IDI: Whats your problem?

[MurriFlower]

The RN refers to beheading. The killer used a cord. The cord was tied around a stick and pulled VERY tight causing the cord to embed deeply into her neck. If a wire had been used instead of a cord, the threat in the RN would have been carried out. Why did the IDI strangle rather than behead??

 

[MurriFlower]

The RN refers to beheading. The killer used a cord. The cord was tied around a stick and pulled VERY tight causing the cord to embed deeply into her neck. If a wire had been used instead of a cord, the threat in the RN would have been carried out. Why did the IDI strangle rather than behead??

Did the killer try to distance himself from JBR?
Did he not want to touch her?
He 'raped' her with a stick.
He strangled her with a cord.
He used a stick on a length of cord to tighten it.
He tied her hands above her head or behind her back?
Was this so she couldn't touch him?
Did he bash her when she struggled and he feared she would come in contact with him?
Was his skin completely covered and is this why there was no DNA or fingerprints were left from him?
Did he fear contamination from touching her?
Is he afraid of blood?
Are women filthy and this is why we must use children?
Did he strangle her so she couldn't bleed after he head bashed her?

 

[Mastermind]

The RN refers to beheading. The killer used a cord. The cord was tied around a stick and pulled VERY tight causing the cord to embed deeply into her neck. If a wire had been used instead of a cord, the threat in the RN would have been carried out. Why did the IDI strangle rather than behead??

I'm pretty sure the Ramsey's had something in their home that could have beheaded little Jonbenet, Hell, he helped himself to nearly everything else in the Ramsey home.

This guy could have cut off her head and left it in the fridge. That would have been sadistic and horrific to the Ramsey family. And I'm sure he would have a big laugh reading about it in the paper.

But no, instead he just pokes her with a stick and strangles her from a distance...and even leaves a blanket on her.

 

[UKGuy]

IDI: What is the biggest problem in your case?

1. DNA match will take forever.
2. FBI isn't involved.
3. Not enough evidence of an intruder.
4. Investigation was botched at the beginning.
5. Widespread circular reasoning inhibits progress: "JBR was killed by her parents because parents always do that," or "the RN was written by a middle-aged college-educated southern female," or "its not a small foreign faction because a small foreign faction would never do this."
6. Not enough local investigative effort.
7. Not enough foreign investigative effort.

Holdontoyourhat,

Has to be Investigation was botched at the beginning. and of course not only Not enough evidence of an intruder. but Zero Evidence of an intruder. If you think otherwise you must demonstrate the existence of forensic evidence foreign to the Ramsey Household.

IMO its a RDI with all three residents participating in a coverup, have you seen Burke Ramsey on Oprah telling us how quickly he got out of the house, or the funny noises he never heard through that long morning after watching his sister walk into the house the night before?

.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

Has to be Investigation was botched at the beginning. and of course not only Not enough evidence of an intruder. but Zero Evidence of an intruder. If you think otherwise you must demonstrate the existence of forensic evidence foreign to the Ramsey Household.

IMO its a RDI with all three residents participating in a coverup, have you seen Burke Ramsey on Oprah telling us how quickly he got out of the house, or the funny noises he never heard through that long morning after watching his sister walk into the house the night before?

.

No problem. The following items cannot be demonstrated to belong to the Ramsey Household, and therefore represent evidence of an intruder. Since these items are known to be key items/elements in the murder, as opposed to pineapple or Christmas Bears, it is significant that they cannot be individually sourced to the house by any means:

1. The male DNA on the inside crotch of JBR's underwear, and corroborating DNA in two (2) locations on the longjohns.
2. The ransom note handwriting and linguistics.
3. The cord from which the garrote and 2nd ligature were made.
4. The black non-electricians tape found on JBR.
5. Fibers.

These items represent real, existing forensic evidence that are foreign to the Ramsey Household, and therefore represent evidence of an intruder. Until they can be sourced to the Ramsey Household by some other means, they will continue to represent evidence of an intruder.

There is also the object that struck JBR's head that is unable to be identified or sourced to the household.

 

[DeeDee249]

No problem. The following items cannot be demonstrated to belong to the Ramsey Household, and therefore represent evidence of an intruder. Since these items are known to be key items/elements in the murder, as opposed to pineapple or Christmas Bears, it is significant that they cannot be individually sourced to the house by any means:

1. The male DNA on the inside crotch of JBR's underwear, and corroborating DNA in two (2) locations on the longjohns.
2. The ransom note handwriting and linguistics.
3. The cord from which the garrote and 2nd ligature were made.
4. The black non-electricians tape found on JBR.
5. Fibers.

