Henry Lee's comment on the Touch DNA

[KoldKase]

Holdon, you're proving the point of RDI's. There are a lot of unexplained elements to this staging.

It doesn't make sense that an intruder came in and "staged" a kidnapping. But the ransom note is clearly A STAGED ELEMENT TO IMPLY A KIDNAPPING.

Why was the tape put on the child AFTER SHE WAS UNCONSCIOUS? Unless you are trying to argue that JonBenet, still conscious, dribbled saliva down the right side of her face at some point prior to having duct tape applied by the person(s) staging the kidnapping, but didn't bother to fight him while he stuck a paintbrush up her vagina and painfully injuried her, tied on the garrote and cut off her breath.

No, it doesn't make sense in any INTRUDER scenario. It makes NO SENSE that an intruder who spent hours in the home doing all the time-consuming and violent things the IDIs claim he did wouldn't have feared being caught at some point by any of three people sleeping in the quiet house. He could not possibly have anticipated that the child wouldn't scream and fight when being stun gunned and strangled, violently molested and bludgeoned. All after quietly eating pineapple at the table with him?

We will never know what brought on the incongruous events and activities of that night, but we do know they took time and thought and violent action. The overkill, the staging of the long, practiced ransom note and the duct tape and hand wrists, the redressing of the body and placement of it wrapped with a blanket in the cellar room, the digestion of the pineapple proving JonBenet ate it at home within an hour or more of her murder, the ferocious manner in which the Ramseys obstructed the investigation from that first day--all of this implicates the Ramseys, IMO.

The Ramseys are the only people in 12 years who have been proven to have means and opportunity. I believe they also had motive: whether an accidental headblow started it all THAT NIGHT, a sibling fight, or some other pathology existed in the family about which we don't know, we do know JonBenet had vaginal injuries which were inflicted before that night. Explain those and you will be close to knowing WHO and WHY.

 

[KoldKase]

Double post on the last one somehow. Sorry.

 

[UKGuy]

Holdon, you're proving the point of RDI's. There are a lot of unexplained elements to this staging.

It doesn't make sense that an intruder came in and "staged" a kidnapping. But the ransom note is clearly A STAGED ELEMENT TO IMPLY A KIDNAPPING.

Why was the tape put on the child AFTER SHE WAS UNCONSCIOUS? Unless you are trying to argue that JonBenet, still conscious, dribbled saliva down the right side of her face at some point prior to having duct tape applied by the person(s) staging the kidnapping, but didn't bother to fight him while he stuck a paintbrush up her vagina and painfully injuried her, tied on the garrote and cut off her breath.

No, it doesn't make sense in any INTRUDER scenario. It makes NO SENSE that an intruder who spent hours in the home doing all the time-consuming and violent things the IDIs claim he did wouldn't have feared being caught at some point by any of three people sleeping in the quiet house. He could not possibly have anticipated that the child wouldn't scream and fight when being stun gunned and strangled, violently molested and bludgeoned. All after quietly eating pineapple at the table with him?

We will never know what brought on the incongruous events and activities of that night, but we do know they took time and thought and violent action. The overkill, the staging of the long, practiced ransom note and the duct tape and hand wrists, the redressing of the body and placement of it wrapped with a blanket in the cellar room, the digestion of the pineapple proving JonBenet ate it at home within an hour or more of her murder, the ferocious manner in which the Ramseys obstructed the investigation from that first day--all of this implicates the Ramseys, IMO.

The Ramseys are the only people in 12 years who have been proven to have means and opportunity. I believe they also had motive: whether an accidental headblow started it all THAT NIGHT, a sibling fight, or some other pathology existed in the family about which we don't know, we do know JonBenet had vaginal injuries which were inflicted before that night. Explain those and you will be close to knowing WHO and WHY.

