Why would the Ramseys need to stage?

[Roy23]

Really? All sides? Do you believe that more unknown male DNA discovered on clothing JBR was wearing while she was being murdered somehow equates to less probability of intruder?

I only know of one other poster who believes the discovery of the waistband DNA reduced the significance of the crotch DNA. Should that be two posters?

I am anxiously waiting for a response to this. I, of course, can't prove my theory on this but I would be willing to bet big bucks that they have a lot more.

It stands to reason that unlike myself, RDI's seem to think that the BPD is not satisified on the intruder theory. It is the major reason that so many RDI's exist. But my signature line may suggest differently. So if the RDI's happen to be right, I would guess that many other tests would be performed to satisfy themselves to ML's statement. And they are in charge of the case so like I keep preaching, you have to think out of the box here. It would be very unlikely that after proving their theory right on the longjohns that the DNA would be limited to that area. And as such, any thoughts of transference would be eliminated right now. If they had their sights set on Ramsey, we would probably be aware of that too.

But I get that RDI's are gonna stick with what they have until the BPD tells them such. I have a feeling they will only find that out when a match is made public.

 

[BBB167893]

Really? All sides? Do you believe that more unknown male DNA discovered on clothing JBR was wearing while she was being murdered somehow equates to less probability of intruder?

It might, at that. It raises the possibility of JB transferring it to her own body. You can argue the reverse, too.

I only know of one other poster who believes the discovery of the waistband DNA reduced the significance of the crotch DNA. Should that be two posters?

Don't go putting words in my mouth.

He was talking with publishers and magazines while still holding a badge. There's all kinds of stories about Vanity Fair and leaks to the media.

I won't defend that, but let's not get issues confused here. There's PLENTY of blame to go around for everyone in that regard.

There's a very interesting deposition at acandyrose that has LW making mincemeat out of poor ST.

Well, that's certainly a matter of opinion.

The alleged tape recorded telephone conversations with Shapiro are a riot.

I haven't read those in a while.

I believe he had managed to settle out of court. Or his publisher did for undisclosed amount. Basically tail between legs.

I wonder about that. Something's just not right about the whole thing.

"I have just never heard of a detective writing a book when you have an ongoing case, a viable case in progress," Hunter said Sunday.

"This is just pure and simple blood money." But Thomas said writing the book was not about money. He called it "a story that should be told." However, Hunter said Sunday the book will damage Thomas' credibility as a witness if the case goes to trial.
"This guy is toast," the DA said. "I hope the public sees it for what it is."

Oh, well! HE's certainly a credible source! He takes the biggest ripping in the book out of anybody, and he brought ALL of it on himself. Yeah, I'd trust him about as far as I can throw an elephant by the trunk.

He's also got quite a set calling it a viable case. The point of writing the book was to show that it is NOT viable, mostly due to the DA's incompetence.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Oh, well! HE's certainly a credible source! He takes the biggest ripping in the book out of anybody, and he brought ALL of it on himself. Yeah, I'd trust him about as far as I can throw an elephant by the trunk.

He's also got quite a set calling it a viable case. The point of writing the book was to show that it is NOT viable, mostly due to the DA's incompetence.

The ad hominem argument of yours doesn't erase the concept of a detective or former detective writing a book about an ongoing investigation. I would probably understand a 10 year unsolved case, having former detectives or investigators turn into authors-for-profit, but that was not the case here. The murder investigation was only 2 or 3 years old, and as such was a viable case--meaning that it was a solvable case--so an investigator writing a book would be counterproductive ESPECIALLY if RDI. If you can't see this then I can't help you. Perhaps I would suggest some studies on criminal investigations and prosecution generally.

There is a precedent for former investigators turning into authors-for-profit (please spare me the public service bull#$@ as I can't throw that elephant either!). The precedent is the Monster of Florence unsolved serial killings. But I believe the book came years after at least one unsuccessful prosecution.

 

[BBB167893]

The ad hominem argument of yours doesn't erase the concept of a detective or former detective writing a book about an ongoing investigation.