These items represent real, existing forensic evidence that are foreign to the Ramsey Household, and therefore represent evidence of an intruder. Until they can be sourced to the Ramsey Household by some other means, they will continue to represent evidence of an intruder.

There is also the object that struck JBR's head that is unable to be identified or sourced to the household.

Item 2- the handwriting and linguistics are a close match to Patsy's.
Item 3. The cord and tape cannot be sourced to anyone. There is ZERO evidence an intruder brought them in but there is a receipt from a local hardware store indicating on of the parents made a purchase matching both items.
Item 4-The tape may also have been a common household item from the home. Just because no roll was found doesn't mean there wasn't one. It could have been removed from the home.
Item 5-There were fibers found that were sourced to both Patsy's sweater and JR's shirt.

What I think UKGuy was looking for was ACTUAL evidence. Prints, etc. The male DNA could be one piece. But for it to be classified as evidence of an intruder, a donor first must be IDENTIFIED. Without that, it cannot be said that it belongs to an intruder. Your items 2-5 are simply your opinion that an intruder brought them in. They have not been actually sourced to someone.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Item 2- the handwriting and linguistics are a close match to Patsy's.
Item 3. The cord and tape cannot be sourced to anyone. There is ZERO evidence an intruder brought them in but there is a receipt from a local hardware store indicating on of the parents made a purchase matching both items.
Item 4-The tape may also have been a common household item from the home. Just because no roll was found doesn't mean there wasn't one. It could have been removed from the home.
Item 5-There were fibers found that were sourced to both Patsy's sweater and JR's shirt.

What I think UKGuy was looking for was ACTUAL evidence. Prints, etc. The male DNA could be one piece. But for it to be classified as evidence of an intruder, a donor first must be IDENTIFIED. Without that, it cannot be said that it belongs to an intruder. Your items 2-5 are simply your opinion that an intruder brought them in. They have not been actually sourced to someone.

Could be?????

The DNA can only be rationally viewed as forensic evidence of an intruder, due to the circumstances under which it was discovered. The handwriting didn't match PR's or JR's exemplars, and is therefore considered forensic evidence of an intruder.

Of course there is evidence of an intruder. I suggest looking up the word 'evidence' and what it means. Certainly, the DNA isn't evidence the parents did it. Its evidence an intruder did it. Missing cord, tape, and blunt instrument adds to the evidence that an intruder did it. See what I mean?

It also might help to keep up with the news and contemporary thought on the case...

...consider that nobody cares why PR may or may not have been wearing her jacket in the house in the middle of the night, to keep warm while running up and down stairs writing long ransom notes, breaking paintbrushes, and staging crime scenes in the basement. Instead, everybody wants to know who owns the DNA, who matches the handwriting and linguistics. Who wrote the note. RDI has failed to answer these questions.

 

[BBB167893]

Item 2- the handwriting and linguistics are a close match to Patsy's.
Item 3. The cord and tape cannot be sourced to anyone. There is ZERO evidence an intruder brought them in but there is a receipt from a local hardware store indicating on of the parents made a purchase matching both items.
Item 4-The tape may also have been a common household item from the home. Just because no roll was found doesn't mean there wasn't one. It could have been removed from the home.
Item 5-There were fibers found that were sourced to both Patsy's sweater and JR's shirt.

What I think UKGuy was looking for was ACTUAL evidence. Prints, etc. The male DNA could be one piece. But for it to be classified as evidence of an intruder, a donor first must be IDENTIFIED. Without that, it cannot be said that it belongs to an intruder. Your items 2-5 are simply your opinion that an intruder brought them in. They have not been actually sourced to someone.

DD hits another one out of the park.

 

[UKGuy]

No problem. The following items cannot be demonstrated to belong to the Ramsey Household, and therefore represent evidence of an intruder. Since these items are known to be key items/elements in the murder, as opposed to pineapple or Christmas Bears, it is significant that they cannot be individually sourced to the house by any means:

1. The male DNA on the inside crotch of JBR's underwear, and corroborating DNA in two (2) locations on the longjohns.
2. The ransom note handwriting and linguistics.
3. The cord from which the garrote and 2nd ligature were made.
4. The black non-electricians tape found on JBR.
5. Fibers.

These items represent real, existing forensic evidence that are foreign to the Ramsey Household, and therefore represent evidence of an intruder. Until they can be sourced to the Ramsey Household by some other means, they will continue to represent evidence of an intruder.

There is also the object that struck JBR's head that is unable to be identified or sourced to the household.

