What does Linda Arndt know?

[Chrishope]

Chelly, you’ve been a beacon for rationality over the past few weeks. More eloquent than I was Galileo Galilei: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

As I’ve pondered some of the dialog recently I wanted to share this with you and some others who believe one of the R’s was responsible for JB’s homicide: I believe some IDI theorists live in a wonderful parallel universe. It may be a great place to dwell. Unfortunately, for one RDI to reach this universe, one must sail the River Denial, cross the Seas of Intimidated Witnesses, and lose one’s bearings toward the idealistic goal of justice. Not intending to be sarcastic, just a flight of fantasy. But I will say if poster Cynic did not already own the “Cynic” hat, I would have adopted it. moo
_____________________________________
Don’t think I’m crazy here but I believe truth is to lies a little like a fat woman in a girdle. One can conceal some fat with a girdle, but then the fat squeezes out somewhere else and it’s revealed that something is being concealed.

I've been RDI since day one and I do tend to agree with the above. However we have to be a little bit careful about thinking we have all the logic on our side.

RDI basically boils down to "I don't see an intruder doing all these things", which is fine, but it's really just an opinion on what the perp is "likely" to do or not do. Since we find IDI unlikely we are by default RDI.

There are "illogical" aspects to RDI. For example, the unsourced tan fibers are routinely ignored, and at the same time most RDIs want to make a big deal of the red and black fibers. IMO the fiber evidence is of no value as the red and black belong to people in the same household. The tan, well we don't know where they came from, so it's at least possible they came from an intruder. If one would have it that the red and black fibers indicate PR/JR involvement, then why do the tan fibers not indicate involvement of someone wearing tan?

Likewise with the Tdna, we spend a lot of time "schooling" IDIs on the fact that the Tdna doesn't have to belong to the killer. We spend very little time considering that one of the 6 Tdna profiles could be from the killer. There's no reason it has to be, but equally there is no reason it couldn't be. Some of the Tdna could be from a Chinese factory worker. All 6 don't necessarily have to be from Chinese factory workers.

In short, many RDI insist on the unimportance of certain evidence, and the importance of other evidence which when considered neutrally, tells us absolutely nothing.

Various versions of RDI have assumptions based on - well, nothing. Many times I've read posts by RDIs convinced that PR would absolutely not want the body dumped outside. The proof- their "feeling" that PR would absolutely not want the body dumped outside. Somewhat akin to the IDI "logic" that parents wouldn't do these things to their own child.

Another assumption that always strikes me as fantastically illogical is the notion that JR/PR co-conspired to "protect" BR, despite the fact that BR could not be charged with anything and one late night phone call to a lawyer would give them all the info they need on that topic. It is assumed of course that calls were placed to lawyers/politicians/doctors and that's why the phone records are unavailable. Sensible enough, until one realizes that it's unlikely that during these late night calls to doctors/lawyers/politicians the age or responsibility never comes up.

Oh, of course, the Rs are staging for the sake of family honor - another illogical assumption as the course they took is virtually guaranteed to keep the case in the spotlight, whereas just telling police that BR did it would have let the whole matter drop much more quietly. The Rs did hire a PR firm, and any PR firm worth it's salt would have advised to allow this case to slip quietly into the night rather than maintain the nonsense about an intruder in order to "cover" for BR.


Yet another questionable assumption that some RDI make is the notion that the culprit(s) actually expected the police to show up, then leave, without the body being found. Any reasoning culprit would have to have anticipated a competent police search, and dogs. That the search was incompetent, and that the dogs (on standby) were never brought in was a fluke. These events could not have been counted on, and couldn't be part of an overall plan.

We can go on, but the point is made - our side doesn't have a lock on logic, and our side isn't immune to basing scenarios on feelings. We can hardly blame IDIs for not taking us seriously sometimes.

That said, I have to shake my head in disbelief when people advocate IDI.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I've been RDI since day one and I do tend to agree with the above. However we have to be a little bit careful about thinking we have all the logic on our side.

RDI basically boils down to "I don't see an intruder doing all these things", which is fine, but it's really just an opinion on what the perp is "likely" to do or not do. Since we find IDI unlikely we are by default RDI.

