New Advanced DNA testing

[icedtea4me]

That's the problem. He doesn't have to reconcile anything. It's the beauty and luxury of BDI. Toss anything at the wall and pray that it sticks, at least momentarily, and simply toss aside and ignore all the things that cant and wont stick.*snip*

And let's add in Patsy writing the ransom note after she rose to go to the airport.

*snip*I'd bet the house on Patsy writing the Ransom Note, her postmortem behaviour at attempting to mask her writing and deny prior examples tells you everything you need to know.*snip*

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey/page175 (post #2620)

Patsy stated in her June 1998 BPD interview that she woke up the morning of 26 Dec 1996 sometime between 5:30-6. Given that the 911 call was made at 5:52, this would leave her basically 20 minutes to do the following, according to UKGuy:

1. Perform morning toilette
2. Get dressed
3. Apply make-up
4. Find out about JonBenet
5. Apply the ligature
6. Write the ransom note

 

[singularity]

It would actually allow much less time. You've got to also take into consideration John's shower, the two discussing this issue(BDI likes to portray zero communication between the two and act as if its a silent movie yet claim others believe in telepathic communication), and the timeline quickly shrinks to a few minutes.

Either way we slice that timeline, Patsy as the innocent dove until waking up and assuming Burke murdered her simply doesn't fly.

She's either 'all in' on this murder or she's not. This halfway stuff to suit specific theories at specific times is having difficulty cutting the mustard in 2017 and beyond.

 

[UKGuy]

And let's add in Patsy writing the ransom note after she rose to go to the airport.




http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey/page175 (post #2620)

Patsy stated in her June 1998 BPD interview that she woke up the morning of 26 Dec 1996 sometime between 5:30-6. Given that the 911 call was made at 5:52, this would leave her basically 20 minutes to do the following, according to UKGuy:

1. Perform morning toilette
2. Get dressed
3. Apply make-up
4. Find out about JonBenet
5. Apply the ligature
6. Write the ransom note

icedtea4me,
Regardless of which RDI is correct the R's version of events is fake, simple as. For you to trot out the above displays either ignorance or a desire to deceive?

 

[UKGuy]

That's the problem. He doesn't have to reconcile anything. It's the beauty and luxury of BDI. Toss anything at the wall and pray that it sticks, at least momentarily, and simply toss aside and ignore all the things that cant and wont stick.

I've been saying it since BDI started dominating last year....BDI is the new IDI.It does all the things that IDI accomplished but actually does it better. It creates huge doubt for the adults in the house(in some scenarios lets them off the hook), literally tries to write them out of the story, ignores a lot of case evidence or simply sidesteps it, and can instantly create any scenario....no matter how outlandish....to get the case away from PDI/JDI.


That quote you posted is a great example. In the other thread, he criticizes non-BDI of insinuating "telepathic communication" and mocks people believing a parent didn't know what was going on that morning yet he himself paints the same picture in his own temporary scenario....until leapfrogging to the next where he's maniacally laughing like Ed Gein dancing in the pale moonlight but when that's considered unrealistic and obscene, it'll seamlessly and conveniently jump into a scenario where Patsy is doing all the dirty work and Burke's hands are much cleaner.


This is why the case isn't BDI. It requires continuous leapfrogging between simultaneous scenarios just on a whim that it will make a lick of sense to the reader. Then a dose of unintentional irony is thrown at the reader.....we are told its the only thing that "makes sense" and the only theory that applies "logic".

Yeah....pretzel logic.

Sometimes it comes across as mere satire of RDI/IDI theories.

singularity,

That's the problem. He doesn't have to reconcile anything. It's the beauty and luxury of BDI. Toss anything at the wall and pray that it sticks, at least momentarily, and simply toss aside and ignore all the things that cant and wont stick.

You PDI guys do not get it do you? if I can come up with multiple BDI scenarios that are consistent with the facts, and demonstrate that Patsy was lying to cover for Burke Ramsey, then maybe PDI is plain wrong and you have been suckered, just like people were originally taken in by Lou Smit and IDI?