Holdontoyourhat,

Seems to me that DeeDee249 offered convincing alternative suggestions to yours. I would love to be able to promote and develop an IDI theory but there is no evidence for it, it simply does not stack up, it really has zero credibility, unless you are a Ramsey family member of course.

There is also the object that struck JBR's head that is unable to be identified or sourced to the household.

Are you suggesting that because you do not know the answer to these questions then it follows that an intruder entered the house?

Since these items are known to be key items/elements in the murder,

Are they ? Or are they key elements in a staged coverup, if you know what the key elements are then you should have a nice theory that points at a perpetrator e.g a JMK type looking for victims to enrol in his fantasy world.

.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

Seems to me that DeeDee249 offered convincing alternative suggestions to yours. I would love to be able to promote and develop an IDI theory but there is no evidence for it, it simply does not stack up, it really has zero credibility, unless you are a Ramsey family member of course.

.

Your claim seems rather insincere when coupled with the trite sarcasm. I guess I'll be leaving you to it then.

Are you suggesting that because you do not know the answer to these questions then it follows that an intruder entered the house?

Perhaps you're forgetting that in order for RDI to exist, all items had to be on hand. This is RDI's burden of proof. RDI can't establish that the cord, tape, or blunt instrument were ever on hand or had ever belonged to the household. Thatsa lotta stuff! The feeble attempts RDI has made to associate these items with the household anyway can only be compared to the feeble attempts RDI has made to disassociate the multiple DNA discoveries with the crime.

Are they ? Or are they key elements in a staged coverup, if you know what the key elements are then you should have a nice theory that points at a perpetrator e.g a JMK type looking for victims to enrol in his fantasy world.

According to Dr. Meyer, JBR was strangled to death. This was listed as a cause of death. The cord was found and cut from a deep furrow around JBR's neck. Its all right there in the report. Despite this, you'll claim this as 'key elements in a staged coverup', even though you're obviously wrong about it. Like I said, who do you think is buying this cr$#>?

I have a theory and its VERY nice. But its driven by the news not hype. It doesn't simply dismiss evidence like DNA or lack of evidence like prior abuse. I've noticed your posts avoids the DNA topic like the plague. Why is that? You know about the DNA from the news, right?

2003:

Wood said the Boulder police had not properly pursued the lead, because they felt a Ramsey household member carried out the crime. "They actually spent money and time trying to come up with an innocent explanation for the presence of that DNA," he said. "Any objective investigation into this child's murder would have focused on DNA."

2008:

The laboratory found previously undiscovered genetic material on the sides of the girl's long underwear, where an attacker would have grasped the clothing to pull it down, authorities said. The DNA matched the genetic material found earlier.

I suggest taking pause and reviewing your POV on the case, as it is 2010 and much has changed.

 

[UKGuy]

Holdontoyourhat,

Your claim seems rather insincere when coupled with the trite sarcasm. I guess I'll be leaving you to it then.

Its a no-brainer, there is more evidence stacked up on the RDI side of the scales than that of the IDI. I started assuming an IDI but quickly dropped it.

Perhaps you're forgetting that in order for RDI to exist, all items had to be on hand. This is RDI's burden of proof. RDI can't establish that the cord, tape, or blunt instrument were ever on hand or had ever belonged to the household. Thatsa lotta stuff! The feeble attempts RDI has made to associate these items with the household anyway can only be compared to the feeble attempts RDI has made to disassociate the multiple DNA discoveries with the crime.

The duct-tape when analysed by the FBI and detectives purchased identical tape from McGuckin's Hardware in Boulder. According to a book on the case, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, the store clerk told investigators that she had helped Patsy Ramsey find duct tape in the store sometime in December 1996. There are plenty blunt instruments lying about the house e.g. golf-clubs, flashlights etc, even those forensically wiped and blunt. The 17 inches of white cord was no different to the paper the Ransom Note was written on e.g. it was sourced in the house.

According to Dr. Meyer, JBR was strangled to death. This was listed as a cause of death. The cord was found and cut from a deep furrow around JBR's neck. Its all right there in the report. Despite this, you'll claim this as 'key elements in a staged coverup', even though you're obviously wrong about it. Like I said, who do you think is buying this cr$#>?

The official cause of death was "asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma". Your mistake is to assume that the instrument used to carry out the strangulation must be the cord.

I have a theory and its VERY nice. But its driven by the news not hype. It doesn't simply dismiss evidence like DNA or lack of evidence like prior abuse. I've noticed your posts avoids the DNA topic like the plague. Why is that? You know about the DNA from the news, right?