There are "illogical" aspects to RDI. For example, the unsourced tan fibers are routinely ignored, and at the same time most RDIs want to make a big deal of the red and black fibers. IMO the fiber evidence is of no value as the red and black belong to people in the same household. The tan, well we don't know where they came from, so it's at least possible they came from an intruder. If one would have it that the red and black fibers indicate PR/JR involvement, then why do the tan fibers not indicate involvement of someone wearing tan?

Likewise with the Tdna, we spend a lot of time "schooling" IDIs on the fact that the Tdna doesn't have to belong to the killer. We spend very little time considering that one of the 6 Tdna profiles could be from the killer. There's no reason it has to be, but equally there is no reason it couldn't be. Some of the Tdna could be from a Chinese factory worker. All 6 don't necessarily have to be from Chinese factory workers.

In short, many RDI insist on the unimportance of certain evidence, and the importance of other evidence which when considered neutrally, tells us absolutely nothing.

Various versions of RDI have assumptions based on - well, nothing. Many times I've read posts by RDIs convinced that PR would absolutely not want the body dumped outside. The proof- their "feeling" that PR would absolutely not want the body dumped outside. Somewhat akin to the IDI "logic" that parents wouldn't do these things to their own child.

Another assumption that always strikes me as fantastically illogical is the notion that JR/PR co-conspired to "protect" BR, despite the fact that BR could not be charged with anything and one late night phone call to a lawyer would give them all the info they need on that topic. It is assumed of course that calls were placed to lawyers/politicians/doctors and that's why the phone records are unavailable. Sensible enough, until one realizes that it's unlikely that during these late night calls to doctors/lawyers/politicians the age or responsibility never comes up.

Oh, of course, the Rs are staging for the sake of family honor - another illogical assumption as the course they took is virtually guaranteed to keep the case in the spotlight, whereas just telling police that BR did it would have let the whole matter drop much more quietly. The Rs did hire a PR firm, and any PR firm worth it's salt would have advised to allow this case to slip quietly into the night rather than maintain the nonsense about an intruder in order to "cover" for BR.


Yet another questionable assumption that some RDI make is the notion that the culprit(s) actually expected the police to show up, then leave, without the body being found. Any reasoning culprit would have to have anticipated a competent police search, and dogs. That the search was incompetent, and that the dogs (on standby) were never brought in was a fluke. These events could not have been counted on, and couldn't be part of an overall plan.

We can go on, but the point is made - our side doesn't have a lock on logic, and our side isn't immune to basing scenarios on feelings. We can hardly blame IDIs for not taking us seriously sometimes.

That said, I have to shake my head in disbelief when people advocate IDI.

Great post. Even though our theory is not the same, I am thrilled to see someone post that even in the umbrella that is RDI or IDI there are many ways to see the evidence and still have a theory that is not just like everyone else's.

For me IDI is not that I do not see that parents would not do awful things to their own child, But when they do, They often then are capable of doing worse to cover it up. AS in the case of poor Zahra Baker. They had no trouble dismembering that baby and tossing her like trash.

I have no problem labeling parents as murderers if they are. But as with some of the things you highlighted there could be another answer to the common theory in this forum.

There are things I have questions to that indeed lead me to stay on the IDI side until I feel without a doubt there is enough to believe that Anyone in this family did it.

 

[questfortrue]

From Chrishope quote: "That said, I have to shake my head in disbelief when people advocate IDI."

My post was simply my own "head shake." Nothing more. Of course, even all RDI don't buy all reasoning of who was involved. And, self-evident, IDI promoters do not buy into any of the RDI evidence. This is a forum for discussion, not a courtroom for proof of guilt or not guilty.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

From Chrishope quote: "That said, I have to shake my head in disbelief when people advocate IDI."

My post was simply my own "head shake." Nothing more. Of course, even all RDI don't buy all reasoning of who was involved. And, self-evident, IDI promoters do not buy into any of the RDI evidence. This is a forum for discussion, not a courtroom for proof of guilt or not guilty.

Why is it, that RDI's can pick and choose evidence, But when IDI's are spoken of, IT is that we don't but into any of the evidence, which is simply not true. It is a matter of distributing to the crime in a way that makes sense. And for some of us applying the evidence in the way others do does not make sense.