I didn't say it did. I meant to do two things:

1) Consider the source

2) Provide some context

I would probably understand a 10 year unsolved case, having former detectives or investigators turn into authors-for-profit, but that was not the case here. The murder investigation was only 2 or 3 years old, and as such was a viable case--meaning that it was a solvable case--

From whose perspective? HOTYH, think about what you're saying here. If I had a choice between waiting 10 years and doing something that might make a difference while there was still a chance, I KNOW what choice I'd make. It's always better to do something, even if it's wrong, than to do nothing.

so an investigator writing a book would be counterproductive ESPECIALLY if RDI.

That much I'll agree with you on. You won't get any argument from me. Just because I understand it doesn't mean I endorse it.

If you can't see this then I can't help you.

I see it just fine, thanks.

Perhaps I would suggest some studies on criminal investigations and prosecution generally.

YOU would suggest? What do you think I've been doing?

There is a precedent for former investigators turning into authors-for-profit (please spare me the public service bull#$@ as I can't throw that elephant either!). The precedent is the Monster of Florence unsolved serial killings. But I believe the book came years after at least one unsuccessful prosecution.

I'll take your word for it.

 

[pistolina]

Really? All sides? Do you believe that more unknown male DNA discovered on clothing JBR was wearing while she was being murdered somehow equates to less probability of intruder?

I only know of one other poster who believes the discovery of the waistband DNA reduced the significance of the crotch DNA. Should that be two posters?

What I don’t understand is how this “intruder” was clever enough to be in the house for a few hours before the Rs got home and leave no DNA or evidence behind. But he/she wasn’t clever enough not to leave evidence directly on the victim?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I didn't say it did. I meant to do two things:

1) Consider the source

2) Provide some context

If only you would also do this with ST's book also.

The source: An embattled investigator, in major hot water for leaking information to publishers and subsequently resigned.

The context: profit

 

[Roy23]

If only you would also do this with ST's book also.

The source: An embattled investigator, in major hot water for leaking information to publishers and subsequently resigned.

The context: profit

I gotta agree with Holdon on this. I understand that the BPD was frustrated. But they were frustrated even with themselves internally as well. Steve Thomas has negatively affected this case in all respects.

 

[BBB167893]

If only you would also do this with ST's book also.

Be glad to. But let's do one thing at a time, shall we?

The source: An embattled investigator, in major hot water for leaking information to publishers and subsequently resigned.

True or not, an embattled investigator fed up with politics getting in the way of justice.

The context: profit

I just don't buy it, HOTYH. Not given what I have to work with, anyway. I think getting his view out was more important. I know what that's like.

 

[BBB167893]

I gotta agree with Holdon on this.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I figured you would.

I understand that the BPD was frustrated. But they were frustrated even with themselves internally as well.

I don't think frustrated is a strong enough word. And I think people should understand why.

Steve Thomas has negatively affected this case in all respects.

You may well be right. Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the course of action he took. What bothers me is:

1) This impulse to attribute the basest motives possible.

2) It's like no one will give him credit for what he did well: showing just how messed-up the DA's office was.

 

[DeeDee249]

The Rs wrote a book too, and that didn't change MY mind. People interested in the case should read all they can from both camps and come up with their own opinion. ST's book isn't the only one I read, and it is only a very small part of the total reading I have done on the case. His book didn't make me RDI. The Rs made me RDI. And I don't see what the big problem is with him writing a book anyway. Arndt planned to write one, too and she has had more negative impact on the case than many other LE involved because of her careless control over the crime scene.
So to discuss ST's book as far as whether it was ethical for him to write it adds nothing to this case. People will either read it or not, or agree or not. But no one should criticize ST unless they have read it. If you don't want to give him your $$$, get a copy at the library. Or do what I do- go to a bookstore with a cafe and grab an outrageously overpriced coffee drink and read it for free.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The Rs wrote a book too, and that didn't change MY mind. People interested in the case should read all they can from both camps and come up with their own opinion. ST's book isn't the only one I read, and it is only a very small part of the total reading I have done on the case. His book didn't make me RDI. The Rs made me RDI. And I don't see what the big problem is with him writing a book anyway. Arndt planned to write one, too and she has had more negative impact on the case than many other LE involved because of her careless control over the crime scene.
So to discuss ST's book as far as whether it was ethical for him to write it adds nothing to this case. People will either read it or not, or agree or not. But no one should criticize ST unless they have read it. If you don't want to give him your $$$, get a copy at the library. Or do what I do- go to a bookstore with a cafe and grab an outrageously overpriced coffee drink and read it for free.