You are wasting your time with ad hominem remarks regarding my pasta testing skills and the wall, Cut the waffle and defense of PDI and show everyone why BDI is impossible!

.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
Regardless of which RDI is correct the R's version of events is fake, simple as. For you to trot out the above displays either ignorance or a desire to deceive?

You're the one who has Patsy not finding out what happened to JonBenet until she got up that morning.

 

[UKGuy]

You're the one who has Patsy not finding out what happened to JonBenet until she got up that morning.

icedtea4me,
Sure, so when did Patsy rise or did she never go to bed, as in had all night to stage and place the size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer, or to clean up the breakfast bar, or tidy JonBenet's bedroom and rmove BR's soiled pajama bottoms?

Maybe Kolar is correct BR staged it all?

.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
Sure, so when did Patsy rise or did she never go to bed, as in had all night to stage and place the size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer, or to clean up the breakfast bar, or tidy JonBenet's bedroom and rmove BR's soiled pajama bottoms?

Maybe Kolar is correct BR staged it all?

.

BBM: You're the one who said that "Patsy never found out until she rose to go to the airport." So, why don't you tell us?

 

[AlGx]

What are they planning on testing? I've heard it was the ligatures?

 

[Ambitioned]

I think so. Stan did say not to expect much because it wasn't a DNA case.

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_30657415/boulder-police-da-plan-new-dna-testing-jonbenet

[FONT=&quot]The evidence likely being considered for the new testing is the duct tape found on JonBenet's mouth, the ligatures that were on her wrists, part of the garrote that strangled her and a flashlight, according to ABC News.[/FONT]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...esting-planned-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-case

 

[UKGuy]

BBM: You're the one who said that "Patsy never found out until she rose to go to the airport." So, why don't you tell us?

icedtea4me,
You want me to set myself up, then knock myself down? How about some constructive theorizing on behalf of the PDI faction, instead of mocking and berating anyone who promotes BDI.

BDI is only really possible because PDI is so weak, as presented, e.g. Patsy could have been lying to protect Burke, JR might have revised the flashight story to take the heat off Burke?

If Patsy had been awake all night how come she never staged her own homicide properly, even dressing in yesterdays clothing, why so? Maybe to fling people off the scent of Burke Ramsey, she and JR likely only found JonBenet dead once they rose. How else can you explain all the holes in the PDI?

The best explanation is that Patsy staged for Burke Ramsey then lied on his behalf, to the point of nonsense answers, i.e. size-12's, redressing JonBenet in Burke Ramsey's long johns, she is obviously taking a bullet for Burke Ramsey.

Neither parent if guilty would choose to dress JonBenet in her niece's underwear and her brothers long johns, that's not staging it's framing, e.g. Burke Ramsey!

JonBenet had a full wardrobe of clothing in her bedroom, and Patsy wants us to believe she could not find JonBenet a pair of pajamas or nightgown, so she dressed her in Burke Ramsey's long johns?


The case is obviously BDI with PR staging it away as best she could, with help from JR.

PDI people should wake up and smell the coffee.

.

 

[singularity]

icedtea4me,
Regardless of which RDI is correct the R's version of events is fake, simple as. For you to trot out the above displays either ignorance or a desire to deceive?

Wait a minute.....you're calling her ignorant and accusing her of deception for the simple act of posting the timeline that you mentioned?!?

singularity,

You PDI guys do not get it do you? if I can come up with multiple BDI scenarios that are consistent with the facts,
.

Here's the main problem....they're not consistent with the facts. How can they be? You post polar opposite extremes on a daily basis!

Here's the PDI equivalent of what you're doing.....


Post a lengthy post about how Patsy attacked and strangled her over bedwetting rage.

An hour later, a lengthy post detailing how Patsy was in drug withdrawals and it helped fuel the fire of a domestic dispute that led to Jonbenet's death.

Couple hours later, a post regarding how Patsy killed her over that Prime of Miss Jean Brodie nonsense.

