Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

[2 percent]

If she did not know about it, she did not know about it. It is that simple. Maybe it is because she did not remember it but it is a ridiculous point to live and die on when you know they can prove it one way or the other.

Other than the reality of the pineapple, I'm not sure what else has been proven.
Please leave it to me to decide the value of my theories.

I don't think there is any proof that she lied about it. IT is just more rumor and more innuendo to make her look bad.

No. It's more than rumor and innuendo.
The autopsy says there was a pineapple like substance in her digestive system. There was pineapple found in the kitchen. Or kitchen area, don't remember which. JR and PR said many times JB was asleep when they got home and they put her right to bed.

It matters nothing to the case, it does not solve it...

There is no one thing that ever solves a case. Even DNA is a tool, you still have to put the person at the crime.

The evidence shows there is DNA that belongs to someone who is not an R. That is what matters. Who killed JBR, Not if or if not Patsy knew about the pineapple.

JMO

I choose what I deem important.
As has been said several times, contamination has not been ruled out concerning the touch DNA.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The point you were making was that you think she lied about the pineapple. I don't. It does not prove anything against patsy whether jbr are pineapple or not. It is just there. It could have been eaten before they even left and patsy may not have seen it.

I don't believe she lied. I think she was just not aware of it.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[2 percent]

The point you were making was that you think she lied about the pineapple. I don't. It does not prove anything against patsy whether jbr are pineapple or not. It is just there. It could have been eaten before they even left and patsy may not have seen it.

I don't believe she lied. I think she was just not aware of it.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

No, my point was it was a silly lie if an IDI. She could just say she didn't know anything about pineapple instead of saying JB definitely didn't have any that night.

The evidence doesn't support pineapple being eaten earlier in the day. But even if it were true, it's a still a strange thing to dispute the reality instead of just claiming no knowledge.

I was quite clear that the pineapple lie only hurts PR in an RDI theory, which I clearly was not discussing on this thread. Just the evidence of the pineapple.

I don't tend to dismiss evidence just because it doesn't fit my theory. Whether RDI or IDI, PR and JR's insistence there was no pineapple eaten when in the face of clear autopsy evidence and the evidence in the kitchen needs to be explained.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No, my point was it was a silly lie if an IDI. She could just say she didn't know anything about pineapple instead of saying JB definitely didn't have any that night.

The evidence doesn't support pineapple being eaten earlier in the day. But even if it were true, it's a still a strange thing to dispute the reality instead of just claiming no knowledge.

I was quite clear that the pineapple lie only hurts PR in an RDI theory, which I clearly was not discussing on this thread. Just the evidence of the pineapple.

I don't tend to dismiss evidence just because it doesn't fit my theory. Whether RDI or IDI, PR and JR's insistence there was no pineapple eaten when in the face of clear autopsy evidence and the evidence in the kitchen needs to be explained.

Which makes it all the more likely it was not a lie. She did not know about any pineapple, She did not give it to her, did not know she ate it and so she was not lying.

Since people digest some things better than others and faster than others, it could be that the other food she ate digested better and faster than the pineapple. Just because you eat something first does not mean it will digest first or at the same rate as other things in your stomach.

There is no evidence to dismiss here. It proves nothing. It is obvious that she did not know about the pineapple. IMO

 

[Anti-K]

I’ve never really understood what lie Mrs Ramsey supposedly told regarding the pineapple. It seems like something only RDI can see.

I’ve never really understi=ood all the fuss over the pineapple. My position on is question is stated here: http://tinyurl.com/k4jlv5g And, on the fingerprints on the bowl: http://tinyurl.com/khbvtbl

.

Contamination has been realistically eliminated as a possible explanation for the tDNA (and the CODIS sample). Contamination is the inadvertent introduction of “innocent” DNA to a crime scene sample that occurs during the collection, preserving and/or processing, etc. of the sample. In this case, the fact that samples were compared to persons connected to the investigation, the family and possible sources at the autopsy with no matches found pretty much eliminates that possibility.
...

AK

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

For me the R's were taken off the table the moment there was DNA that did not match them.
It is registered in CODIS, And they don't take junk samples.

It is just a fact there is DNA that points away from the R's. And I can not get past that. It is outside DNA. DNA that does not match anyone they know that was previously tested.

I believe that holds the answer to the problem.

I want justice for JonBenet just like anyone. I want to see her killer prosecuted.

I just don't see how it can be without admitting the DNA is part of the case. JMO

 

[Ravyn]

I like to know why JAR's friend Brad Millard told BP that he slept in JonBenet's bed prior to Dec 26...This friend helped JAR with his alibi...And how long prior did he stayed..Why? Did he have to put his DNA there...And why did it take a couple of months to show the movie ticket, the ATM transaction or the photo..

