Serious DNA discussion

[Cherokee]

Uh, you know what RDI stands for, right? Of course RDI presumes guilt. It stands for 'Ramsey did it'. It doesn't stand for IMO RDI, or maybe RDI.

At least IDI doesn't presume guilt on the part of any person.

No, IDIs ignore a mountain of evidence and presume innocence based on nothing but emotion and their feeling that the Ramseys couldn't have been involved.

None of us want the Ramseys to be guilty; in fact, most of us started out believing in their innocence, but we had to look at the cold hard facts, and what all of LE, the FBI and other experts believe - the Ramseys were involved SOMEHOW in JonBenet's death - whether it was intentional or an accident, and they orchestrated the staging of the crime scene as a cover-up to the truth of what happened.

RDIs want the truth as much (or more) than any IDI. RDIs are not the enemy in this case. The Ramseys (whether guilty or innocent) have lied repeatedly about what happened. Ask yourself why. Why would they lie, and obfuscate, and not remember, and throw their friends under the bus? Why? Why would they do that if they were innocent?

The Ramseys had guilty knowledge and that guilty knowledge made them say they weren't angry with the killer the day after they buried JonBenet.

I ask you. What parent ONE DAY AFTER THEY BURIED THEIR BABY would not be angry with that baby's murderer?

As I've said many times before, I'm still angry about it, and it's almost 12 years later and JonBenet was not my child. I may be RDI, but I d*mn sure have cared more about finding the JonBenet's killer than her parents ever did.

 

[Cherokee]

Note for KK: These are more presumptions. Just pointing out that these are things that are presumed to have happened.

You're afraid to look, aren't you? You won't even go to the link

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=6404

and look at Patsy's writing compared to that of the ransom note writer's because you're afraid they will match.

Oh, and I see you have no comment on "Victory In Jesus."After all your talk about "Victory" not ever being used in a religious connotation, you have nothing to say on the subject?

I guess when proven wrong, you try to change the subject by attacking something else the poster said.

I gave a theory as to why Patsy would have signed the ransom note in such a way. It was not a presumption, but an idea that explains the evidence in context. If you cannot understand the difference between presumption and theory, then you are in over your head.

This is an opinion and discussion board. Posters are free to post their opinions, theories, notes, references, and ideas. If all we did was post the facts of this case as determined by IDIs, we'd have all gone home a long time ago.

If a person cannot post their theory of the case without you screaming "presumption" at every turn, then effectively, you are censoring their right to present case evidence within context, and that is exactly what Mary Lacy has done. She has taken evidence out of context and declared it to be the Holy Grail of the Ramsey case.

Oh, and just for the record, I'm not the only one who says Lacy has taken evidence out of context. Since you're such a fan of criminal profilers ... criminal profiler Brent Turvey stated that very thing in an internet interview just a few weeks ago.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You're afraid to look, aren't you? You won't even go to the link

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=6404

and look at Patsy's writing compared to that of the ransom note writer's because you're afraid they will match.

Oh, and I see you have no comment on "Victory In Jesus." When proven wrong, you try a new tactic and attack a poster's explanation of their theory as presumptions.

I did not say THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. It is not a presumption. I was giving a theory as to why Patsy would have signed the ransom note in such a way. If you cannot understand the difference between presumption and theory, then you are in over your head.

This is an opinion and discussion board. Posters are free to post their opinions, theories, notes, references, and ideas. If all we did was post the facts of this case as determined by IDIs, we'd have all gone home a long time ago.

I have a hard time with a poster on this board deciding what another poster can and cannot post. You have made yourself the official arbiter of what is allowed to be posted on this forum, and that is not your job.

If an RDI cannot post their theory of the case without you screaming "presumption" at every turn, then effectively, you are censoring their right to present case evidence within context, and that is exactly what Mary Lacy has done. She has taken evidence out of context and declared it to be the Holy Grail of the Ramsey case.

Oh, and just for the record, I'm not the only one who says Lacy has taken evidence out of context. Since you're such a fan of criminal profilers ... criminal profiler Brent Turvey stated that very thing in an internet interview just a few weeks ago.

I never said you can't post what you think PR did. Am I supposed to read it and agree with you on your insightful reasoning? No, instead I read it and claimed it is a presumption.

Am I not allowed to claim it to be a presumption? Is that a rule I missed?

Presume all you want, its a free country.

Meanwhile, those of us who are genuinely interested in what really happened are sort of stuck with delving thru information and separating fact from fiction. And that bit about PR signing SBTC and Victory because it 'sounded right' is pure fiction.

BTW, I don't feel 'proven wrong' at all.

 

[Cherokee]

And that bit about PR signing SBTC and Victory because it 'sounded right' is pure fiction.

And you know that is "fiction" how?

Who made you the arbiter of what really happened in the Ramsey house that night? Were you there?

BTW, I don't feel 'proven wrong' at all.

