But alas, it is possible AND probable that at the time of that writing, "they" DID, INDEED, have their daughter. Notice I am not saying they DID, and I did use the words "possible" and "probable"....because, whether we like it or not, only Those That Were There know this with 100% certainty.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

We have your daughter.
No they didn't.
The End.

We implies more than one person, right. Clearly you were not there when JBR was murdered OR when the ransom note was written, right? Obviously you dont know who killed JBR or why.

Despite this you assert, illogically and without any proof whatsoever, than 'they' never 'had' JBR. The fact that you personally don't know who killed JBR or why, or how many were involved, is fully obvious to me and begs the question: Why do you go ahead and claim to know what happened?

 

[wonderllama]

You get aggressive quickly Holdon....chill.

Fact - they said they had their daughter.
Fact - they did not...she was in their house.

Don't get caught up in what you THINK might have happened, cos that's pretty much what you're telling ME not to do....there are facts and there are theories.

YOUR theory is that "THEY" had their daughter.
The FACT is, kidnappers don't ransom the family from within their own house.
She was found inside her own house....doesn't sound like "they" were ever in control of the situation with respect to the parents does it....no...it does not.
(Sorry if you are as put off by being patronized as I am by people who get aggressive quickly).

 

[wonderllama]

But alas, it is possible AND probable that at the time of that writing, "they" DID, INDEED, have their daughter. Notice I am not saying they DID, and I did use the words "possible" and "probable"....because, whether we like it or not, only Those That Were There know this with 100% certainty.

Pretty much my point Eleven...
Possible & Probable aren't Facts....which is largely the argument used by people who believe the Intruder Theory, when they have a go at those who do not.

I like to stick with the facts...the rest is guess work.

Fact being, they said they had her and didn't.
There is no evidence any intruder DID.


OOHH...Double posting...