There are real questions for me about the TDNA. There are real questions for me in the fiber evidence. These are involved and entwined in the crime itself so If I do not have a clear answer in these, How can I assume it is the family if indeed it was left by someone else? That means someone else plays into this and that is a reasonable doubt.

 

[Chrishope]

From Chrishope quote: "That said, I have to shake my head in disbelief when people advocate IDI."

My post was simply my own "head shake." Nothing more. Of course, even all RDI don't buy all reasoning of who was involved. And, self-evident, IDI promoters do not buy into any of the RDI evidence. This is a forum for discussion, not a courtroom for proof of guilt or not guilty.

Understood. Though it was your post I was replying to, I wasn't really addressing my comments to you in particular.

I do get the impression that many people here (again not addressing you in particular) feel that IDIs are imbeciles and RDIs are on the side of logic, truth, justice, and the American Way of Life.

Were all prone to logic error, not the least of which is trying to be rigorously logical when one's position has been arrived at by rejection of another position based on "lack of evidence" even though there is some evidence.

I can't resist throwing out one more example. Most RDI reject the notion that a real intruder would have left the body behind, at least if he was actually a kidnapper. And most RDI assume that if he was a crazed murderer he wouldn't have written a RN. Yet, most RDI suppose that the culprit(s) staged a crime that was ostensibly exactly what's rejected - i.e. a crazed murderer who leaves a RN or a kidnapper who leaves a body behind.

I won't go on any more about this, it's sufficient to say there is plenty to shake one's head about on both sides.

 

[Chrishope]

Why is it, that RDI's can pick and choose evidence, But when IDI's are spoken of, IT is that we don't but into any of the evidence, which is simply not true. It is a matter of distributing to the crime in a way that makes sense. And for some of us applying the evidence in the way others do does not make sense.

There are real questions for me about the TDNA. There are real questions for me in the fiber evidence. These are involved and entwined in the crime itself so If I do not have a clear answer in these, How can I assume it is the family if indeed it was left by someone else? That means someone else plays into this and that is a reasonable doubt.

I can help you with the fiber evidence. First, see this link

http://dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/trace-evidence

The above is a PDF file from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. It is meant to inform agents of the correct methods of submitting trace evidence. At the bottom of the Fiber and Textile section it has this note-

NOTE: The more matching fiber types that exist in a case, the stronger the evidence of association. Remember that fiber matches between two individuals who share the same environment (e.g. live together or drive the same car) are essentially meaningless.

In short, the GBI is informing it's agents that fibers from the clothing of the residents of the house are "meaningless" because there is no way to determine whether they were from primary or secondary transfer.

So, while one can spin scenarios with PR fashioning the garrotte, or JR rubbing his Israeli shirt inside JB's size 12s, there is no certainty to these scenarios. It's just as likely to be from secondary transfer.

Many RDI deal with this problem by writing "ENTWINED" for maximum emphasis. Alas, this doesn't really make primary transfer more likely than secondary. If the fibers were on the culprits hands then naturally they are going to be in the knots as that is where the fingers are busy - tying the knots. This is also the point where there will be maximum contact between the hands and the rope.

You might also be interested in this -

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for.../fsc/july2008/research/2008_06_research01.htm

Abstract

This study investigates the persistence of fibers on the inside and outside surfaces of ski masks during transit to the FBI Laboratory and during evidence processing to see if separate examinations of the inside and outside of a mask are valuable and warranted. Twenty ski masks were seeded with 50 test fibers each on either the inside or outside only. The masks were then packaged, shipped, and processed according to protocol, and the final recovery location of the fibers was documented. Results indicated that 11 (55%) of the ski masks showed evidence of test-fiber transfer sometime during the study, although the number of transferred fibers was rather small, ranging from one to three. Although the probability that a fiber will be recovered from the same side on which it was deposited is higher than the probability that it will be recovered from the opposite side, an examiner cannot conclude that fibers recovered in the laboratory from the inside (or outside) of an item were originally deposited on that side. In many cases, it may be adequate to process all surfaces of ski masks or other head coverings together.


