Could Patsy's Cocktails Have Played A Part In Her Rage Attack?

[BBB167893]

but I don't see the RDI as a homogenous group, heck, SD had to go through a 'revelation' to arrive at his conclusions ....

We're not a monolithic group. I've tried to explain that in the past.

 

[JMO8778]

I've always been a devout democrat,and I don't go on wild claims or 'lynch mob mentality' as far as thinking the R's are guilty.(I think for myself,TYVM).The evidence shows they are,IMO,and I'm not about to dismiss it.
eta: I'm not saying other parties do,only that I'm aware of the dems that let the R's walk in this case.And I would never give them a pass based on party affiliation.(Nor would I go on wild claims if they were of another party).Guilt is guilt.And evidence is evidence.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hi Hotyh.


Gee, No. Serious. I guess it's how 'ya' see it?



Well, OK,
but I don't see the RDI as a homogenous group, heck, SD had to go through a 'revelation' to arrive at his conclusions ....

Hmmm, I guess that's it? .... the feeling that your opinion is dismissed, regardless? even with the 'concrete' conclusions arrived at through the latest interpretation of the touch dna evidence. But you've been able to creatively work through those constraints.

Twelvefold!*
*smile.

Sorry, not fully understanding your posts. I don't know what 'twelvefold' means in this context, or what 'constraints' you belive I'm under.

My opinions are dismissed, regardless. That much is a fact. The bit of information that PR misspelled 'advise' as 'advize' in both her right and left hand exemplars, as pointed out by myself and other IDI-ists, was DISMISSED, REGARDLESS of the fact that it was a genuine observation made years after the fact. Do you know how RDI casually dismissed this new information out-of-hand? By suddenly manufacturing a new story whereby PR 'deliberately' misspelled the word to 'throw off' investigators, who oddly never noticed.

The only rational explanation for 'advize' and 'advise' is that PR and the RN author are two different people. RDI has and will forever be in denial of the facts of this case, as demonstrated by quick fabrications to account for newly discovered evidence that favors IDI.

 

[DeeDee249]

Sorry, not fully understanding your posts. I don't know what 'twelvefold' means, or what 'constraints' you belive I'm under.

My opinions are dismissed, regardless. That much is a fact. The bit of information that PR misspelled 'advise' as 'advize' in both her right and left hand exemplars, as pointed out by myself and other IDI-ists, was DISMISSED, REGARDLESS of the fact that it was a genuine observation made years after the fact. Do you know how RDI casually dismissed this new information out-of-hand? By manufacturing a new story whereby suddenly PR 'deliberately' misspelled the word to throw off investigators, who oddly never noticed.

The only true, rational explanation for 'advize' and 'advise' is that PR and the RN author are two different people. RDI has and will forever be in denial of the facts of this case.

Your opinions (and those of other IDIs) are NOT dismissed. They are simply disagreed with. You have your opinions and RDIs have theirs. We are ALL entitled to them.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Your opinions (and those of other IDIs) are NOT dismissed. They are simply disagreed with. You have your opinions and RDIs have theirs. We are ALL entitled to them.

Well, I guess we'll agree to disagree then.

That PR wrote 'advize' isn't my 'opinion', it is a fact. RDI has to deal with that fact, whereas IDI does not.

How did RDI deal with that fact? My opinion is they quickly contrived an RDI suitable explanation in response to the evidence instead of tactfully conceding it as IDI favoring evidence.

 

[DeeDee249]

Well, I guess we'll agree to disagree then.

That PR wrote 'advize' isn't my 'opinion', it is a fact. RDI has to deal with that fact, whereas IDI does not.

How did RDI deal with that fact? My opinion is they quickly contrived an RDI suitable explanation in response to the evidence instead of tactfully conceding it as IDI favoring evidence.

We don't dispute she wrote it. We simply think she did it deliberately.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

We don't dispute she wrote it. We simply think she did it deliberately.

OK.

Just remember that the only new facts coming up these days are IDI, not RDI, and the only official remarks favor IDI, not RDI.

OR, was there an RDI official who said something that I missed?

Also please note that from this IDI, the 'deliberate misspelling' and the 'innocent transfer of DNA' to both JBR's fingernails and waistband are some really outlandish opinions, that stand in contrast to the latest news. You are of course entitled to them.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

:boohoo: Please, Holdon, eleven, do not play the victim card with me, all right? Can we at least keep it on a diginified level?

I try to educate, not attack.

Officials? ONE person with a history of favoritism towards them? No mystery THERE. There's a LOT more diversity of opinion on this forum than there has been in the DA's office these last six years, that's for damn sure.

ONE official vs. RDI's 'NONE' officials, I guess?

Or was there an official that has spoken in favor of RDI lately, that I missed?

BTW, the RDI explanations to new IDI facts that come along are clearly spontaneous fabrications without any corroboration. Is that what RDI calls an 'opinion'?

 

[JMO8778]

The only rational explanation for 'advize' and 'advise' is that PR and the RN author are two different people. RDI has and will forever be in denial of the facts of this case, as demonstrated by quick fabrications to account for newly discovered evidence that favors IDI.

so, based on your rationale,here's what we're supposed to believe,do I understand you correctly??

all RDI's: wow,Patsy spelled advise wrong in her sampler,so there's NO way she could have written the ransom note! NO possible way AT ALL!!