Well the "Foreign'' DNA taken from JonBenét's underpants and fingernails, left in a stain found in JonBenets size-12 white pants reportedly doesn't match DNA samples provided by dozens of family and friends. Which means it could literally come from anywhere e.g. Fleet White's toilet seat, Patsy's last handshake with some stranger etc. If it had been semen DNA then you would have a case and your theory would hold some water, otherwise its like all the rest of the environmentally airborne debri including some of the the fibers on JonBenet's corpse :- indeterminate.

2003:

Wood said the Boulder police had not properly pursued the lead, because they felt a Ramsey household member carried out the crime. "They actually spent money and time trying to come up with an innocent explanation for the presence of that DNA," he said. "Any objective investigation into this child's murder would have focused on DNA."

2008:

The laboratory found previously undiscovered genetic material on the sides of the girl's long underwear, where an attacker would have grasped the clothing to pull it down, authorities said. The DNA matched the genetic material found earlier.

I suggest taking pause and reviewing your POV on the case, as it is 2010 and much has changed.

Genetic material is just that , it could be skin cells from a box that held the size-12 underwear clean on JonBenet that morning, it might be the result of someone sneezing on the longjohns at any point. Its just not semen DNA which would then be consistent with a sexual assault and not a staged homicide.

That is the DNA may be Foreign to JonBenet's person but it may not be Foreign to the Ramsey household, establish this and you have a case.


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,


Its a no-brainer, there is more evidence stacked up on the RDI side of the scales than that of the IDI.

If you're referring to the scales of justice, you're wrong. Don't take my word for it, just read the news. Your POV isn't even there.

The 17 inches of white cord was no different to the paper the Ransom Note was written on e.g. it was sourced in the house.
.

This is false. Where do you get this stuff? Making it up?

The official cause of death was "asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma". Your mistake is to assume that the instrument used to carry out the strangulation must be the cord.
.

Here's what you wish the report stated: "The petechial hemorrhaging indicates that the cord in the deep furrow around JBR was placed post-mortem."

Instead, the coroner cut the cord from around her neck and called it strangulation. Hey, guess what. Sometimes an orange is an orange. You'll be circumventing prima facie again and again in your arguments, and at some point its gonna sink in...why do you have to circumvent prima facie at every turn?

Well the "Foreign'' DNA taken from JonBenét's underpants and fingernails, left in a stain found in JonBenets size-12 white pants reportedly doesn't match DNA samples provided by dozens of family and friends. Which means it could literally come from anywhere e.g. Fleet White's toilet seat, Patsy's last handshake with some stranger etc. If it had been semen DNA then you would have a case and your theory would hold some water, otherwise its like all the rest of the environmentally airborne debri including some of the the fibers on JonBenet's corpse :- indeterminate.


Genetic material is just that , it could be skin cells from a box that held the size-12 underwear clean on JonBenet that morning, it might be the result of someone sneezing on the longjohns at any point. Its just not semen DNA which would then be consistent with a sexual assault and not a staged homicide.

That is the DNA may be Foreign to JonBenet's person but it may not be Foreign to the Ramsey household, establish this and you have a case.


.

Based on your post, I'll assume you're not very familiar with touch DNA technology.

 

[DeeDee249]

Duct tape and cord are common household items. Just because the rest of the material was not found in the house doesn't mean they did not belong to the house. They do not point to an intruder simply because they can't be proven to have been bought for the home. The receipt and the comment from the hardware store employee say a lot, to me. I do not suggest that Patsy bought these items for the purpose of committing this crime. But I do think these items were purchased for the home.
As with ALL evidence in this case, it cannot be called evidence of an intruder UNTIL sourced to an intruder. Until then, it is simply evidence. To me, the evidence falls into 2 categories- items that have a named source and items that do not. Of the items that have a named source, there are the parents' fibers on the body (inside panties and garrote knot, tape and paint tote) and the RN paper and pen, which belonged to the home, as do the bowl of pineapple, spoon, and tea glass.
The male DNA does not belong to the home, but that STILL doesn't mean it belongs to either the killer or someone who was involved with the crime. For that to happen, a named donor is needed. Even then, it could turn out to have been someone who was at the White's party, which would make innocent transfer more likely.

 

[Roy23]

Holdontoyourhat,


Its a no-brainer, there is more evidence stacked up on the RDI side of the scales than that of the IDI. I started assuming an IDI but quickly dropped it.