Would that be labeled consistent? As you can see, each of those things is an entirely different scenario and if I were to post that stuff(much less in the same day), I'd get laughed off the site and even PDIs would call me out on such nonsense.

and demonstrate that Patsy was lying to cover for Burke Ramsey,

You haven't demonstrated that. The only reason you claim this is to cover for the fact the majority of case evidence is aimed in Patsy's direction, which you admit or deny depending on which way the wind is blowing that day.

With little to no evidence pointing towards Burke and so much pointed at Patsy, BDI needs to kill two very large birds with one measly stone. It knows that there's no way around these simple facts so just claim its BDI all day long all the time and have multiple outlandish scenarios ready to go for a variety of discussions and its off to the races. If anyone dares to call this bluff, simply label them ignorant and proclaim that every investigator and expert not named Kolar was suckered and this somehow gets it back ontrack.

You are wasting your time with ad hominem remarks regarding my pasta testing skills and the wall,

I probably am wasting my time. Within an hour its going to be like this conversation never took place.

Every thread is turning into the same merry go round regardless of the thread topic. Longjohns, pineapple, BDI all day long, PDI a bunch of suckers. This is why people are leaving this section in droves and we're on the verge of a small BDI echo chamber.

Cut the waffle and defense of PDI and show everyone why BDI is impossible!

Defending PDI? You were being told why your versions of BDI are on razor thin and shaky ground. So in the midst of explaining why its impossible I am being asked to show why its impossible?

You're right. I am wasting my time.

Maybe Kolar is correct BR staged it all?

You need to make up your mind. Five minutes ago Patsy staged it all. As you're aware.... there's less than zero evidence showing he "staged it all" yet apparently its logical and somehow makes sense....at least until its time to say Patsy staged it all again....or even worse.....tried to frame him!

How about some constructive theorizing on behalf of the PDI faction, instead of mocking and berating anyone who promotes BDI.

You are the one who is continually mocking and berating anything not BDI but if someone calls you out on these outlandish and unrealistic scenarios, you accuse them of doing exactly what you do on a daily basis.

BDI is only really possible because PDI is so weak,

Make up your mind. An hour ago the evidence against Patsy was so strong that you believe she covered/staged for Burke but now you're saying BDI is possible because the evidence against patsy is weak?

You cant have it both ways. Well you can and do have it both ways and a few people might agree with you but the contradictions make no sense and shows how weak your case is.

If Patsy had been awake all night how come she never staged her own homicide properly, even dressing in yesterdays clothing, why so?

How many times do we have to resolve this same issue, hit the reset button, and do it again?

The best explanation is that Patsy staged for Burke Ramsey then lied on his behalf, to the point of nonsense answers, i.e. size-12's, redressing JonBenet in Burke Ramsey's long johns, she is obviously taking a bullet for Burke Ramsey.

Neither parent if guilty would choose to dress JonBenet in her niece's underwear and her brothers long johns, that's not staging it's framing, e.g. Burke Ramsey!

JonBenet had a full wardrobe of clothing in her bedroom, and Patsy wants us to believe she could not find JonBenet a pair of pajamas or nightgown, so she dressed her in Burke Ramsey's long johns?

Unreal. Its as if our discussions the past few weeks never even occurred.


Do you seriously not recall our multiple discussions the past few weeks on that very issue?

PDI people should wake up and smell the coffee.

You should wake up and find a consistent theory that doesn't flip flop continuously and contradict itself within three shakes of a lamb's tail.

What you're really saying is PDI people should leave or simply assimilate. These outlandish theories that only make sense in the Hubble Deep Field work so much better when there's no opposition or someone to merely question and debate them.

Your contradictory, confusing, and baffling versions of BDI simply don't work on any level and proclaiming BDI all day long, doing it in every thread, and calling us non-BDI members suckers doesn't change this fact.

 

[Tadpole12]

BOULDER, Colo. — Boulder police and prosecutors are looking at new DNA testing technology that they hope will further the investigation of the unsolved 1996 murder of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey.