You don't have to "feel" it for it to be the truth. But that's a common error IDIs make. It's all about how they "feel" about the evidence and whether the Ramseys could have been involved. They are very selective about what facts and documented evidence they choose to consider.

So, still no comment on the religious connotations of the word "Victory"? If you don't FEEL proven wrong, why are you ignoring the obvious?

And you STILL can't bring yourself to look at the comparison of Patsy's handwriting, spacing, closing alignment, etc.? It's just too painful to look, isn't it? It might destroy the whole IDI house of cards, and then where would you be?

Here, I'll make it easy for you. Here's the link again:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=6404

I dare you to look ... just one open-minded look at how Patsy aligned and signed her letters compared to the ransom note. Of course, that does not BY ITSELF mean Patsy wrote the note, but it is the preponderance of evidence, the weight of all the evidence, that we have to consider.

 

[Cherokee]

Am I not allowed to claim it to be a presumption? Is that a rule I missed?

You didn't claim it was a presumption, you STATED it was a presumption, and even wrote a special note to KK emphasizing it.

I do not PRESUME to know exactly what happened that night in the Ramsey household. Apparently, you do since you stated my theory (and that of many others) is "fiction." You cannot know it is fiction unless you were there. Ergo, you are making a presumption. Oh my. Isn't that what you accused me of doing?

I like how the IDIs scream presumption and all kinds of things at RDIs (or even fence-sitters like Jayelles), but when THEY presume something, they insist it is evidence or the truth. LOL

 

[LinasK]

Yeah but if you ignore the RN, and just consider the victim, you dont get a 'white woman from the south', do you?

Sexually assaulted 6 year old girl that was then murdered by strangulation. Unfortunately THAT has happened before many times, and almost exclusively by adult men. Sorry SD but statistics strongly favor a male perp (JBR wasn't killed by a ransom note).

What a coincidence, unknown male DNA found in JBR's underwear, matches DNA found also on her longjohns. Sortof rules out the old RDI favorite factory worker theory, doesn't it?

Not at all. :snooty:Just because Patsy wrote the note doesn't mean she wasn't in on the murder with John- the molester and probably the killer. Patsy was instrumental in the cover-up to stand by her man. Her husband was more important to her than her daughter.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You didn't claim it was a presumption, you STATED it was a presumption, and even wrote a special note to KK emphasizing it.

I do not PRESUME to know exactly what happened that night in the Ramsey household. Apparently, you do since you stated my theory (and that of many others) is "fiction." You cannot know it is fiction unless you were there. Ergo, you are making a presumption. Oh my. Isn't that what you accused me of doing?

I like how the IDIs scream presumption and all kinds of things at RDIs (or even fence-sitters like Jayelles), but when THEY presume something, they insist it is evidence or the truth. LOL

You're right. I stated my claim as fact that you presumed SBTC is religious. You stated your claim as fact that SBTC 'sounded good' to PR.
Unfortunately, this is all semantics that I find trite and boring (IMO).

Do you know how many times SBTC has been presumed without a single basis for it? I'll tell you this, I have NEVER stated whate I thought it meant. Not because I have no ideas, but because there's nothing to support any of them. Sure I could throw stuff out, but without any support it would amount to idle speculation.

I'm moving on now.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

thanks to someone on the other thread who added FAT CAT to this list.anglwings,I think it was you?

so we have 3 different family members,all using words straight out of the ransom note.FAT CAT,VICTORY,AND HENCE.what are the chances?

..and don't forget:

In Thomas's book,the first letters of verses the bible was found opened to in the R's home all started with...guess what? SBTC.

..so we have 3 family members who use words very specific to the ransom note,plus a bible found open in the R's home on a page with verses starting with SBTC.

odd,no??

For the record, you think its significant if someone uses the same exact expressions found in the RN?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Twist it all you like.... I've shown you plenty of evidence that shows "victory" and "SBTC" very well might have religious connotations.

Name one item of evidence known to be connected to the murder that shows Victory or SBTC might be religious. Open bible isn't even known to be connected to the murder. Therefore, we can't just make vague connections to it, and call it factual evidence.

The RN, is known to be connected to the murder. And it speaks for itself, really. Its loaded with known political, tactical, military, and socioeconomic expressions. It has zero known religious expressions.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the perp has or had a rank.

 

[JMO8778]

For the record, you think its significant if someone uses the same exact expressions found in the RN?

when it's family members...esp. some known to be in the house that night...YES!

 

[LinasK]

Name one item of evidence known to be connected to the murder that shows Victory or SBTC might be religious. Open bible isn't even known to be connected to the murder. Therefore, we can't just make vague connections to it, and call it factual evidence.

The RN, is known to be connected to the murder. And it speaks for itself, really. Its loaded with known political, tactical, military, and socioeconomic expressions. It has zero known religious expressions.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the perp has or had a rank.

Well.... F.Y.I., John had military training at S.ubic B.ay T.raining C.enter, he also used the acronym Starfleet Base T____ Command, so there you go! ( I can't recall what the T in the Starfleet acronym was, you'd have to check the ACandyRose website for that.)