Too bad the R's weren't officially assigned the responsibility investigating a child homicide. They were not given a badge.

It is wildly inappropriate and unethical for badge-carrying LE to profit from or elaborate on an ongoing murder investigation. I believe they have to resign/retire/quit first, and even then they can do irreparable harm.

The R's didn't have to quit anything to write a book. Ask yourself, why would a detective have to quit first to write a book?

 

[BBB167893]

Too bad the R's weren't officially assigned the responsibility investigating a child homicide. They were not given a badge.

That sure didn't stop him from trying to control the investigation. Also, let's not kid ourselves here, HOTYH. There are a whole lot of problems with their claims about where the proceeds from that book went.

It is wildly inappropriate and unethical for badge-carrying LE to profit from or elaborate on an ongoing murder investigation. I believe they have to resign/retire/quit first, and even then they can do irreparable harm.

Maybe so.

The R's didn't have to quit anything to write a book. Ask yourself, why would a detective have to quit first to write a book?

Okay, I'll bite. Why?

 

[cosmo44]

this one is really easy ... the brother did it. follow the brother. the mother knew, the father didn't. the brother did it. that is why the cover up.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

this one is really easy ... the brother did it. follow the brother. the mother knew, the father didn't. the brother did it. that is why the cover up.

What cover up? There was no cover up. Please provide proof of a coverup.

 

[UKGuy]

Another poster inspired me to create this poll.

You'll notice I didn't leave a "no" option. That's because I didn't want to leave any easy outs.

I guess it must be "other" since JonBenet's death was not premeditated. Staging is normally done to hide or obscure another crime.

I forget if I mentioned before that I think think that multiple staging took place, and its this that erroneously influences the accident theory making it appear plausible e.g. the "accident" is really staging with a different motive.

"Why would the Ramseys need to stage?" : So to convert one crime to look like another and evade suspicion for the former!


.

 

[UKGuy]

What cover up? There was no cover up. Please provide proof of a coverup.

Holdontoyourhat,

mmmm, have you read the original and initial statements made by the parents, you can track the coverup as they amend their statements to match the evidence.


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

mmmm, have you read the original and initial statements made by the parents, you can track the coverup as they amend their statements to match the evidence.


.

Your response is obviously vague to all but devout RDI because you've provided no examples and no proof of a coverup.

If there was proof JR or PR covered up, they'd have been tried.

I would suggest defining what you believe a coverup is. I believe it is a conspiracy where someone first consciously decides "hey, this was just an accident but it makes sense for it to appear as an FBI kidnapping and then as a Colorado capital murder. Why? Because we're RETARDED, thats why. We'll go ahead and write the note IN OUR OWN HANDWRITING, heck make it 1500 CHARACTERS LONG, tie some cord, break a paintbrush, and call it done."

Who ARE you kidding besides yourself?

 

[BBB167893]

Holdontoyourhat,

mmmm, have you read the original and initial statements made by the parents, you can track the coverup as they amend their statements to match the evidence.


.

Nothing vague about that!

 

[BBB167893]

If there was proof JR or PR covered up, they'd have been tried.

Sorry to butt in, HOTYH, but what exactly would they be tried for?

 

[UKGuy]

Your response is obviously vague to all but devout RDI because you've provided no examples and no proof of a coverup.

If there was proof JR or PR covered up, they'd have been tried.

I would suggest defining what you believe a coverup is. I believe it is a conspiracy where someone first consciously decides "hey, this was just an accident but it makes sense for it to appear as an FBI kidnapping and then as a Colorado capital murder. Why? Because we're RETARDED, thats why. We'll go ahead and write the note IN OUR OWN HANDWRITING, heck make it 1500 CHARACTERS LONG, tie some cord, and call it done."

Who ARE you kidding besides yourself?

Holdontoyourhat
Sometimes in life you have to hold your hands up and say I dont really know the answer to that question. So my response is vague , like ad-hominem vague or Holdontoyourhat cannot be bothered to read the evidence, so it is really obscure and vague, like irish mist?

Who ARE you kidding besides yourself?

I might develop the coverup as part of my RDI theory, but apart from terms like retarded, vague and kidding I would hope for a more constructive response.


.