KoldKase.
Excellent demolition of the IDI position. I doubt the headblow is accidental, its force and ferocity extends beyond that of any standard domestic accident. That the skull injury fits the outline of the flashlight may not be accidental, it may represent a first attempt at staging? If you are going to stage a kidnapping and murder, whacking victims on the skull, seems to be an indeterminate method?

.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

RDI states there was never any kidnapping. The murder was staged to look like kidnappers were going to kidnap JBR but murdered her instead for whatever reason. Maybe the R's thought three fake intruders would be seen as unable to kidnap a small child and would have to murder her instead. The brutality was thrown in to steer away from the parents. They'd brutally bash her head, run the garrote deep into her neck, and then 'wrap her lovingly'. Makes no sense, but anyway...

RDI believes then that the crime scene was deliberately staged by the parents to appear as follows:

A ransom kidnapping by three people was botched, and so they brutally murdered her instead.

or

A ransom kidnapping by three people ended with the brutal murder of JBR, when their demands were not met.

Is there a final answer for RDI here? Is one of these the actual position for RDI now, in 2008?

 

[angelwngs]

No........... It is very posible that, given JR's lack of verbal, physical and emotional contact with PR on the morning of the 26th, that he knew when he read the RN that things were not right with this picture. Then upon searching the house that morning, he found where PR had hidden JB and he moved her out into the open area of the cellar for the LE to find her. When he realized it wasn't going to happen that way, he had to do it himself.



It very well could have been PR's original intent to dispose of the body away from the home but ultimately she realized it was too risky and changed plans in midstream. Ironically, the whole insane botched kidnapping which ended in murder scenerio ended up working quite nicely for PR anyway. Didn't it???

And that's just one of about a dozen logical theories that can easily work in which the R's are guilty as _ _ _ _. I have yet to be able to myself, nor have I seen an IDI come up with one single IDI theory which is logical, and incoorporates and fits all of the evidence.

 

[DeeDee249]

Wasn't there a phone call 'between 8 and 10 AM'? And wouldn't that have to be the intruder, using the reasoning you've used here?

I'm sorry, but not only can you not source the receipt amounts, nor prove that cord and that tape sold for that amount, nor prove that those amounts that appeared on a receipt in fact were those items. Remember there is no trace of the 'recent' purchase anywhere, nor is there any use of the same cord or tape anywhere in the house.

RDI can't turn the fact that the cord and tape are not sourced to the house into 'they were bought for innocent purposes'. You simply have zero evidence that is the case. Had the cord or tape shown up someplace else in the house, then RDI wouldn't need to fabricate or imagine that they were bought for innocent purposes, because then it would've been an actual fact.

The receipt exists, it isn't theory. It has several items on it, and two of them match in price and department to the exact type of cord and tape found on the body, which McGuckin's sold. They did sell for that amount, so I am not sure what you mean. I don't have to prove it. LE already has.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The receipt exists, it isn't theory. It has several items on it, and two of them match in price and department to the exact type of cord and tape found on the body, which McGuckin's sold. They did sell for that amount, so I am not sure what you mean. I don't have to prove it. LE already has.

Thats a joke.

If LE had proven the cord and tape belonged to the R's, then why is it widely reported that neither were sourced to them? LE has proven no such thing. Where do you get this stuff?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No........... It is very posible that, given JR's lack of verbal, physical and emotional contact with PR on the morning of the 26th, that he knew when he read the RN that things were not right with this picture. Then upon searching the house that morning, he found where PR had hidden JB and he moved her out into the open area of the cellar for the LE to find her. When he realized it wasn't going to happen that way, he had to do it himself.



It very well could have been PR's original intent to dispose of the body away from the home but ultimately she realized it was too risky and changed plans in midstream. Ironically, the whole insane botched kidnapping which ended in murder scenerio ended up working quite nicely for PR anyway. Didn't it???

And that's just one of about a dozen logical theories that can easily work in which the R's are guilty as _ _ _ _. I have yet to be able to myself, nor have I seen an IDI come up with one single IDI theory which is logical, and incoorporates and fits all of the evidence.

