IDI and RDI, what do they agree upon?

[WHITEFANG]

BTW, no one HERE will ever solve this crime. Not with the limited evidence we have access to. To quote Dr. Henry Lee on this specific case "Rice already cooked". By that he meant all the mistakes in procedure, and the contamination of the crime scene from the first moments LE arrived.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue a dialog (on both sides). Because one day, hopefully, something or someone WILL be made known- some new evidence to shine a light on this case. And then, there is a chance.[/QUOTE]

no one here will solve this crime? I beg your pardon? Speak for yourself

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

BTW, no one HERE will ever solve this crime. Not with the limited evidence we have access to. To quote Dr. Henry Lee on this specific case "Rice already cooked". By that he meant all the mistakes in procedure, and the contamination of the crime scene from the first moments LE arrived.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue a dialog (on both sides). Because one day, hopefully, something or someone WILL be made known- some new evidence to shine a light on this case. And then, there is a chance.

There are many assumptions made here, and thats probably got just as much to do with solving or not solving the case as does access to the evidence.

First off, we are not all on equal ground. Put simply, some of our theories are going to be better, or closer to the truth, than others. It doesn't depend exclusively on access to evidence. It also depends on perspective and information.

The light will start to go on for anyone who is able to recognize the huge difference between what we know happened and what we just think happened.

 

[madeleine]

Didn't know where to put this so here it goes.

PMPT,page 239

"CBI told the Boulder police that no prints had been found on the black duct tape that John Ramsey said he removed from his daughter's mouth.."


Isn't it weird,cause both JR and FW admit touching it.

 

[MurriFlower]

Didn't know where to put this so here it goes.

PMPT,page 239

"CBI told the Boulder police that no prints had been found on the black duct tape that John Ramsey said he removed from his daughter's mouth.."


Isn't it weird,cause both JR and FW admit touching it.

Perhaps they couldn't find an elephant in a broom closet either!

 

[Mysteeri]

I was merely curious about your location. Just ignore.

You did a very good job on this. Thanks for it. Can see the "rush" you refer to, as well. Disturbed is a good adjective for this *********. Would love to get my hands on him.

I`ve actually read John Karr`s writings to try and understand how a disturbed individual explains what happened that night (a sexual game gone wrong). I felt a bit disturbed myself..

SuperDave wrote:
"And they've already made their ruling: JB was alive when she was struck and continued to live, in deep shock, for anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour before she was strangled to death. Werner Spitz even said in these exact words: "someone took time to stage strangulation and sexual assault after she was unconscious." These people are on record in various places as saying this."

Quite a statement from Spitz, on what basis did he determine it was staging? The fact is that she was strangled and there were signs of sexual assault, staging is speculation.

Or am I missing something? This is soo frustrating, where is a list of the uncontroversial facts of this case? What did IDI and RDI agree upon again?

 

[BOESP]

... Quite a statement from Spitz, on what basis did he determine it was staging? The fact is that she was strangled and there were signs of sexual assault, staging is speculation. ...

I do not know Dr. Spitz but training in crime scene investigation often includes how to recognize staging and, certainly, crime scene reconstruction. When successfully trained, it is as easy to recognize staging as it is for a forensic pathologist to recognize ligature strangulation.

 

[BBB167893]

Super
Awesome stuff. Talk about determination! Amazing.

Thank you for your generosity. If nothing else, I do it so nobody else will have to do it.

Once blood vessels burst, blood begins to leak from them immediately. It occurs instantly and bruising is noticeable as the blood discolors and pools. Shock or not, there will be evidence that rupturing of her circulatory system took place.

There is. It all took place inside. The autopsy report speaks of extensive scalp hemorrhage.

 

[BBB167893]

"Rice already cooked", I like that one LOL. I also have done a bit of genealogical research and one thing I've come to realise is that despite the passage of time and the amount of evidence that is lost, sufficient evidence is usually still there and sometimes access to information actually improves with age. One example is that WWI service records are now on line (free), and these would not have been available 5-10 years ago.

At this point, the best thing I can come up with is to turn the case over to an independent special prosecutor. The investigation cannot be fixed. It's time to start over.

 

[BBB167893]

Can you tell us what the tax records say? If not, where can we find them? Do they itemize expenditures for legal costs? I wouldn't think so. Thanks

Your best bet is the Ramsey case archive at www.thesmokinggun.com

That's where I found it.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave wrote:
"And they've already made their ruling: JB was alive when she was struck and continued to live, in deep shock, for anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour before she was strangled to death. Werner Spitz even said in these exact words: "someone took time to stage strangulation and sexual assault after she was unconscious." These people are on record in various places as saying this."

Quite a statement from Spitz, on what basis did he determine it was staging?

Well, if the article he said this in is accurate at all, he conducted a series of forensic experiments. Plus, by that time he'd been involved with the investigation for a while and had access to autopsy findings through which he could apply his 30+ years of experience.

Or am I missing something?

Maybe.

 

[madeleine]

At this point, the best thing I can come up with is to turn the case over to an independent special prosecutor. The investigation cannot be fixed. It's time to start over.

