Predictions s'il vous plaît

[madeleine]

Way to go, madeleine. You have made a difficult choice, but with this reading you can see a side of JR that so many do not. The "poor me" side, for sure.

And also the reveals of character that one would not normally attribute to someone using Christian fortitude during a healing process. Such as, JR's sleeping on the floor next to the girls' beds because he did not feel he deserved to be comfortable during sleep in his own bed because both Beth and JB had suffered.

Or, choosing an organization primary for Christian youth education as his own "retreat" and Christian teaching source for further enlightenment after JB's death. I found it very odd that a man of his maturity level would not have sought an institution more age appropriate.

I, like you, only realized the full extent of JR's emotional disparity from losing Beth, and how intense it still was at the time JB was killed, when I read TOSOS. Even though Patsy said she didn't know how to console him when she heard him crying in his bathroom (perhaps triggered by the photos of Beth he keep there) it jogged me to learn he was having crying jags driving home from work over Beth, right up to the time of losing JB when Beth had been gone 4 years. With that level of depression (which had been medically treated, according to interview accounts and book info) I thought it odd that JR was using Melatonin, since it can increase depression.

I never understood why the friends were called over...if innocent this could have been a huge mistake/risk...if guilty it only made them look guiltier...but I think they wanted&needed AUDIENCE,especially JR when "finding" JB...even though it backfired,the audience wasn't stupid (L.Arndt,F.White)...all the TV appearances...most guilty people would fly under the radar and thank God they got away with it...but not these two...it's a NEED.

 

[Chelly]

I never understood why the friends were called over...if innocent this could have been a huge mistake/risk...if guilty it only made them look guiltier...but I think they wanted&needed AUDIENCE,especially JR when "finding" JB...even though it backfired,the audience wasn't stupid (L.Arndt,F.White)...all the TV appearances...most guilty people would fly under the radar and thank God they got away with it...but not these two...it's a NEED.

I agree PR, in particular, needed the audience. JR just wanted to muddy the waters.

 

[Arnie M]

I never understood why the friends were called over...if innocent this could have been a huge mistake/risk...if guilty it only made them look guiltier...but I think they wanted&needed AUDIENCE,especially JR when "finding" JB...even though it backfired,the audience wasn't stupid (L.Arndt,F.White)...all the TV appearances...most guilty people would fly under the radar and thank God they got away with it...but not these two...it's a NEED.

Yes .... there is definitely something wrong with the parents reaction that early morning.

Most of us can picture what we would be doing , or how we would act , or react , if we woke up one morning and discovered our child had been kidnapped. .... The Ramsey's did none of those things.

And most of us would be obsessed with trying to find the "Foreign Faction" that killed our child .... even today we would still be bringing it up .. we would still be searching .... still be hoping one of the "foreign Faction" members might come forward .

But if we knew there was no Foreign Faction .... we would act just like the Ramsey's.

 

[Tawny]

After all these years, I don't think BR even remembers the events clearly, because I would venture a guess his parents have been telling him a story ever since, convoluting his memories.

 

[Arnie M]

If you read Patsy's interviews with police (with her lawyer present) you will learn a great deal just by the questions he will NOT allow her to answer. Yes, I believe they know the truth.

Good point .... maybe time for me to re-visit those interviews.

 

[questfortrue]

Hello.

I am the anti-k, also known as Anti K and most often, AK.

snip - As we know, several factors come into play where transfer is concerned. For example, a person’s shedder status. Was Mrs Ramsey a poor or a good shedder? We don’t know. The absence of her DNA on the leggings suggest that she was a poor shedder; at least, on that particular occasion.

Although DNA transfer can and does occur easily and readily, it does not necessarily occur. A person can touch an object and transfer nothing. Or, Person A can transfer Person B’s DNA without transferring their own. These are facts as we presently know them. So, while Mrs Ramseys’ DNA could be on the leggings, it is not true that it should be or would be on the leggings.
...

AK

Welcome, AK!
It's true someone may not shed, or be a poor shedder. But remember PR's TDNA (as well as BR'sj) was found on the Barbie nightgown at the crime scene, in the WC. So she evidently shed some. Kolar's statement that it was unusual that no family tdna was found on the long-johns, was simply a question mark about it. The family tdna on articles may mean nothing; the total absence from an article they claimed to have placed on her, does raise a question. That's not a conclusion, just a question mark. moo

 

[Anti-K]

Welcome, AK!
It's true someone may not shed, or be a poor shedder. But remember PR's TDNA (as well as BR'sj) was found on the Barbie nightgown at the crime scene, in the WC. So she evidently shed some. Kolar's statement that it was unusual that no family tdna was found on the long-johns, was simply a question mark about it. The family tdna on articles may mean nothing; the total absence from an article they claimed to have placed on her, does raise a question. That's not a conclusion, just a question mark. moo

Yes; but, the point remains the same: Mrs Ramseys’ DNA could be on the leggings, but it is not true that it should be or would be on the leggings.