The application to the JBR case has it's limits. Ski masks have a more open weave than panties, and are made of different fabric. Still, it's interesting that properly processed masks had fiber transfer at some point during the processing and shipping to the lab. This is after following strict protocol for test purposes.

Needless to say BPD wasn't exactly the paragon of proper procedure. We can't really say the evidence technicians were equally poor, but one can't help wonder about the professionalism of everyone involved in the police department.

I'm not suggesting that the fibers inside the panties transferred from the outside, i'm just pointing out that the FBI's conclusion is

- Although the probability that a fiber will be recovered from the same side on which it was deposited is higher than the probability that it will be recovered from the opposite side, an examiner cannot conclude that fibers recovered in the laboratory from the inside (or outside) of an item were originally deposited on that side.


In other words, the location of the fibers, inside or outside a garment, is also inconclusive.

I've posted these links dozens of times with virtually no comment. Probably because they don't tend to support particular RDI theories of the case.

In short, you can safely dismiss all fiber evidence altogether. It means nothing, tells us nothing. It might be there from primary transfer, secondary transfer, combination, and there is no way to say one is more likely than the other. No scenario can fail to be "consistent" with the fiber evidence, as any scenario could depend on either primary or secondary (or combo) transfer, and either are possible, and as far as we are able to tell, equally possible. We will have to solve the case sans fiber evidence.

 

[2 percent]

I can't resist throwing out one more example. Most RDI reject the notion that a real intruder would have left the body behind, at least if he was actually a kidnapper. And most RDI assume that if he was a crazed murderer he wouldn't have written a RN. Yet, most RDI suppose that the culprit(s) staged a crime that was ostensibly exactly what's rejected - i.e. a crazed murderer who leaves a RN or a kidnapper who leaves a body behind.

My biggest problem with IDI is the theory that someone broke in to kidnap JB but didn't bring the ransom note. Then when they got her from her bed they suddenly changed their mind about kidnappingfor ransom and had to sexually assault her in an obscure way.

The one part I do buy with the intruder theory is that once she died, they would leave immediately leaving the ransom note note and body behind.

As for RDI, I've always believed this crime was about the sexual assault, the murder was accidental, unintentional. I think Patsy wrote the note so I'm afraid I don't see her having very tender, maternal feelings about where JB s body should be. It's more likely, to me, the body wasn't moved because either the Ramseys simply ran out of time or didn't want to go near JBs body again after wiping her down.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I can help you with the fiber evidence. First, see this link

http://dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/trace-evidence

The above is a PDF file from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. It is meant to inform agents of the correct methods of submitting trace evidence. At the bottom of the Fiber and Textile section it has this note-

NOTE: The more matching fiber types that exist in a case, the stronger the evidence of association. Remember that fiber matches between two individuals who share the same environment (e.g. live together or drive the same car) are essentially meaningless.

In short, the GBI is informing it's agents that fibers from the clothing of the residents of the house are "meaningless" because there is no way to determine whether they were from primary or secondary transfer.

So, while one can spin scenarios with PR fashioning the garrotte, or JR rubbing his Israeli shirt inside JB's size 12s, there is no certainty to these scenarios. It's just as likely to be from secondary transfer.

Many RDI deal with this problem by writing "ENTWINED" for maximum emphasis. Alas, this doesn't really make primary transfer more likely than secondary. If the fibers were on the culprits hands then naturally they are going to be in the knots as that is where the fingers are busy - tying the knots. This is also the point where there will be maximum contact between the hands and the rope.

You might also be interested in this -

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for.../fsc/july2008/research/2008_06_research01.htm

Abstract

This study investigates the persistence of fibers on the inside and outside surfaces of ski masks during transit to the FBI Laboratory and during evidence processing to see if separate examinations of the inside and outside of a mask are valuable and warranted. Twenty ski masks were seeded with 50 test fibers each on either the inside or outside only. The masks were then packaged, shipped, and processed according to protocol, and the final recovery location of the fibers was documented. Results indicated that 11 (55%) of the ski masks showed evidence of test-fiber transfer sometime during the study, although the number of transferred fibers was rather small, ranging from one to three. Although the probability that a fiber will be recovered from the same side on which it was deposited is higher than the probability that it will be recovered from the opposite side, an examiner cannot conclude that fibers recovered in the laboratory from the inside (or outside) of an item were originally deposited on that side. In many cases, it may be adequate to process all surfaces of ski masks or other head coverings together.