-----

That isn't good rationale.And you know what they say about overly bold,strong statements when taking a multiple-choice test...they're usually incorrect.
if it's too good to be true...then it probably isn't.

 

[GingBreade]

OK.

Just remember that the only new facts coming up these days are IDI, not RDI, and the only official remarks favor IDI, not RDI.

OR, was there an RDI official who said something that I missed?

Also please note that from this IDI, the 'deliberate misspelling' and the 'innocent transfer of DNA' to both JBR's fingernails and waistband are some really outlandish opinions, that stand in contrast to the latest news. You are of course entitled to them.

JBR's fingernail clippings had no bearing on DNA findings. Did they? Please show me otherwise!?

 

[BBB167893]

Your opinions (and those of other IDIs) are NOT dismissed. They are simply disagreed with. You have your opinions and RDIs have theirs. We are ALL entitled to them.

Well said.

ONE official vs. RDI's 'NONE' officials, I guess? Or was there an official that has spoken in favor of RDI lately, that I missed?

Actually, there WAS an official who spoke in favor of RDI, or at least against blind IDI: Michael Kane. And I wouldn't be surprised if you missed that. I almost did.

And don't try to deny that favoritism has been and continues to be a big problem in this case.

Just remember that the only new facts coming up these days are IDI, not RDI, and the only official remarks favor IDI, not RDI.

Yes, that's what happens when you wage the kind of legal terror campaign the Rs have. And I IMPLORE you, do NOT take my word for that. Ask Tricia. She knows a lot more about it than I do.

BTW, the RDI explanations to new IDI facts that come along are clearly spontaneous fabrications without any corroboration. Is that what RDI calls an 'opinion'?

Well, I don't know about that. I work darn hard to find corroboration, and I don't just whip stuff out of thin air. I weigh it out in my mind.

And when it comes to dismissing things, I think my mother said it best: people who live in glass houses... I went to a lot of trouble to bring LinasK back into the fold to answer some of your questions. I notice you have not taken advantage of that. That's just one thing I could mention.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well, I don't know about that. I work darn hard to find corroboration, and I don't just whip stuff out of thin air. I weigh it out in my mind.

Well, maybe you don't.

But whoever came up with 'oh, she deliberately misspelled 'advise' as 'advize' so nobody would suspect her,' and 'it made sense for her to do that,' literally whipped it out of thin air. It wasn't there before, and now its there. And later referred to it as 'an opinion' with tongue in cheek.

Sure, its an opinion. As arguments go, though, it is very weak because it has zero corroborating evidence. That weakness makes RDIs attempts at rationalizing new infomation seem somewhat transparent.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

JBR's fingernail clippings had no bearing on DNA findings. Did they? Please show me otherwise!?

From CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/09/jonbenet.dna/index.html

John Ramsey found his daughter's body in the basement of the family's Boulder, Colorado, home on December 26, 1996. She had been strangled and beaten. Testing in 1998 showed that DNA evidence found in the girl's underwear and beneath her fingernails was from an unidentified man and did not match anyone in the Ramsey family.

Tests conducted in March revealed that new DNA collected from a pair of long johns matched a sample previously taken from the child's panties.

Wow that is some nimble factory worker, able to deposit his DNA in two separate articles of clothing that coincidentally wind up on the same child! Oh, wait, the factory worker idea is OUT because it can't explain this new information, so we'll be needing a NEW story. How about JBR transferred this DNA to these places BY HERSELF? Yeah, thats what happened. That's my 'opinion' now.

 

[DeeDee249]

How many times do we have to go over this? Holdon, you are smarter that that. You know very well that was a false report and there was NO DNA found under her nails. The coroner used non-sterile clippers and that is WELL known. That alone would have any evidence found there rendered unusable. Yet it is brought up again and again.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

"You know very well that was a false report and there was NO DNA found under her nails. "

--DeeDee249

How many media sources do YOU need before it sinks in?

I've got plenty:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_...new_boulder_da_reexamining_jonbenet_rams.html

In July, Garnett's predecessor, Mary Lacy, issued a public apology for the suspicion surrounding the Ramsey family after a DNA test performed using new technology showed DNA found on JonBenet's underwear and under her fingernails belonged to an unidentified man.

Did you have any (even one) media report stating that there was 'no DNA' under JBR's fingernails? C'mon, you can do it. I know you can.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, maybe you don't.

It pleases me to know that you will will grant me that much.

But then again, I figure you know me well enough by now to know I'm a different breed of dog.

Did you have any (even one) media report stating that there was 'no DNA' under JBR's fingernails? C'mon, you can do it. I know you can.

To paraphrase a quote much in use these days, Yes, I can!

One quick caveat, though. I believe DeeDee249 has committed a slight overstatement. It's not proper to say that there was NO DNA under JBR's fingernails. We know there was some. I think what DeeDee meant to say is that there is serious doubt as to whether or not it is relevant to the case. So I will procede from that premise.

