Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[tezi]

???

And you're addressing me because?...

Probably because of your attitude toward SuperDave and other RDIs.

I'm not interested in defending Hunter, nor do I wish to engage in a peripherally related blame game. ...& FYI: I haven't "alerted" (reported?) any poster @ WS, EVER. I'm not even sure how to report posts. This hasn't concerned me as the climate here is actually better than I expected...

I didn't say YOU alerted on anyone, did I? I just said it happened.

Huh?
Burke wasn't named either?...

ERR, um Burke couldn't be named because he couldn't be charged.

IDIs didn't bring his name into any conversation since I've been posting.
I have no idea why you've addressed these issues to me. You might arrive at some resolution if you would voice your frustrations to:

Yes, Santa Bill has been mentioned since you have been posting here. I never said YOU specifically mentioned him.

a) the individual poster(s) with which you take issue.

&/or

b) a moderator.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[tezi]

I'm pretty sure the investigators were going off of way more than hunches.

Well, Tawny, you wouldn't know it reading this particular thread....LOL

 

[tezi]

Hung? Really....

The man had a job to do. Now that we know the indictment was nothing more than a placating decision and no real decision as to who killed JBR, he did the right thing.

We know know that the R's were cleared with DNA evidence.

Yes, Hunter the beloved Savior of the Ramseys. Don't tell me he did the right thing, because he didn't. The RIGHT thing would have been to sign the indictments and then dismiss them in open court. Not let them sit in your office safe.

The Ramseys have not been cleared by DNA evidence or any other evidence, so stop the spin already.

And yes, maybe hanging was too strong of a word, but how about thrown out of office? Or rode out of town on a rail? Or indicted for malfeasance?

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes, Hunter the beloved Savior of the Ramseys. Don't tell me he did the right thing, because he didn't. The RIGHT thing would have been to sign the indictments and then dismiss them in open court. Not let them sit in your office safe.

The Ramseys have not been cleared by DNA evidence or any other evidence, so stop the spin already.

And yes, maybe hanging was too strong of a word, but how about thrown out of office? Or rode out of town on a rail? Or indicted for malfeasance?

JMO

There is nothing that says that is what I think of him. Because I don't think like that. I don't put qualifiers. I look for facts.

The R's are cleared by DNA. That has not changed.

AH has not charges against him in this case. As far as I can see there was not misconduct.

 

[tezi]

There is nothing that says that is what I think of him. Because I don't think like that. I don't put qualifiers. I look for facts.

The R's are cleared by DNA. That has not changed.

AH has not charges against him in this case. As far as I can see there was not misconduct.

Well, that's because you won't look. But, I'll throw one charge of misconduct out there for you. How about sending a tabloid report out to dig up dirt on a ranking BPD officer, because it was "his turn?"

And the Ramseys have not been cleared by DNA or any other means.

JMO

 

[wengr]

No. It is not that they did not say it was theirs alone. There is no proof it was there. A rope in a bag in a bed room?? Someone put it there, Those fibers were found on JBR and in her room. That person at some point touched her and killed her IMO.
That is consistent with the facts. The R's say the bag is not theirs. There is no proof it is theirs. Not hard to get if it was theirs.

And it just does not fit the RDI great clean up/ staging scenario. If they had staged it they would not have left ropes around..

That rope was not theirs and yet the fibers were found on JBR. Who ever had that bag killed her.

This imo is poor logic. The rope in a bag belongs to the R's or someone friendly to the R's unless it can be shown otherwise. Statements from R's concerning it are far from definitive. There is nothing inherently ominous about a rope in a bag.
Most likely the rope in a bag has zero to do with the crime.

 

[Mama2JML]

This imo is poor logic. The rope in a bag belongs to the R's or someone friendly to the R's unless it can be shown otherwise. Statements from R's concerning it are far from definitive. There is nothing inherently ominous about a rope in a bag.
Most likely the rope in a bag has zero to do with the crime.