Changed staging plans midstream? Parents staged a kidnapping at first, and then midstream changed to botched kidnapping turned brutal murder?

 

[JMO8778]

Wasn't there a phone call 'between 8 and 10 AM'? And wouldn't that have to be the intruder, using the reasoning you've used here?

nope,no phone call.the time came and went,without the R's so much as giving it a passing glance.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

nope,no phone call.the time came and went,without the R's so much as giving it a passing glance.

Thats not what I read. The phone rang several times. How do you know the phone never got a 'passing glance'? Were you there? Did you speak to someone who was there, that stated the R's paid no attention to the phone?

What is this passing glance stuff besides fiction?

 

[KoldKase]

KoldKase.
Excellent demolition of the IDI position. I doubt the headblow is accidental, its force and ferocity extends beyond that of any standard domestic accident. That the skull injury fits the outline of the flashlight may not be accidental, it may represent a first attempt at staging? If you are going to stage a kidnapping and murder, whacking victims on the skull, seems to be an indeterminate method?

.

Well, I included that because I do not eliminate Burke as a factor in this crime. If he, not quite 10 years old, struck the headblow deliberately in a sibling altercation, he still was too young to form intent and therefore the act would legally be an accident.

But that's just one theory. The evidence is such that I can see a variety of possibilities as to who did what and why. At least, with the evidence I know about....

 

[JMO8778]

Thats not what I read. The phone rang several times. How do you know the phone never got a 'passing glance'? Were you there? Did you speak to someone who was there, that stated the R's paid no attention to the phone?

WERE YOU?

NO PHONE CALL EVER CAME FROM ANY KN.That is a FACT.Are you to have us believe a KN called and didn't say anything? what would be the point? no KN would come in,kill his intended target,leave her there..and then call.without the intended victim,there is no reason for further interaction.
It's obvious you're just playing the 20 q game in an attempt to annoy us.

 

[UKGuy]

WERE YOU?

NO PHONE CALL EVER CAME FROM ANY KN.That is a FACT.Are you to have us believe a KN called and didn't say anything? what would be the point? no KN would come in,kill his intended target,leave her there..and then call.without the intended victim,there is no reason for further interaction.
It's obvious you're just playing the 20 q game in an attempt to annoy us.

JMO8778,

20 q game

Have you counted?

Questions are not evidence.



.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

WERE YOU?

NO PHONE CALL EVER CAME FROM ANY KN.That is a FACT.Are you to have us believe a KN called and didn't say anything? what would be the point? no KN would come in,kill his intended target,leave her there..and then call.without the intended victim,there is no reason for further interaction.
It's obvious you're just playing the 20 q game in an attempt to annoy us.

True, no call came. Did I state there was, and present it as fact? No. Did you state the R's never gave the phone a 'passing glance' and state it as fact? Yes. Why? Are we not dealing in the truth here?

 

[KoldKase]

RDI states there was never any kidnapping. The murder was staged to look like kidnappers were going to kidnap JBR but murdered her instead for whatever reason. Maybe the R's thought three fake intruders would be seen as unable to kidnap a small child and would have to murder her instead. The brutality was thrown in to steer away from the parents. They'd brutally bash her head, run the garrote deep into her neck, and then 'wrap her lovingly'. Makes no sense, but anyway...

RDI believes then that the crime scene was deliberately staged by the parents to appear as follows:

A ransom kidnapping by three people was botched, and so they brutally murdered her instead.

or

A ransom kidnapping by three people ended with the brutal murder of JBR, when their demands were not met.

Is there a final answer for RDI here? Is one of these the actual position for RDI now, in 2008?

Actually, I believe you just repeated John Ramsey's own stated beliefs about the murder. Though I don't think he pushed that it was "three men", only that an intruder did one of the above. And Smit threw in the "pedophile's dream", which was a great help to the intruder cause, of course.