The application to the JBR case has it's limits. Ski masks have a more open weave than panties, and are made of different fabric. Still, it's interesting that properly processed masks had fiber transfer at some point during the processing and shipping to the lab. This is after following strict protocol for test purposes.

Needless to say BPD wasn't exactly the paragon of proper procedure. We can't really say the evidence technicians were equally poor, but one can't help wonder about the professionalism of everyone involved in the police department.

I'm not suggesting that the fibers inside the panties transferred from the outside, i'm just pointing out that the FBI's conclusion is

- Although the probability that a fiber will be recovered from the same side on which it was deposited is higher than the probability that it will be recovered from the opposite side, an examiner cannot conclude that fibers recovered in the laboratory from the inside (or outside) of an item were originally deposited on that side.


In other words, the location of the fibers, inside or outside a garment, is also inconclusive.

I've posted these links dozens of times with virtually no comment. Probably because they don't tend to support particular RDI theories of the case.

In short, you can safely dismiss all fiber evidence altogether. It means nothing, tells us nothing. It might be there from primary transfer, secondary transfer, combination, and there is no way to say one is more likely than the other. No scenario can fail to be "consistent" with the fiber evidence, as any scenario could depend on either primary or secondary (or combo) transfer, and either are possible, and as far as we are able to tell, equally possible. We will have to solve the case sans fiber evidence.

Thank you. I had basically found this out by looking at some of your other posts and then researching the fiber information but it was no where as detailed as this.

Thank you for that!

The fibers have meant nothing to me however you mentioned one that did not seem to belong? One that seemed not to have a source there?

Thanks!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

My biggest problem with IDI is the theory that someone broke in to kidnap JB but didn't bring the ransom note. Then when they got her from her bed they suddenly changed their mind about kidnappingfor ransom and had to sexually assault her in an obscure way.

The one part I do buy with the intruder theory is that once she died, they would leave immediately leaving the ransom note note and body behind.

As for RDI, I've always believed this crime was about the sexual assault, the murder was accidental, unintentional. I think Patsy wrote the note so I'm afraid I don't see her having very tender, maternal feelings about where JB s body should be. It's more likely, to me, the body wasn't moved because either the Ramseys simply ran out of time or didn't want to go near JBs body again after wiping her down.

How do you know that someone did bring a ransom note but the whole thing was to write it again there using their paper and pens so that it could not be traced to them? If they use tools in the house then nothing can be connected back to them.

I don't think she wrote the note. I believe someone wrote the note to make it look like she wrote the note.

 

[BOESP]

<snip>

There are "illogical" aspects to RDI. For example, the unsourced tan fibers are routinely ignored, and at the same time most RDIs want to make a big deal of the red and black fibers. IMO the fiber evidence is of no value as the red and black belong to people in the same household. The tan, well we don't know where they came from, so it's at least possible they came from an intruder. If one would have it that the red and black fibers indicate PR/JR involvement, then why do the tan fibers not indicate involvement of someone wearing tan?

It may be that the public has just not been given knowledge about those tan fibers. Check out the search warrants. Some tan work-type gloves were found and confiscated. Iirc, John Ramsey also wore tan pants to the White's party.

Various versions of RDI have assumptions based on - well, nothing. Many times I've read posts by RDIs convinced that PR would absolutely not want the body dumped outside. The proof- their "feeling" that PR would absolutely not want the body dumped outside. Somewhat akin to the IDI "logic" that parents wouldn't do these things to their own child.

I'll admit to being the person who adamantly believes Patsy would not have put JonBenet outside but it is not based on feelings. I have previously stated why. Regardless, the body was found inside the house so anyone who speculates on it woulda/shoulda/coulda been put outside is making an illogical assumption that seems to be made up to fit their theory. My belief has no bearing on whether it was Patsy or some other insider who did it. Regardless, the body was found inside, carefully wrapped with a favorite nightgown beside her. That's a fact. That fact is supported by statistics that indicate it most likely was "an inside job" (to quote John Ramsey).