The move comes after an investigation by the Boulder Daily Camera (https://goo.gl/5a8tLv ) and KUSA-TV in Denver that the news organizations say uncovered flaws in the interpretation of previous DNA testing.

Coming up on a year!

 

[Tadpole12]

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_31547295/boulder-still-vexed-by-ramsey-mystery-year-after

Boulder still vexed by Ramsey mystery a year after media frenzy
Police continue evidence testing at Colorado Bureau of Investigation

By Charlie Brennan
12/23/2017

"One year ago, it was nearly impossible to avoid the name or the haunting imagery of the tragic figure of Boulder's JonBenet Ramsey.
Through the fall of 2016, special productions filled the cable and broadcast networks' telecasts with the smiling and angelic face of the 6-year-old girl found murdered in her parents' basement the day after Christmas 20 years earlier.
Investigators associated with the case over the years were joined by sleuths of every stripe who, prompted by the mere flip of the calendar and a convenient round-numbered anniversary, pontificated anew about who might have delivered the blow that fractured the child's skull, buried a ligature deep in her neck and penned a bizarre 2 ½ -page ransom note demanding the unusual sum of $118,000 for her safe return.

Now, with Boulder celebrating the holiday season and the mystery seemingly no closer to a resolution now that it has reached full maturity at 21 years, there is silence.
In fact, all the frenzy surrounding the Ramsey case one year ago did not end simply with media and consultants' coffers just a bit fatter from viewers, clicks and advertisers brought briefly into the fold.
A joint investigation by the Daily Camera and 9News published Oct. 27, 2016, revealed for the first time that, according to several independent experts, DNA evidence that had been cited by then-District Attorney Mary Lacy as a basis to clear Ramsey family members in 2008 did not, in fact, support such a decision.


The experts interviewed by the two news organizations, who examined the same data on which Lacy based her decision, disputed her assertion that the DNA found in one location on JonBenet's underwear and two spots on her long johns were necessarily that of the child's killer. In fact, they said it indicated the genetic presence of two people in addition to the girl, something that documents showed Lacy was told at the time, but made no mention of in her exoneration of the Ramseys.
Also, those experts theorized that the original DNA sample recovered from JonBenet's underwear, which was entered into the FBI's Combined DNA Index System in December 2003 and used since that time for comparison to other DNA samples submitted in the case, may actually be a composite: not that of a single individual.
'Continuing to work with the CBI'
In the wake of the Daily Camera/9News investigation, Boulder police Chief Greg Testa and Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett announced, separately but on the same day, that their offices would pursue new DNA testing in the star-crossed homicide.
On Dec. 14 of last year, the Boulder Police Department issued a news release, stating, "With the emergence of new DNA testing technology, the Boulder Police Department is working with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to determine if this new testing technology could further this investigation."
And in an interview that same day, Testa said, "We did meet with CBI and the district attorney's office, and we had a general discussion about evidence in the Ramsey case, including new technology and DNA testing. And we are going to take a look at the new technology, and see how they may help us with this investigation."
A release issued by Garnett's office at the same time stated that with new testing capabilities in play, "CBI will conduct some further testing of the DNA evidence in the Ramsey case," along with other unspecified cold cases.
Garnett's statement carried this qualifier: "What I am confident about is that the Ramsey case is more than a DNA case, and to ever have a prosecutable case, we have to have several different pieces of evidence come together."
Now, with another Christmas looming, Testa declined to discuss the state of the case, deferring to department spokeswoman Laurie Ogden for comment.
"We are continuing to work with the CBI on evidence testing and we continue to maintain our position of not discussing evidence, or the outcome of testing or processing of evidence, in this case," Ogden said.
Garnett said he has not wavered from his assertion of one year ago that the Ramsey puzzle is "more than a DNA case."
"One of the first things I did when I became district attorney is I gave the Ramsey case back to the police, because I have confidence in their ability to handle the investigation," he said.
"That's where the investigation remains, and I have no doubt that they will update me on any developments that are significant. In the meantime, my staff and I have plenty of active cases that require our full attention."