The duct-tape when analysed by the FBI and detectives purchased identical tape from McGuckin's Hardware in Boulder. According to a book on the case, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, the store clerk told investigators that she had helped Patsy Ramsey find duct tape in the store sometime in December 1996. There are plenty blunt instruments lying about the house e.g. golf-clubs, flashlights etc, even those forensically wiped and blunt. The 17 inches of white cord was no different to the paper the Ransom Note was written on e.g. it was sourced in the house.


The official cause of death was "asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma". Your mistake is to assume that the instrument used to carry out the strangulation must be the cord.


Well the "Foreign'' DNA taken from JonBenét's underpants and fingernails, left in a stain found in JonBenets size-12 white pants reportedly doesn't match DNA samples provided by dozens of family and friends. Which means it could literally come from anywhere e.g. Fleet White's toilet seat, Patsy's last handshake with some stranger etc. If it had been semen DNA then you would have a case and your theory would hold some water, otherwise its like all the rest of the environmentally airborne debri including some of the the fibers on JonBenet's corpse :- indeterminate.


Genetic material is just that , it could be skin cells from a box that held the size-12 underwear clean on JonBenet that morning, it might be the result of someone sneezing on the longjohns at any point. Its just not semen DNA which would then be consistent with a sexual assault and not a staged homicide.

That is the DNA may be Foreign to JonBenet's person but it may not be Foreign to the Ramsey household, establish this and you have a case.


.

UK guy,

You are really making me laugh here. So all the evidence points RDI, huh? Go ahead and make your points but please be realistic to the point that the DA's office and BPD have exonerated the Ramsey's. Read my signature, bud!

 

[cosmo44]

the best justice money can buy. God Bless America!

 

[UKGuy]

UK guy,

You are really making me laugh here. So all the evidence points RDI, huh? Go ahead and make your points but please be realistic to the point that the DA's office and BPD have exonerated the Ramsey's. Read my signature, bud!

Roy23,
They do say laughter makes you live longer. Exonerated that sounds like a religious term to me, its not the same as not guilty or innocent.

There is absolutely nothing in your signature that prevents a Ramsey from killing JonBenet and foreign DNA being found on her person.

You yourself will have foreign DNA on your person right as you read this, now is that funny or not, have a good laugh ...


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Roy23,
They do say laughter makes you live longer. Exonerated that sounds like a religious term to me, its not the same as not guilty or innocent.

There is absolutely nothing in your signature that prevents a Ramsey from killing JonBenet and foreign DNA being found on her person.

You yourself will have foreign DNA on your person right as you read this, now is that funny or not, have a good laugh ...


.

Do you really believe we all have unknown male DNA on the inside crotch of our underwear and on two places on a different article--our pants waistband?

Just a reality check, thats all...

 

[UKGuy]

Do you really believe we all have unknown male DNA on the inside crotch of our underwear and on two places on a different article--our pants waistband?

Just a reality check, thats all...

Holdontoyourhat,

em,

unknown male DNA

...

Now there you are, two separate locations, only united by the possibility of one staging?

Yes Holdontoyourhat from toilet to hand washing e.g. touching the tap used by the previous person you will unwittingly transmit foreign DNA, everyone does it.

The two different places are not different if staging is taken into account otherwise it appears as you suggest suspicious, even as a suspicious event you still have to demonstrate that the DNA originated as foreign e.g. from an external source, not some abitrary envoronmental source that occurred as JonBenet went about her daily business, within her safe domain.


..

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

em,
...

Now there you are, two separate locations, only united by the possibility of one staging?

Yes Holdontoyourhat from toilet to hand washing e.g. touching the tap used by the previous person you will unwittingly transmit foreign DNA, everyone does it.

The two different places are not different if staging is taken into account otherwise it appears as you suggest suspicious, even as a suspicious event you still have to demonstrate that the DNA originated as foreign e.g. from an external source, not some abitrary envoronmental source that occurred as JonBenet went about her daily business, within her safe domain.


..

As I suggest? I didn't suggest it as suspicious. It has been reported by major media as suspicious, belonging to killer, and exhonerating the R's. I therefore don't have to demonstrate to you the DNA as foreign because I have accepted the premise that touch DNA is the result of direct contact by the DNA owner and only the DNA owner. This is how it is presented at the Bode website. We know this about the two legging DNA deposits. We don't know this about the DNA on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear.

Please feel free to provide one instance where a touch DNA profile is being legally contested as deposited by someone other than its owner. I believe that is what you're suggesting.

Its like finding yellow paint on the dented blue car, but you'll not search for a yellow car, instead you wish to search for a green car that had hit another yellow car first. Have I got this right? And doesn't this circumvent prima facie?

 

[DeeDee249]

That'd be the first male DNA on my underwear in almost 40 years....