Okay. Now, I realize that CNN headline means a lot to you, Holdon, but remember all that stuff I said about the media in this case? Tricia can fill in THOSE blanks for you when she arrives, so we'll put that on hold for a while, except to say that there has been a strong effort by the Rs and their hired goons to portray it as being relevant.

It might interest you to know that when that story hit, two men were making the rounds on the talk shows selling that idea. Those two men were John St. Augustin and Ollie Gray, who just happen to be private "investigators" working for John Ramsey. In fact (and I DO mean fact), Augustin and Gray virtually created the idea that the DNA under the nails matches the DNA from the other areas. They first started claiming that in 2002 and it's taken legs since then, to where we have it repeated in that CNN story as if it were established fact. Since Lin Wood's legal terrorism campaign has basically shut down all debate over this case (except on these boards), they figure it must be true to report.

Okay, you probably just read that and thought to yourself, "even if I were to admit that could have happened, SD, where's your proof?" If so, have no fear. This is where the "Yes, I can" bit comes in:

In 2004, CBS, using Augustin and Gray as sources, reported that the nail DNA was a match to the other DNA found. Trouble is, that was news to the DA's office. So much so, that Tom Bennet, the DA's head investigator, made a rare public statement that such was not known to be the case, since only 2 markers were found in it.

Also, just to follow up on what DeeDee said about the unsterile clippers, in 2006, former DA Bill Wise said that not only was the unsterile clippers fact well known, but that nearly all of the instruments used to collect DNA at the autopsy were tainted. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7058989.html

That's as good a place as any to start.

How about JBR transferred this DNA to these places BY HERSELF? Yeah, thats what happened. That's my 'opinion' now.

Actually, Holdon, that one's been around for a while now. I can give you a little proof there, too. Bill O'Reilly did a piece on this. On his show, he had a criminologist to talk about DNA findings. And I won't forget one of the things she said: that DNA is the most transferable substance known, and the more sensitive testing methods get, the more likely they are to pick up transferences. So, it's not quite out of thin air.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

None of this explains the fact that the DNA found on JBR's long johns matches the DNA on her underwear, and that sent RDI SCRAMBLING FOR A NEW STORY.

The old story: 'innocent transfer from factory worker'
The new story: 'innocent transfer by JBR herself, from an unknown but presumed innocent source'

C'mon SD, how much BS can RDI hold before it explodes? Lets presume the DNA is from an innocent source, AND JBR moved it around herself. Thats two baseless, uncorroborated claims. Do you know what baseless, uncorroborated explanations are, in reality? They're called F-I-C-T-I-O-N.

Meanwhile, how is your RDI puzzle coming along. Are all the pieces fitting nicely?

 

[DeeDee249]

None of this explains the fact that the DNA found on JBR's long johns matches the DNA on her underwear, and that sent RDI SCRAMBLING FOR A NEW STORY.

The old story: 'innocent transfer from factory worker'
The new story: 'innocent transfer by JBR herself, from an unknown but presumed innocent source'

C'mon SD, how much BS can RDI hold before it explodes? Lets presume the DNA is from an innocent source, AND JBR moved it around herself. Thats two baseless, uncorroborated claims. Do you know what baseless, uncorroborated explanations are, in reality? They're called F-I-C-T-I-O-N.

Meanwhile, how is your RDI puzzle coming along. Are all the pieces fitting nicely?

Why yes, thank you. They are. Though of course it will take time. And we can do it without the sneering sarcasm that seems to be the particular tool used by IDIs, who have nothing else to fall back on. You know what sneering sarcasm and defensiveness are, in reality? K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E -OF -G-U-I-L-T.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Why yes, thank you. They are. Though of course it will take time. And we can do it without the sneering sarcasm that seems to be the particular tool used by IDIs, who have nothing else to fall back on. You know what sneering sarcasm and defensiveness are, in reality? K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E -OF -G-U-I-L-T.

Nothing? Really?

The DA says the R's are innocent.

The US Treasury Dept. says PR didn't write the note.

CNN and other media reports there's matching male DNA found on more than one item at the crime scene.

What have you been reading, besides the news?

BTW, what do you call those things on a puzzle where one piece fits into another on each side?

 

[BBB167893]

None of this explains the fact that the DNA found on JBR's long johns matches the DNA on her underwear, and that sent RDI SCRAMBLING FOR A NEW STORY.

The old story: 'innocent transfer from factory worker'
The new story: 'innocent transfer by JBR herself, from an unknown but presumed innocent source'

I hardly see where you can say I was scrambling. I knew about that interview for a while.

C'mon SD, how much BS can RDI hold before it explodes?

That question is beneath me.

Lets presume the DNA is from an innocent source, AND JBR moved it around herself.

Fine by me.

Thats two baseless, uncorroborated claims.

No shortage of those. As my mother always said, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Do you know what baseless, uncorroborated explanations are, in reality? They're called F-I-C-T-I-O-N.

I see. When I do it, it's called fiction. When a bunch of hired goons do it, it's called fighting for justice, is that about right?

Meanwhile, how is your RDI puzzle coming along. Are all the pieces fitting nicely?

Quite nicely, thank you.