My belief is Patsy was involved, which is supported by the Grand Jury true bill. My belief, based on my analysis of what I have read and seen from Patsy is she would never have allowed her daughter to be subject to the ravages of weather and animals, not to mention the risk of getting caught disposing of the body. The goal, in my opinion, was get it hidden where it wouldn't be found quickly then blame it on the kidnapper.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It may be that the public has just not been given knowledge about those tan fibers. Check out the search warrants. Some tan work-type gloves were found and confiscated. Iirc, John Ramsey also wore tan pants to the White's party.

I'll admit to being the person who adamantly believes Patsy would not have put JonBenet outside but it is not based on feelings. I have previously stated why. Regardless, the body was found inside the house so anyone who speculates on it woulda/shoulda/coulda been put outside is making an illogical assumption that seems to be made up to fit their theory. My belief has no bearing on whether it was Patsy or some other insider who did it. Regardless, the body was found inside, carefully wrapped with a favorite nightgown beside her. That's a fact. That fact is supported by statistics that indicate it most likely was "an inside job" (to quote John Ramsey).

My belief is Patsy was involved, which is supported by the Grand Jury true bill. My belief, based on my analysis of what I have read and seen from Patsy is she would never have allowed her daughter to be subject to the ravages of weather and animals, not to mention the risk of getting caught disposing of the body. The goal, in my opinion, was get it hidden where it wouldn't be found quickly then blame it on the kidnapper.

The grand jury indicting is not a true bill. It is just an indictment. And many people are indicted and found not guilty. All it means is they think there may be enough to bring them to trial. Not that anyone is guilty.

 

[otg]

The grand jury indicting is not a true bill. It is just an indictment. And many people are indicted and found not guilty. All it means is they think there may be enough to bring them to trial. Not that anyone is guilty.

You need to look up some of the terms you're trying to use. A grand jury returns a true bill to the DA. It is up to the DA to decide whether or not to file charges (an indictment).

 

[otg]

How do you know that someone did bring a ransom note but the whole thing was to write it again there using their paper and pens so that it could not be traced to them? If they use tools in the house then nothing can be connected back to them.

I don't think she wrote the note. I believe someone wrote the note to make it look like she wrote the note.

No one tried to make the note look like Patsy's handwriting. It doesn't look like Patsy's handwriting. The handwriting experts who looked at the note looked for similarities in letters, spacing, wording, phrases, sentence structure -- things that people trying to disguise their handwriting might do which would indicate who might be the author -- call it a Freudian slip of the pen. The ransom note was written by Patsy trying to conceal her handwriting (IMO).

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You need to look up some of the terms you're trying to use. A grand jury returns a true bill to the DA. It is up to the DA to decide whether or not to file charges (an indictment).

And when they don't it must not be a true bill, Maybe..

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No one tried to make the note look like Patsy's handwriting. It doesn't look like Patsy's handwriting. The handwriting experts who looked at the note looked for similarities in letters, spacing, wording, phrases, sentence structure -- things that people trying to disguise their handwriting might do which would indicate who might be the author -- call it a Freudian slip of the pen. The ransom note was written by Patsy trying to conceal her handwriting (IMO).

That is your opinion. I have looked at the note and I think it looks like someone was copying someone elses handwriting.

It is much easier to conceal your handwriting than for it to look like your handwriting. One could easily write in block letter. This was someone trying to make it look like her. Not the other way around. OMO

 

[2 percent]

How do you know that someone did bring a ransom note but the whole thing was to write it again there using their paper and pens so that it could not be traced to them? If they use tools in the house then nothing can be connected back to them.

I don't think she wrote the note. I believe someone wrote the note to make it look like she wrote the note.

I don't.
But I'm sorry, that has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've heard so far. The most traceable thing about a handwritten note is the handwriting. Unless you wrote it on the rarest of papers that can be traced to one person who wrote with a pen so distinguishable it can be narrowed down to a single pen, you're safe.

Again with the improbable just to deflect from the Ramseys....

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't.
But I'm sorry, that has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've heard so far. The most traceable thing about a handwritten note is the handwriting. Unless you wrote it on the rarest of papers that can be traced to one person who wrote with a pen so distinguishable it can be narrowed down to a single pen, you're safe.