...except fibers, from the bag with the rope, were found in JonBenet's bed & in the body bag. This information can be used (by RDIs, IDIs & WDIs) to make informed conjectures. Would you be willing to offer your perspective, regarding this fiber evidence, please? (I think we could have a productive & respectful debate.)

 

[wengr]

...except fibers, from the bag with the rope, were found in JonBenet's bed & in the body bag. This information can be used (by RDIs, IDIs & WDIs) to make informed conjectures. Would you be willing to offer your perspective, regarding this fiber evidence, please? (I think we could have a productive & respectful debate.)

Actually I do not have a perspective on it. I have instead a simple desire to weigh fiber evidence uniformly. fibers of various types both sourced and unsourced were found. I don't find it surprising or anywhere near an exact science.
In the event that the found fibers were indeed from the bag, then the simplest explanation is that JBR was in contact with it or something/someone who was in contact with it. This is not much of a stretch as it was freely available in the house. IDI dismisses fiber evidence in much more interesting circumstances than this. We simply don't know what the original source of the bag was, and that may or may not be because PR chose to deny knowledge of the bag and capitalize on it's being found.
In my view at this point it has no value either way.

 

[Venom]

This was a suggestion made by ST. It's hardly been proven to be a fact. (Kolar EVEN refutes it.)

Besides that, if one takes a step back and analyzes the "contaminated clippers suggestion", one should wonder how it came to be that the unknown, consistent, male DNA profiles isolated from each hand revealed a differing # of detected loci.
Thank you. I welcome your thoughts regarding my opinions.

Condescending much?

I never directed my post toward you, don't take it personally.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Well, that's because you won't look. But, I'll throw one charge of misconduct out there for you. How about sending a tabloid report out to dig up dirt on a ranking BPD officer, because it was "his turn?"

And the Ramseys have not been cleared by DNA or any other means.

JMO

Is there any proof other than he said she said. Is there any proven misconduct or censures from this case? That is all that matters.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Factors in police ignoring intuition



7th link down... not sure how to link the pdf file - sorry

http://www.bing.com/search?q=police+gut+feelings&PC=BB07&QS=n&first=41&FORM=PORE

Sorry. That only matters if it is backed up by evidence. Hunches mean nothing without evidence to support them.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

This imo is poor logic. The rope in a bag belongs to the R's or someone friendly to the R's unless it can be shown otherwise. Statements from R's concerning it are far from definitive. There is nothing inherently ominous about a rope in a bag.
Most likely the rope in a bag has zero to do with the crime.

No. That is not how it works. To accuse someone of having ownership of something to do with a murder you have to prove it.. You can not go into court and say.. "Well it HAD to be theirs.. "
That is not logic. That is just fact. They say it is not theirs. If it is prove it. There would be records of a purchase, CC, local shops.. IT is the police's job to do that and canvas the neighborhood. Not the R's to figure out where all the evidence fits.

There is nothing inherently ominous except fibers from that bag were found on JBR and in her room. So whoever had that bag most likely murdered JBR.

 

[wengr]

No. That is not how it works. To accuse someone of having ownership of something to do with a murder you have to prove it.. You can not go into court and say.. "Well it HAD to be theirs.. "
That is not logic. That is just fact. They say it is not theirs. If it is prove it. There would be records of a purchase, CC, local shops.. IT is the police's job to do that and canvas the neighborhood. Not the R's to figure out where all the evidence fits.