 

[JMO8778]

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the perp has or had a rank.

what,Sgt SBTC?!

 

[RiverRat]

Oh, gosh, I wouldn't do that to anyone unless they were getting real out of hand. You know...like me! :croc:

[What's with the happy bananas? I've never seen so much dancing produce in my life! They got a veritable RIOT going on in there!]

They are a new thing around here and for me, it just goes to prove that sometimes a banana is not just a banana....:smilingface (52): however, you will find other smilies here that you are more familiar......:mears::bee::sumo:

 

[RiverRat]

For the record, you think its significant if someone uses the same exact expressions found in the RN?

I do when they used in the one year anniversary message!

And Hence....
RR

 

[twinkiesmom]

I have no idea what you mean. What does a church have to do with the closing salutation 'Victory!'

Holdon, I think you need to spend some quality time in a Bible thumping, knee slapping, foot stomping charismatic church.

 

[angelwngs]

Personally, the most frustrating thing about discussing this case with many IDI's is that it seems as if they sincerely feel as if all RDI's want the R's to be guilty.

Just for the record, I, as one RDI, do not. I never have wanted them to be guilty. I desperately wish that it could be proven that someone JBR did not know, someone she did not trust, someone she did not Love, did these horrible things to her, violently stealing her life from her.

This feeling is why there is such great conflict with this case. Each time my heart takes the lead, and it happens often, I search for some way the R's could be innocent of any wrong doing. I wish my logical side could eliminate the mountain of facts which always cause my heart to be still in the realization that in all probability, JBR not only knew her murderer(s), but Loved them/him/her dearly.

I seriously believe that there are many RDI's who feel the same.

It seems apparent that many IDI's are in conflict because their logical brains either do not see the facts in the same reality or that they simply enjoy the debate. If it is the latter, that is indeed sad, as it does absolutely nothing to help find justice for this innocent little girl.

I love SD's line: 'Keep and open mind, just not so open that your brain falls out.'

In seeking Truth, with Justice our ultimate goal, it would be so nice to be able to 'agree to disagree' on various points of the case without there being a 'line drawn in the sand' dividing and diminishing our energy and our efforts.

 

[coloradokares]

Well.... F.Y.I., John had military training at S.ubic B.ay T.raining C.enter, he also used the acronym Starfleet Base T____ Command, so there you go! ( I can't recall what the T in the Starfleet acronym was, you'd have to check the ACandyRose website for that.)

Tactical Command I think? That or my mind is playing tricks.

 

[LI_Mom]

Name one item of evidence known to be connected to the murder that shows Victory or SBTC might be religious. Open bible isn't even known to be connected to the murder. Therefore, we can't just make vague connections to it, and call it factual evidence.

The RN, is known to be connected to the murder. And it speaks for itself, really. Its loaded with known political, tactical, military, and socioeconomic expressions. It has zero known religious expressions.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the perp has or had a rank.

Considering the RN was NOT really a RN, I think we must consider why the author has MURDERED this child.

It was NOT for money. It was NOT for any political, military or social agenda OR the 'small foreign faction' would have made further contact with the Ramseys or with John's "bussiness" or the country it serves.

Small foreign factions with such obvious animosity don't go through all that trouble to make it known they have an agenda & then just give up & disappear back into the woodwork.

I mean... we have the guy who was supposed to kidnap JB... we have "the gentlemen" who were on standby to 'watch over' the victim... we have the guys who were responsible for all the high tech surveillance to make sure John didn't alert authorities.....

ALL these politically motivated people just threw up their hands & walked away never to be heard from again?

A "faction" that values "VICTORY!" couldn't even succeed at the very simple task of kidnapping a scrawny little 6 year old?

 

[Indianagirl]

"Assuming" the Ramseys did do it, has anyone ever wondered what their purpose would have been to leave JBR down in the basement, assuming the police would find her? I think when the Ramseys called the police they did not know that the police would get there and tell them to search the house. They probably thought the police would search the house and locate her. My point being why would JR decide to "act" like he found the body, when originally the Ramseys probably "assumed' the police would search the house and find her? Hope this makes sense.

Do you think he panicked, or wanted to contaminate the crime scene, etc.??

 

[LI_Mom]

"Assuming" the Ramseys did do it, has anyone ever wondered what their purpose would have been to leave JBR down in the basement, assuming the police would find her? I think when the Ramseys called the police they did not know that the police would get there and tell them to search the house. They probably thought the police would search the house and locate her. My point being why would JR decide to "act" like he found the body, when originally the Ramseys probably "assumed' the police would search the house and find her? Hope this makes sense.

Do you think he panicked, or wanted to contaminate the crime scene, etc.??

A logical reason would be that since police did NOT find her body AND the time passed for contact with the "kidnapper" they were at a stalemate.

Linda Arndt (police) told John to search the house again... he & Fleet immediately headed straight for the basement.