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I like to know why JAR's friend Brad Millard told BP that he slept in JonBenet's bed prior to Dec 26...This friend helped JAR with his alibi...And how long prior did he stayed..Why? Did he have to put his DNA there...And why did it take a couple of months to show the movie ticket, the ATM transaction or the photo..

JAR is not a suspect in this case and has been cleared also by DNA.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-john-andrew-ramsey.htm

Publicly cleared. 3/1997. Gave samples.. Cleared.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I want to bring the DNA evidence here along with the requirements for DNA being accepted into CODIS. The DNA from JBR's body was entered which means it was a good sample and it will either include or exclude suspects.

The DNA is in CODIS. And It can be matched or they would not put it in there.

CODIS does not except samples that can't be matched.

There is DNA and it is not Ramsey DNA. It can be matched when they find the killer. IMO.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_9844799

The genetic profile of the man some authorities believe killed JonBenet Ramsey is sitting in a massive federal database where it waits for a match.

Read more: Ramsey case DNA awaits match in federal database - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/c...#ixzz2ukW1FcSy
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook




http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biom...dis-fact-sheet


Q: Are there specific data requirements for the DNA records submitted to NDIS?
A: Yes. There are several requirements for the DNA data submitted to NDIS:

1. The DNA data must be generated in accordance with the FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards;
2. The DNA data must be generated by a laboratory that is accredited by an approved accrediting agency;
3. The DNA data must be generated by a laboratory that undergoes an external audit every two years to demonstrate compliance with the FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards;
4. The DNA data must be one of the categories of data acceptable at NDIS, such as convicted offender, arrestee, detainee, legal, forensic (casework), unidentified human remains, missing person or a relative of missing person;
5. The DNA data must meet minimum CODIS Core Loci requirements for the specimen category;
6. The DNA PCR data must be generated using PCR accepted kits; and
7. Participating laboratories must have and follow expungement procedures in accordance with federal law.

Q: What are the 13 core CODIS loci?
A: The 13 core CODIS loci are:

CSF1PO
FGA
THO1
TPOX
VWA
D3S1358
D5S818
D7S820
D8S1179
D13S317
D16S539
D18S51
D21S11
Q: What are the minimum loci requirements for the STR DNA data submitted to NDIS?
A: The minimum CODIS Core Loci required for submission of DNA data to NDIS vary by specimen category. Generally, the 13 CODIS Core Loci are required for submission of convicted offender, arrestee, detainee, and legal profiles. The 13 CODIS Core Loci and Amelogenin are required for relatives of missing person profiles.

All 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted for other specimen categories with the following limited exceptions:

For forensic DNA profiles, all 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted but at least 10 CODIS Core Loci must have generated results for submission to and searching at NDIS.
For Missing Person and Unidentified Human Remains, all 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted.
Q: What are the requirements for submission of mtDNA data to NDIS?
A: Hypervariable region I (“HV1”; positions 16024-16365) and hypervariable region II (“HV2”; positions 73-340) are required for the submission of mtDNA data to NDIS.



The DNA is real. It is not incidental and CODIS does not take samples that don't meet their standards.

 

[BOESP]

Coming to a conclusion based only on one piece of evidence is a slippery slope.

 

[midwest mama]

If you want to, I don't see why not. I'm not interested in discussing him, though. The point I was emphasizing was the BPD didn't follow up on leads & investigate POIs as thoroughly as one might have hoped. :dunno:

Surprises me you would not want to look further at Gigax. According to the info on acandyrose.com, there was no DNA collected on him. Supposedly he was convicted and jailed for another crime prior to the date routine DNA collections were done for CODIS.

Anyone know if Gigax was ever considered a suspect for JB's murder, especially since there is rumor he could have been involved with Helgoth?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Coming to a conclusion based only on one piece of evidence is a slippery slope.

It's the biggest piece we have. It has to be sourced since it exists and is in CODIS.

It is not just that DNA decides the case for me. I know people want to believe that IDI'S are obtuse but really it's the opposite. When looking at it as a whole along with the DNA it points to someone other than an R.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[renah]

Contamination has been realistically eliminated as a possible explanation for the tDNA (and the CODIS sample). Contamination is the inadvertent introduction of “innocent” DNA to a crime scene sample that occurs during the collection, preserving and/or processing, etc. of the sample. In this case, the fact that samples were compared to persons connected to the investigation, the family and possible sources at the autopsy with no matches found pretty much eliminates that possibility.
...

AK

Now I'm confused, AK. Are you saying that it's the tDNA that was sent to CODIS?

I realize I've probably just got a glitch here, since you usually get your facts correct, 100% -- Which I appreciate immensely, btw.

I also realize that the far, far more important topic was not the DNA itself (or even the pineapple actually), and it's not my intention to debate either of those specifics.