As for “total absence from an article:” this is an unknown. Family DNA could be all over the leggings and we would never know, because they didn’t look all over the leggings. They don’t go over every inch of an article, they target specific areas of it.

Anyway, consider (as SPECULATION ONLY!): Mrs Ramsey removes Jonbenet’s pants. She uses some caution and care so as to not wake the child and thus her contact is “minimal.” Maybe she transfers some of her own DNA, but these pants are, understandably, never tested. Maybe the amount of DNA transferred to the pants diminishes the amount available for transfer to the leggings. Maybe there is no transfer at all.

Now, Mrs Ramsey puts the leggings on Jonbenet, still using caution and care; her contact is “minimal.” No transfer occurs.

Later, DNA-man, maybe with gloves on (sweaty hands?), and in a presumably excitable state, and with NO caution or care (aggressive contact), pulls down the victim’s leggings. With the panties/leggings down the killer removes his gloves (ostensibly to achieve skin to skin contact) and he does not put them back on until after he has “replaced” the victim’s clothes.

Possibly, he removes and/or “destroys” any DNA that may have transferred from Mrs Ramsey when he pulls the leggings down, and transfers his own when pulling them back up.

Regardless, Mrs Ramsey’s DNA is absent and an unknown male’s is present. The absence of Mrs Ramsey’s DNA can be reasonably explained (it is a sufficient, but not a necessary condition), there is nothing “strange” about it; the unknown male’s DNA has yet to be explained....
...

AK

 

[questfortrue]

Yes; but, the point remains the same: Mrs Ramseys’ DNA could be on the leggings, but it is not true that it should be or would be on the leggings.

As for “total absence from an article:” this is an unknown. Family DNA could be all over the leggings and we would never know, because they didn’t look all over the leggings. They don’t go over every inch of an article, they target specific areas of it.

Anyway, consider (as SPECULATION ONLY!): Mrs Ramsey removes Jonbenet’s pants. She uses some caution and care so as to not wake the child and thus her contact is “minimal.” Maybe she transfers some of her own DNA, but these pants are, understandably, never tested. Maybe the amount of DNA transferred to the pants diminishes the amount available for transfer to the leggings. Maybe there is no transfer at all.

Now, Mrs Ramsey puts the leggings on Jonbenet, still using caution and care; her contact is “minimal.” No transfer occurs.

Later, DNA-man, maybe with gloves on (sweaty hands?), and in a presumably excitable state, and with NO caution or care (aggressive contact), pulls down the victim’s leggings. With the panties/leggings down the killer removes his gloves (ostensibly to achieve skin to skin contact) and he does not put them back on until after he has “replaced” the victim’s clothes.

Possibly, he removes and/or “destroys” any DNA that may have transferred from Mrs Ramsey when he pulls the leggings down, and transfers his own when pulling them back up.

Regardless, Mrs Ramsey’s DNA is absent and an unknown male’s is present. The absence of Mrs Ramsey’s DNA can be reasonably explained (it is a sufficient, but not a necessary condition), there is nothing “strange” about it; the unknown male’s DNA has yet to be explained....
...

AK

Respectfully, some past posters on other forums have identified that you have a very strong IDI slant, and that’s fine. None of us know who killed JB. We’d just like justice for her. However, I won’t likely respond to you again, ‘cuz what I say pretty much never resonates with an IDI person, call it me missing an IDI chipset in my random access memory or whatever.

The following is something that I was reminded of recently, and I’m bringing forward a quote which anyone can absorb (RDI/IDI etc.) From our intrepid leader Tricia: If you are an IDI person and you want to post in a reasonable manner on the RDI thread then you may do so but I am telling you I will not tolerate any sort of disruption no matter what the post is disguised to look like.

 

[Anti-K]

Respectfully, some past posters on other forums have identified that you have a very strong IDI slant, and that’s fine. None of us know who killed JB. We’d just like justice for her. However, I won’t likely respond to you again, ‘cuz what I say pretty much never resonates with an IDI person, call it me missing an IDI chipset in my random access memory or whatever.

The following is something that I was reminded of recently, and I’m bringing forward a quote which anyone can absorb (RDI/IDI etc.) From our intrepid leader Tricia: If you are an IDI person and you want to post in a reasonable manner on the RDI thread then you may do so but I am telling you I will not tolerate any sort of disruption no matter what the post is disguised to look like.

