What about all these 3's?

[BBB167893]

One question: If the dna on the waist of the longjohns and the crotch of panty can be someone totally unrelated to the murder then why can't the red fibers be someone other than Patsy's or John's Israeli made wool shirt?

Quite a few reasons, vicki, many of which I've expanded on before.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What's a MAAM? Please explain!

I didn't make up the acronym but I think it stands for middle age asian male. Its based on one intruder theory and uses the idea that the paintbrush was selected not at random, not for 'artistic flair' but for symbology or commemoration. If IDI and they had the run of the house, why not use something that didn't need to be broken?

It is not unusual for a criminal who knows his crimes are going to be notorious to use symbology and commemoration. In fact, the SBTC postscript and the event taking place on Dec 25 can both be commemorations of some sort. These have not been ruled out.

 

[SunnieRN]

Great explanation/synopsis hotyh, I will be looking forward to your answer to my inquiry also!

Hotyh, you'll be sorry about asking me for one.

MAAM!

Which now seems to be morphing into three MAAM's or at least three perps, one of which sat in the kitchen writing the ransom note and looking out for family members that might wake up.

Were all three MAAM's, or just one? And if one was writing the note, why didn't they kidnap JonBenet, instead of killing and molesting her?

Ouch!

 

[MurriFlower]

Don't let it bother you, Sunnie. Like I said, Murri hasn't quite grasped that not all RDIs think exactly alike!

Ok, then. Speak up any RDI that thinks the panty/longjohn DNA belongs to the murderer!!

 

[SunnieRN]

Ok, then. Speak up any RDI that thinks the panty/longjohn DNA belongs to the murderer!!

MF, you are trying to turn apples in to oranges. Do you, Peepers, hotyh and others believe EVERYTHING the same? Doubtful at best. Even those with differing opinions can have dissenting beliefs. It's human nature! Otherwise there would be no theories or discussions. Just statements that everyone agrees with from within the same camp.

 

[MurriFlower]

MF, you are trying to turn apples in to oranges. Do you, Peepers, hotyh and others believe EVERYTHING the same? Doubtful at best. Even those with differing opinions can have dissenting beliefs. It's human nature! Otherwise there would be no theories or discussions. Just statements that everyone agrees with from within the same camp.

Ok, lets just go back over this. JMO said "imo,the touch dna indicates that JR KNEW who redressed JB,and it wasn't him.
...think about it... " So, as the touch dna was an unidentified male, I'm having trouble understanding why you, Sunnie said "Brilliant, I like the way you think! " What way can he be thinking?? I asked what this meant, as RDI have always maintained that the touch dna was innocent/third party, parcel wrapper/toilet helper/door handle turner/lab technician originated. You pipe up and say "Us guys? It is a fact that someone killed JonBenet. Are you disputing this fact now? What 'it' are you talking about MF?" SD said "Don't let it bother you, Sunnie. Like I said, Murri hasn't quite grasped that not all RDIs think exactly alike!", so I asked "Ok, then. Speak up any RDI that thinks the panty/longjohn DNA belongs to the murderer!!". Then you make this comment "MF, you are trying to turn apples in to oranges. Do you, Peepers, hotyh and others believe EVERYTHING the same? Doubtful at best. Even those with differing opinions can have dissenting beliefs. It's human nature! Otherwise there would be no theories or discussions. Just statements that everyone agrees with from within the same camp."

So just go back and explain why when JMO said JR knew who belonged to the touch dna you said that was brilliant?

 

[SunnieRN]

Wow, MF I don't think I have EVER seen anyone reiterate so many posts, just to ask me a question. I had a conversation with the person whose statement you are asking me an explanation for. I felt the reasoning in their answer to me, was brilliant! You can just as easily ask that person, but I am not sure if you will come to the same conclusion I did. I am also not sure if they would choose to discuss this on the thread, as they chose not to in their prior post. Never hurts to ask however.