Again with the improbable just to deflect from the Ramseys....

It is possible. You may feel it is improbable that is fine but it is certainly possible.
Did the police not find the paper in the house the note was written on? Does that make sense? You are trying to fake a kidnapping so you go write the note on paper and then leave it there for them to find. Then they call the police to have them search the house.

If you are looking for a cover up its not there. They left too much that would point directly at them.
If they had done this and written the note the body would not have been there in the morning. They would have disposed of it.

If you are trying to cover something up you make a good effort you don't leave the body in your basement and call the police for them to find her. That right there is improbable.

 

[2 percent]

It is possible. You may feel it is improbable that is fine but it is certainly possible.
Did the police not find the paper in the house the note was written on? Does that make sense? You are trying to fake a kidnapping so you go write the note on paper and then leave it there for them to find. Then they call the police to have them search the house.

If you are looking for a cover up its not there. They left too much that would point directly at them.
If they had done this and written the note the body would not have been there in the morning. They would have disposed of it.

If you are trying to cover something up you make a good effort you don't leave the body in your basement and call the police for them to find her. That right there is improbable.

So your point is that the Ramsey's can't be guilty because they weren't efficient enough when the covered up the crime.
They haven't been charged, much less convicted, of any crime. Seems to me they were efficient enough.

As I stated in another post, I think they either ran out of time or just didn't want to touch JB's body. I don't think the body had to be disposed of for the Ramseys to be guilty. On the flip side, it totally makes sense that an intruder would leave the body of their kidnap victim behind....so if Patsy and John were trying to cover up a crime and blame it on kidnapping intruders who accidentally/purposefully killed JB they most certainly would leave her in the house.

Again, if you are trying to float the notion that you know your daughter was kidnapped but you don't know she's dead, you most certainly would leave the body where it is in a fairly hidden place. You have to call the police when there is a ransom note otherwise you look hinky, so calling the police was a must.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So your point is that the Ramsey's can't be guilty because they weren't efficient enough when the covered up the crime.
They haven't been charged, much less convicted, of any crime. Seems to me they were efficient enough.

As I stated in another post, I think they either ran out of time or just didn't want to touch JB's body. I don't think the body had to be disposed of for the Ramseys to be guilty. On the flip side, it totally makes sense that an intruder would leave the body of their kidnap victim behind....so if Patsy and John were trying to cover up a crime and blame it on kidnapping intruders who accidentally/purposefully killed JB they most certainly would leave her in the house.

Again, if you are trying to float the notion that you know your daughter was kidnapped but you don't know she's dead, you most certainly would leave the body where it is in a fairly hidden place. You have to call the police when there is a ransom note otherwise you look hinky, so calling the police was a must.

What I am saying is that it is possible and that intention has to play a part. If the intention is to point away from the the Ramseys, All they had to do was to make sure they destroyed or removed the paper from the house. Leaving it there for the police to find, is beyond ludicrous. Beyond reason.
If they did this horrible thing to her, touching the body would not have been any issue for them. If you can garrote your child you can basically do anything to them.

If you are trying to get the police to believe a kidnapping you get the body out of the house.
Calling the police is what everyone would do so that in itself has no bearing on the evidence IMO.

 

[Chrishope]

Thank you. I had basically found this out by looking at some of your other posts and then researching the fiber information but it was no where as detailed as this.

Thank you for that!

The fibers have meant nothing to me however you mentioned one that did not seem to belong? One that seemed not to have a source there?

Thanks!

There were tan fibers (some sources have them as brown) at the crime scene which could not be sourced - e.g. we don't know who's garments they came from.

However, it's only people who share the same house who's fibers are meaningless. If we could link the tan fibers to an actual intruder we'd have something, but to do that, at this point, would basically require finding the intruder first, at that point we really don't need the tan fibers.

Not that I think it was done by an intruder. I suspect the tan fibers are there from innocent transfer, possibly during the party? Of course they allow for spinning scenarios of a helper/intruder.

What I always find funny is that many RDIs will insist the red fibers mean PR made the garrotte, the black mean JR wiped her down (apparently with the sleeve of his Israeli shirt) yet they ignore the tan fibers. They are willing to treat some fibers as meaningless, but always the wrong ones.