So how illogical is it that we think this is what the Ramseys WANTED people to believe? It's what they told us, repeatedly. You nailed it almost verbatim. It's what the ransom note certainly was written to convey.

But there is the problem of neither the child nor the BODY being taken. And the long ransom note. Practiced and then rewritten...IN the home. Some kidnapping.

Are you arguing that three kidnappers actually came into the house, couldn't manage getting a 45 lb., six year old little girl out one of several doors they passed, so instead took her to the basement, stopping of course to munch on some pineapple along the way, then hanging out for an hour or so as she digested it; after which they then molested and murdered her in the basement, without her so much as screaming or fighting as she was brutalized, strangled and bludgeoned; then they spent time staging the body with loose wrist ties, duct taping the mouth after she was unconscious...wiping her down, redressing her, wrapping her in her blanket, then writing a ransom note with intimate family knowledge just to kill time and/or make some "point" to John Ramsey. And these three kidnappers--or even one intuder--did all this without leaving more than a few cells of DNA anywhere in the home or making a sound or waking up any of three people who normally could hear each other pee in the night? And not one neighbor heard or saw anyone coming or going? Unless you believe the neighbor who thought he saw JAR?

Yeah, that makes lots more sense than following the evidence: it ALL leads back to the home and the three remaining people known to be in it that night.

 

[JMO8778]

John seems to have changed his position on the lone-intruder theory..he stated 'they' on Oprah.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Have you counted?

Questions are not evidence.



.

I know,UK,he's just trying to give us the runaround.I should probably just put him on ignore.feeding a troll is like fueling the latest gas crisis.it gets no one anywhere.

 

[KoldKase]

John seems to have changed his position on the lone-intruder theory..he stated 'they' on Oprah.

You know, now that you mention it, you're right. John did go back to "they" when discussing the "killers". I noticed it at the time, thinking oh, back to the foreign faction?

My favorite part of that interview was when John had a little "oops" moment: he stated when you have a PREMEDITATED criminal, he'll do it again so you have to get him off the street by having the national DNA database. The implication, of course, is that John's daughter's killer has NOT done it again in 12 years, so...NOT A PREMEDITATED CRIME. In light of the evidence in this case, it's pretty clear that if John doesn't believe the murder was premeditated, he must know it was not an intruder. That would make also mean he believes it to be manslaughter or accidental. What intruder "accidently" stranges a child to death? And how could John know?

 

[JMO8778]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat
Thats not what I read. The phone rang several times. How do you know the phone never got a 'passing glance'? Were you there? Did you speak to someone who was there, that stated the R's paid no attention to the phone?

True, no call came. Did I state there was, and present it as fact? No. Did you state the R's never gave the phone a 'passing glance' and state it as fact? Yes. Why? Are we not dealing in the truth here?

I'll let you read your own post and decide that.

But as for no call,from Steve Thomas' book,Jonbenet,p.27...

"Ten o'clock came and went.Detective Arndt thought it strange that no one,including the Ramsey's,seemed to pay any attention to the deadline".

"Why would parents desperate to contact their child not assume it meant the current day?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arndt lost track of JR during this time.What innocent parent wouldn't be screaming at the top of their lungs for LE to DO something...anything.. when the call doesn't come?? Instead,the R's just shrugged it off.

 

[JMO8778]

You know, now that you mention it, you're right. John did go back to "they" when discussing the "killers". I noticed it at the time, thinking oh, back to the foreign faction?

My favorite part of that interview was when John had a little "oops" moment: he stated when you have a PREMEDITATED criminal, he'll do it again so you have to get him off the street by having the national DNA database. The implication, of course, is that John's daughter's killer has NOT done it again in 12 years, so...NOT A PREMEDITATED CRIME. In light of the evidence in this case, it's pretty clear that if John doesn't believe the murder was premeditated, he must know it was not an intruder. That would make also mean he believes it to be manslaughter or accidental. What intruder "accidently" stranges a child to death? And how could John know?

good point !!