ITA.Even if I think it's too late for this as well.It's been a long time,people forgot things,you can't check their alibis,if you interview them they probably don't remember much.Some of the evidence can't be tested anymore,some suspects are dead.And so on...

 

[BBB167893]

ITA.Even if I think it's too late for this as well.It's been a long time,people forgot things,you can't check their alibis,if you interview them they probably don't remember much.Some of the evidence can't be tested anymore,some suspects are dead.And so on...

True enough. It was a long shot at best. Problem is, I'm fresh out of ideas.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Perhaps they couldn't find an elephant in a broom closet either!

I`ve actually read John Karr`s writings to try and understand how a disturbed individual explains what happened that night (a sexual game gone wrong). I felt a bit disturbed myself..

SuperDave wrote:
"And they've already made their ruling: JB was alive when she was struck and continued to live, in deep shock, for anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour before she was strangled to death. Werner Spitz even said in these exact words: "someone took time to stage strangulation and sexual assault after she was unconscious." These people are on record in various places as saying this."

Quite a statement from Spitz, on what basis did he determine it was staging? The fact is that she was strangled and there were signs of sexual assault, staging is speculation.

Or am I missing something? This is soo frustrating, where is a list of the uncontroversial facts of this case? What did IDI and RDI agree upon again?

I do not know Dr. Spitz but training in crime scene investigation often includes how to recognize staging and, certainly, crime scene reconstruction. When successfully trained, it is as easy to recognize staging as it is for a forensic pathologist to recognize ligature strangulation.

Thank you for your generosity. If nothing else, I do it so nobody else will have to do it.

Absolutely, Super. Vince Lombardi would be impressed. Can't be much more dedicated than what you've described.

There is. It all took place inside. The autopsy report speaks of extensive scalp hemorrhage.

Super, don't try this! But, if a person takes a razor blade and cuts himself on his head, will it bleed onto the surface area of the skin/scalp where it would be visible?

 

[BBB167893]

Super, don't try this! But, if a person takes a razor blade and cuts himself on his head, will it bleed onto the surface area of the skin/scalp where it would be visible?

Relax, Fang. I have no intention of any further self-abuse.

As to your question, if someone were to be cut on the head, then yes, it would bleed onto the skin. But I fail to see the importance of that. JB's head was not cut open. It was what is called a closed head injury. The blood had no way out.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Just kidding Super. (Although we do seem to be driving you out of your mind!)



It would bleed because it was cut and.....

there are blood vessels present.

 

[BBB167893]

Just kidding Super. (Although we do seem to be driving you out of your mind!)

I'm glad you noticed, Fang.

It would bleed because it was cut and.....

there are blood vessels present.

Yes, I know that. But that doesn't really contraindicate me.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Super, is it your belief that JonBenet had very little or no observable bruising on her head?

 

[MurriFlower]

At this point, the best thing I can come up with is to turn the case over to an independent special prosecutor. The investigation cannot be fixed. It's time to start over.

I think HOTYH summed it up. I suspect that RDI would believe that the case needs more evidence, whereas IDI probably thinks it needs more investigation and based on this more evidence. In other words, there was not enough investigation on the alternative suspects to the R's. In fact, some people, who I would have thought were suspects, were apparently only asked some very superficial questions about themselves and their movements on the night, but were closely questioned about what they knew about the R's.

Again, I don't think we can prove a case against the killer, but there is probably enough evidence to come up with a scenario that leads to the solving of the case. If the authorities choose to take it from there is another question.

 

[BBB167893]

Super, is it your belief that JonBenet had no or very little observable bruising on her head?

Hang on a minute. You've spent the last few days telling me unequivocally that there wasn't. Now you're asking me if I believe it? I just don't get it!

Okay, let's take a different tack. The first page of my copy of the autopsy report specifically says "Scalp contusion." "Contusion" is medical-speak for a bruise. But when I read the section described as skull and brain, I notice that it mentions a few bruises on the brain itself. A scalp "hemorrhage" is mentioned specifically. Now, since a bruise is bleeding under the skin, and the hemorrhage itself is the only thing mentioned, could that be it? Since no one knew there was a head injury until the scalp was peeled back from the skull, there was no reason to check the exterior surface of the skull for any bruising. It's possible any bruising could have been hidden by JB's ponytailed hair.

Hmm...

 

[BBB167893]

I think HOTYH summed it up. I suspect that RDI would believe that the case needs more evidence, whereas IDI probably thinks it needs more investigation and based on this more evidence.

I can only speak for myself, MurriFlower. But for my money, it's not a question of needing more evidence; it's a question of having a DA in office who actually knows what to do with it.

In other words, there was not enough investigation on the alternative suspects to the R's. In fact, some people, who I would have thought were suspects, were apparently only asked some very superficial questions about themselves and their movements on the night, but were closely questioned about what they knew about the R's.

Again, I don't think we can prove a case against the killer, but there is probably enough evidence to come up with a scenario that leads to the solving of the case. If the authorities choose to take it from there is another question.

HOTYH said something else, and I agree with it completely: if it were up to me, I'd put together two investigative teams. One would focus on the Rs; the other would focus on everyone else.