It's just that I'm currently in the middle of a huge Aha life-epiphany, and fact and forum are playing a big role. Actually, they're playing such a big role that I need to thank EVERYone here, IDI's, RDI's, creamcheese moon DI's-- *all* the posters, for sharing their opinions, thoughts, and heads. Letting me see into them has gotten me out of just my own head and I'm very grateful for that.

So thank you everyone and thank you AK, in advance!

 

[midwest mama]

Just posted some thoughts about looking at the case DNA on the Beckner thread. It seems to me if the DNA is the chink in the armor for us, we could try to look for information about suspects that have not had DNA tests, or that we know of anyway.

Sure would help if anyone knows about or can help produce a list of case suspects who still need DNA tests to be able to be matched to the CODIS file.

 

[Anti-K]

Now I'm confused, AK. Are you saying that it's the tDNA that was sent to CODIS?

I realize I've probably just got a glitch here, since you usually get your facts correct, 100% -- Which I appreciate immensely, btw.

I also realize that the far, far more important topic was not the DNA itself (or even the pineapple actually), and it's not my intention to debate either of those specifics.

It's just that I'm currently in the middle of a huge Aha life-epiphany, and fact and forum are playing a big role. Actually, they're playing such a big role that I need to thank EVERYone here, IDI's, RDI's, creamcheese moon DI's-- *all* the posters, for sharing their opinions, thoughts, and heads. Letting me see into them has gotten me out of just my own head and I'm very grateful for that.

So thank you everyone and thank you AK, in advance!

Sorry for the confusion, renah. As far as I know, only the panty DNA is in CODIS. But, the tDNA (found on the leggings only) is the same as the panty DNA.
...

AK

 

[Carmelita]

I have a question as to the “rationale” behind the theory that one of the Ramsey’s killed JonBenét and the other (or both parents if in fact it was Burke that murdered his sister) has been covering up the crime ever since it was committed. If that statement is true and the main goal of the Ramsey’s is to protect Burke or one of the parents from prosecution, why would Patsy have not confessed to killing and sexually assaulting her daughter while she was on her death bead.

Patsy could have made a full confession and absolved John or Burke of any complicity or conspirator charges. A death bed confession would have left Patsy unable to be prosecuted; it would have gone a long way in clearing Burke and John in the case, especially if one of the 3 of them had murdered JonBenét as Patsy could have supplied details to implicate herself. If she had done this, wouldn’t the end game have been achieved in that the living Ramsey’s would have been exonerated and the cloud of guilt would have been removed?

I’m new here so maybe this has already been addressed.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I have a question as to the “rationale” behind the theory that one of the Ramsey’s killed JonBenét and the other (or both parents if in fact it was Burke that murdered his sister) has been covering up the crime ever since it was committed. If that statement is true and the main goal of the Ramsey’s is to protect Burke or one of the parents from prosecution, why would Patsy have not confessed to killing and sexually assaulting her daughter while she was on her death bead.

Patsy could have made a full confession and absolved John or Burke of any complicity or conspirator charges. A death bed confession would have left Patsy unable to be prosecuted; it would have gone a long way in clearing Burke and John in the case, especially if one of the 3 of them had murdered JonBenét as Patsy could have supplied details to implicate herself. If she had done this, wouldn’t the end game have been achieved in that the living Ramsey’s would have been exonerated and the cloud of guilt would have been removed?

I’m new here so maybe this has already been addressed.

That is a great point. I believe that Patsy loved JBR and BR with all her heart. I think she would have done anything for them. I think if she had thought or knew that BR had anything to do with this she would have confessed to the crime even though innocent to save him.

I believe the "case" people make against BR is ludicrous.. IMO

 

[Carmelita]

I believe Patsy and John loved their children deeply and never would have hurt either of them.

I think as DNA science gets better and better we will move in on the perpetrator of crime.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I agree. And there is no reports, evidence of Abuse by either parent.

I agree about the DNA.

For me, the DNA is our key to a real resolution. People are going to keep writing books about this case with no new evidence but we have real evidence that excludes the R's and so that is that.

I am so hopeful right now about Beckner retiring and a new set of eyes and investigators.

 

[BOESP]

It's the biggest piece we have. It has to be sourced since it exists and is in CODIS.

It is not just that DNA decides the case for me. I know people want to believe that IDI'S are obtuse but really it's the opposite. When looking at it as a whole along with the DNA it points to someone other than an R.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

BBM. I disagree. It is no more or less important than the fiber evidence found in the same locations.

The ransom note is connected to the crime. The Touch DNA has not yet been connected to the crime. The DNA may be an innocent artifact and any Ramsey DNA found in the same locations as the unidentified DNA is just as important as anyone else's DNA when weighed against all that is known about this case.