No worries. I try my best to get along with everyone.

I am an IDI, and I said as much in my introductory post. However, I don’t know that my “slant” is any more extreme than that of anyone else – IDI or RDI. Anyway, that’s fine if you don’t want to reply to anything I might post. Like I said, no worries.

...

AK

 

[midwest mama]

I predict the touch DNA will be deemed useless in court if this case goes to trial...so agree with AK and glad for the scenarios posted as validation why we cannot accept it as evidence without an identity match. IMO, the easiest way to figure why no PR cells were collected is because she lied and did not dress JB in the lj's, or she did wear gloves at the time, or JR did the dressing and was wearing gloves. There were brown fibers collected from JB's clothing and not sourced but when PR was questioned about them having any brown work gloves in the house, she said JR had some. But then, I suppose in all fairness we have to wonder if it would have been hard for an Intruder to find them since he was able to round up what JR thought could have been Fleet White's tape and cording from his boat supplies.

 

[Anti-K]

I predict the touch DNA will be deemed useless in court if this case goes to trial...so agree with AK and glad for the scenarios posted as validation why we cannot accept it as evidence without an identity match. IMO, the easiest way to figure why no PR cells were collected is because she lied and did not dress JB in the lj's, or she did wear gloves at the time, or JR did the dressing and was wearing gloves. There were brown fibers collected from JB's clothing and not sourced but when PR was questioned about them having any brown work gloves in the house, she said JR had some. But then, I suppose in all fairness we have to wonder if it would have been hard for an Intruder to find them since he was able to round up what JR thought could have been Fleet White's tape and cording from his boat supplies.

Kolar writes about brown cotton fibers “found on four items closely associated with the body of Jonbenet and implements used in her murder.” p. 229 He acknowledges that these fibers were not sourced, and claims that they may have come from cotton gloves.
...

AK

 

[madeleine]

:facepalm:

TOSOS/page 121

I was grateful for the work Mary Lacy and her staff continued to do and thankful for this new
development. It brought us one step closer to finding JonBenét’s killer. The untold story surrounding
this event happened several years earlier when a friend asked me how he could pray for me. I told
him we had been praying that God would cause the jurisdiction of JonBenét’s case to be removed
from the Boulder police and transferred to a more competent jurisdiction. I went on to tell him our
prayers had not been answered so far. My friend thought a moment and then said, “John, you need to
be more specific in your prayers. You need to ask God to raise someone up who has both the
authority and the courage to move the jurisdiction. Yes, be more specific!”
I began to pray that God would raise up someone in authority who had the courage to do what
would be very difficult and unusual to do: change the investigative agency responsible for JonBenét’s
murder investigation. A few months after beginning to pray that prayer, Mary Lacy removed the case
from the police department and took control of the investigation. This DNA testing was a result of the
work done by that new investigative team. Mary Lacy was the person God raised up to answer our
prayer. Yes, she had some authority to do this but it took a tremendous level of courage to take over
the investigation.

 

[Mama2JML]

Hello.

I am the anti-k, also known as Anti K and most often, AK.

I started following this forum a couple of weeks ago, but I’ve only read two or three of the available threads; so far. I’m a little confused as to accepted protocol for self-introduction, or how best to slip into the flow of a conversation; so I thought I’d just start one here. So, hello.

We're SOOO HaPpY to have you here, AK!
:thewave: :welcome6: :thewave:
:fireworks: :trainwreck: :fireworks:

 

[gramcracker]

:facepalm:

TOSOS/page 121

I was grateful for the work Mary Lacy and her staff continued to do and thankful for this new
development. It brought us one step closer to finding JonBenét’s killer. The untold story surrounding
this event happened several years earlier when a friend asked me how he could pray for me. I told
him we had been praying that God would cause the jurisdiction of JonBenét’s case to be removed
from the Boulder police and transferred to a more competent jurisdiction. I went on to tell him our
prayers had not been answered so far. My friend thought a moment and then said, “John, you need to
be more specific in your prayers. You need to ask God to raise someone up who has both the
authority and the courage to move the jurisdiction. Yes, be more specific!”
I began to pray that God would raise up someone in authority who had the courage to do what
would be very difficult and unusual to do: change the investigative agency responsible for JonBenét’s
murder investigation. A few months after beginning to pray that prayer, Mary Lacy removed the case
from the police department and took control of the investigation. This DNA testing was a result of the
work done by that new investigative team. Mary Lacy was the person God raised up to answer our
prayer. Yes, she had some authority to do this but it took a tremendous level of courage to take over
the investigation.

what a shame that they didn't pray for the murderer(s) to be arrested/tried/convicted. you know, since they were on a roll with their prayers being answered

 

[DeeDee249]

Respectfully, some past posters on other forums have identified that you have a very strong IDI slant, and that’s fine. None of us know who killed JB. We’d just like justice for her. However, I won’t likely respond to you again, ‘cuz what I say pretty much never resonates with an IDI person, call it me missing an IDI chipset in my random access memory or whatever.