There is no requirement for law enforcement to evaluate every item in the house. There are not purchase records for every item in the house. Had the R's had their day in court, then the defense could have brought it up and leveraged the prosecution into explaining it, but sadly they were able to avoid their day in court.
But this is not a court of course, so if you choose to give more weight to the bag fibers than say - fibers found between the tape and the victim's mouth, then I guess it's on you to explain why it was supposedly brought in, how it was supposedly used, why it was not removed, why there were supposedly at least two ropes involved, why it was left where it was found, and all the other aspects of IDI theory concerning the rope.
The sum total of what you are saying here is that there was an item in the house that, at some point possibly produced fibers that were found on JBR.
And of course that is to be expected.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There is no requirement for law enforcement to evaluate every item in the house. There are not purchase records for every item in the house. Had the R's had their day in court, then the defense could have brought it up and leveraged the prosecution into explaining it, but sadly they were able to avoid their day in court.
But this is not a court of course, so if you choose to give more weight to the bag fibers than say - fibers found between the tape and the victim's mouth, then I guess it's on you to explain why it was supposedly brought in, how it was supposedly used, why it was not removed, why there were supposedly at least two ropes involved, why it was left where it was found, and all the other aspects of IDI theory concerning the rope.
The sum total of what you are saying here is that there was an item in the house that, at some point possibly produced fibers that were found on JBR.
And of course that is to be expected.

UM sure there is. They need to look at anything that could be evidence or potential evidence. They can not say that the rope was there and there are fibers that are evidence and then that the bag does not matter or does not need to be sourced. Of course it does. If you ask me, Everything they could not or would not source, They seem to lay that at it then it must be the R's.
And that is not how it works. If the fibers from that bag are tied to the death, in the body bag, then it is connected. That should be sourced and investigated thoroughly.

 

[wengr]

UM sure there is. They need to look at anything that could be evidence or potential evidence. They can not say that the rope was there and there are fibers that are evidence and then that the bag does not matter or does not need to be sourced. Of course it does. If you ask me, Everything they could not or would not source, They seem to lay that at it then it must be the R's.
And that is not how it works. If the fibers from that bag are tied to the death, in the body bag, then it is connected. That should be sourced and investigated thoroughly.

The fact remains that everything cannot be sourced. This fact is compounded when those who could possibly help source the item are uncooperative. Maybe PR could have sourced the bag, or maybe she could not. Even if she genuinely could not, that is not evidence that it was brought in by an intruder.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The fact remains that everything cannot be sourced. This fact is compounded when those who could possibly help source the item are uncooperative. Maybe PR could have sourced the bag, or maybe she could not. Even if she genuinely could not, that is not evidence that it was brought in by an intruder.

This not everything.. This is a bag that left fibers on the body and in the body bag. It has to be sourced. It has to be to all extent possible. And if it can not be then that goes more toward IDI than the R's bringing it in.

 

[wonderllama]

I did address it. It is not a massive assumption if there is a rope in a bag found in the house that did not belong to the R's, Was never sourced to the R's. That is called following evidence.
If the bag was out in the street with a rope, That may be a leap but that the rope was found in the house, no link to the R's, And those fibers from the bag ended up on JBR that means to me the killer handled it. I don't think that is a hard stretch.

I don't do hunches.. That is attributed to another poster here. Not me.

Being this is the IDI thread it is not hard to fathom that we would discuss things with that being the main drive. We look for things that support it.

The rope in the bag, the fibers that were left support that.

Riiiight.

So, what proof do we have that it wasn't owned by the Ramseys?
You know, other than someone from the family saying 'it isn't mine'.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Riiiight.

So, what proof do we have that it wasn't owned by the Ramseys?
You know, other than someone from the family saying 'it isn't mine'.

That and the fact that police did not link it to them.

There is no evidence it was theirs.

 

[txsvicki]

If the bag fibers were on the twin bed with the comforter folded back, but not on JonBenet, then it must mean that someone was looking for rope and JonBenet was elsewhere. Were the bag fibers really on JonBenet?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If the bag fibers were on the twin bed with the comforter folded back, but not on JonBenet, then it must mean that someone was looking for rope and JonBenet was elsewhere. Were the bag fibers really on JonBenet?

They were found in the body bag, So all the moving did not get rid of them. Whoever handled that bag had to have left them on her.