As for any or all RDI's feeling that the evidence presents the same conclusions, just as my IDI opinion is that you are all individuals with individual opinions, so are rdi's, fence sitters or those unfamiliar with the case or even witnesses and 'players' who know or knew the R's. We all have brains, we all have opinions.

Also MF, I edited this to add that I am sorry, but I owe you no explanations. I stated an opinion, as many on this board have and will continue to do so. Peace out.

 

[MurriFlower]

Wow, MF I don't think I have EVER seen anyone reiterate so many posts, just to ask me a question. I had a conversation with the person whose statement you are asking me an explanation for. I felt the reasoning in their answer to me, was brilliant! You can just as easily ask that person, but I am not sure if you will come to the same conclusion I did. I am also not sure if they would choose to discuss this on the thread, as they chose not to in their prior post. Never hurts to ask however.

As for any or all RDI's feeling that the evidence presents the same conclusions, just as my IDI opinion is that you are all individuals with individual opinions, so are rdi's, fence sitters or those unfamiliar with the case or even witnesses and 'players' who know or knew the R's. We all have brains, we all have opinions.

Also MF, I edited this to add that I am sorry, but I owe you no explanations. I stated an opinion, as many on this board have and will continue to do so. Peace out.

Well, answer the question. Despite my going tediously over all the exchanges to get to where we were you continued to evade and answer. What was brilliant about what he said? Don't you believe the DNA was innocently deposited?

 

[SunnieRN]

Well, answer the question. Despite my going tediously over all the exchanges to get to where we were you continued to evade and answer. What was brilliant about what he said? Don't you believe the DNA was innocently deposited?

Please re read my post MF. I gave you as much information as possible. I am not evading the answer, it is not my reasoning you are questioning. I don't know any other ways to explain this to you MF. As for my beliefs. It was touch dna.

 

[MurriFlower]

Please re read my post MF. I gave you as much information as possible. I am not evading the answer, it is not my reasoning you are questioning. I don't know any other ways to explain this to you MF. As for my beliefs. It was touch dna.

Was it not you who told JMO that what he said was brilliant?

Just refreshing your memory

riginally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
imo,the touch dna indicates that JR KNEW who redressed JB,and it wasn't him.
...think about it...

SunnieRN: Brilliant, I like the way you think!

 

[SunnieRN]

Was it not you who told JMO that what he said was brilliant?

Just refreshing your memory

Yes, I told JMO that the statement was brilliant. I also told you my belief. It was touch DNA. Maybe Kimsters advice would be good here also. Move on!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Great explanation/synopsis hotyh, I will be looking forward to your answer to my inquiry also!

Me too!

 

[Agatha_C]

Was it not you who told JMO that what he said was brilliant?

Just refreshing your memory

Why does Sunni have to explain her personal feeling or the comments she makes to another poster. If she feels someone said something brilliant, she shouldnt have to run it through a committee for approval.... Geesh, can we stick to the case and not get personal please?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hotyh, you'll be sorry about asking me for one.

MAAM!

Which now seems to be morphing into three MAAM's or at least three perps, one of which sat in the kitchen writing the ransom note and looking out for family members that might wake up.

Were all three MAAM's, or just one? And if one was writing the note, why didn't they kidnap JonBenet, instead of killing and molesting her?

Ouch!

The ransom note, and expert reaction to it, have me thinking of one MAAM specifically.

I dont know who the others are, but if the one specific MAAM is correct then more isn't a problem.

Why didn't they kidnap her instead of killing her? Good question because kidnap is this MAAM's forte.

 

[SunnieRN]

The ransom note, and expert reaction to it, have me thinking of one MAAM specifically.

I dont know who the others are, but if the one specific MAAM is correct then more isn't a problem.

Why didn't they kidnap her instead of killing her? Good question because kidnap is this MAAM's forte.

I am curious. Is this an American Asian, or a native Asian? Thanks.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I am curious. Is this an American Asian, or a native Asian? Thanks.