The following is something that I was reminded of recently, and I’m bringing forward a quote which anyone can absorb (RDI/IDI etc.) From our intrepid leader Tricia: If you are an IDI person and you want to post in a reasonable manner on the RDI thread then you may do so but I am telling you I will not tolerate any sort of disruption no matter what the post is disguised to look like.

Same goes for me. Just put me on "ignore".

 

[Uberfairy]

Yes .... there is definitely something wrong with the parents reaction that early morning.

Most of us can picture what we would be doing , or how we would act , or react , if we woke up one morning and discovered our child had been kidnapped. .... The Ramsey's did none of those things.

And most of us would be obsessed with trying to find the "Foreign Faction" that killed our child .... even today we would still be bringing it up .. we would still be searching .... still be hoping one of the "foreign Faction" members might come forward .

But if we knew there was no Foreign Faction .... we would act just like the Ramsey's.

If I'm reading your response right, I respectfully disagree. For me and probably most of the other posters in this forum (I apologize now for lumping you all in with me) we are nobodies, in that we're not rich, powerful, or corrupt, again... for the most part. If you (or any of us) were to find our child missing and some note saying (for instance) the Taliban had targeted the child to pay for sins/crimes/or whatever they come up with, would you seriously waste your time looking for them? You would know it's a bunch of bunk. Personally, for me, I'd be looking for the sicko that broke into my house and took my child, not some imaginary foreign villain. The letter didn't make sense. Following a false trail wastes time.

 

[Uberfairy]

Respectfully, some past posters on other forums have identified that you have a very strong IDI slant, and that’s fine. None of us know who killed JB. We’d just like justice for her. However, I won’t likely respond to you again, ‘cuz what I say pretty much never resonates with an IDI person, call it me missing an IDI chipset in my random access memory or whatever.

The following is something that I was reminded of recently, and I’m bringing forward a quote which anyone can absorb (RDI/IDI etc.) From our intrepid leader Tricia: If you are an IDI person and you want to post in a reasonable manner on the RDI thread then you may do so but I am telling you I will not tolerate any sort of disruption no matter what the post is disguised to look like.

I feel like I'm without my "If you find this person wandering around, please return her to..." bracelet. Am I in the wrong forum? What is RDI/IDI and which is this?

 

[Anti-K]

I feel like I'm without my "If you find this person wandering around, please return her to..." bracelet. Am I in the wrong forum? What is RDI/IDI and which is this?

RDI = Ramseys Did It; PDI = Patsy Did It; JDI = John Did It; BDI = Burke Did It

IDI = Intruder Did IT

I don’t know if you’re in the “wrong forum.” I’m new here. I do know that this is a predominantly RDI forum.
...

AK

 

[Nom de plume]

If I'm reading your response right, I respectfully disagree. For me and probably most of the other posters in this forum (I apologize now for lumping you all in with me) we are nobodies, in that we're not rich, powerful, or corrupt, again... for the most part. If you (or any of us) were to find our child missing and some note saying (for instance) the Taliban had targeted the child to pay for sins/crimes/or whatever they come up with, would you seriously waste your time looking for them? You would know it's a bunch of bunk. Personally, for me, I'd be looking for the sicko that broke into my house and took my child, not some imaginary foreign villain. The letter didn't make sense. Following a false trail wastes time.

Ummm....not to speak for Arnie M, but I think you took the post a little too literally. (I sensed a little sarcasm about the SFF) I believe the point was that an innocent parent would be looking for their child's killer, whoever that might be, and that the R's never seemed concerned with finding JB's killer. JMO

 

[Uberfairy]

Ummm....not to speak for Arnie M, but I think you took the post a little too literally. (I sensed a little sarcasm about the SFF) I believe the point was that an innocent parent would be looking for their child's killer, whoever that might be, and that the R's never seemed concerned with finding JB's killer. JMO

Alright, where's my bracelet... I am completely lost in this forum. Was the sarcasm from Arnie M or me? (Like Sheldon from Big Bang, I don't understand sarcasm very well.) In what way were the R's not concerned with finding the killer?