Native Asian who is matching the killer profile that the R's published. Do you know about that profile and who helped develop it?

 

[DeeDee249]

One question: If the dna on the waist of the longjohns and the crotch of panty can be someone totally unrelated to the murder then why can't the red fibers be someone other than Patsy's or John's Israeli made wool shirt? If the touch dna is a male and if they know what race, .

I'll give this another shot. Not sure they know the race from the DNA- if so, it hasn't been stated.

About the fibers...Let me start by saying that NO fibers are ever going to be the only ones in the world, even if the garment they came from is one-of-a-kind. That is why forensic specialists can ONLY classify fibers as being "consistent with" fibers from a particular piece of fabric or clothing.
Patsy did not own the ONLY sweater of that type in the world, nor JR the ONLY wool shirt made in Israel.
BUT- this is important- this is the whole key to the fibers' importance
LE must look at the whole picture and consider that the fibers match garments KNOWN to belong to the family. While others may (and surely somewhere in the world, do) the likelihood of TWO separate intruders wearing garments IDENTICAL to those belonging to the parents in the house WHEN and WHERE JB was killed and found on items particular to the crime (panties, cord knot, tape, paint tote) are virtually NON-EXISTENT.
And that is why this type of fiber analysis is allowed as evidence in court.. Not just in this crime, but others as well.
Here is another example. Let's say that the body of a child is found in the neighborhood of a suspect. Let's say that fibers from the carpets INSIDE the suspect's home are found on the body of that child. It would then link the child to having been in that suspect's home when she was killed or at some point before while wearing those clothes (i.e. that day).
This would be a BIG factor in placing that suspect WITH that child the day she was killed, regardless of where the body was found.

Does this help explain why the fibers are so incriminating?

 

[DeeDee249]

Native Asian who is matching the killer profile that the R's published. Do you know about that profile and who helped develop it?

No, but I feel sure you do.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, but I feel sure you do.

Of course.

 

[Agatha_C]

The Rs gave an overall classic profile of their intruder. There list even has people looking for anyone they know that might have moved or sold a car right after the crime.... Come on, why would this person need to do either of those things? Its the most ridiculous profile for this case....

This is their profile......

Personality traits that may be recognized by someone that knows an individual who was in Boulder, CO on Christmas day 1996:

Judgmental: strong or persistently expressed opinions about organized religion, capitalism and US participation in global affairs.

Cold: one perceived as capable of acting without compassion that very well may be violent toward others, set fires or killed animals in the past.

Kidnap interest: may have described a fantasy or the risks of what it would be like to abduct someone.

Fascination and fantasy regarding little girls and boys.

Secretive: maintains spaces or possessions he is extremely protective of that is strictly off limits to others.

Bondage: discussed, demonstrated or practiced the construction of garrotes and/or other strangulation devices and body restraints on himself or others.

Stun Gun: having a stun gun and paid excessive attention to it by frequent maintenance, display and practice using it.

Someone that knows the person that took JonBenét’s life may have noticed one or more of the following scenarios following JonBenét’s murder at Christmas 1996:

Superficial wounds: Bruises scrapes or scratches on the face, neck or hands that were unexplained or for which the explanations changed.

Absent: nonattendance at work, church, school or other routine habits or hobbies.

Isolation: a spontaneous trip or sudden need to spend time alone.

Change of physical appearance: sudden new hair style or alteration of facial hair.

Intense interest: following case updates and news releases with heightened attention and focus.

New or used vehicle: abrupt and perhaps seemingly impulsive change in the car or truck he usually drove.

Relocation: a hasty change in geography relating to his living, working or regular friends and hangouts.

Collector of memorabilia: saving images or videos of JonBenét from newspaper, television or the internet

Vengeance: stating or hinting that the Ramsey’s – or JonBenét – are getting what they deserved.

Complimentary toward killer: impressed with perpetrator as a criminal mastermind while attributing great intelligence, skill or even luck.

Possessions: has items that came from the Ramsey home.