IDI: Whats your problem?

[DeeDee249]

MurriFlower, I believe in this interview, the tissue being referred to is toilet tissue, not boxed tissue (Kleenex, Puffs). Also, I think the tissue that DeeDee is referring to is boxed tissue in another interview. I could be wrong about that so I will check and see if I can find the interview where it is discussed.
Becky

Yes, there is boxed tissue mentioned somewhere else. Thanks for trying to find it.

 

[WHITEFANG]

OMG! Right on every point!

now you're cooking

 

[WHITEFANG]

"Many parental homicides of children are committed by parents who show signs of love and no evidence of abuse." OneLove

Perfect example. Ready? Watch this. OneLove, would you list 50 examples to back-up your statement?

On your mark
Get set
Go girl

She will not reference 10, guaranteed. Instead, she will say something like this. "Oh you poor thing. I recognize your type. When you achieve the heights of revelation as I and a few other chosen ones have, do come back and tell us about it. Until then, my beloved, try to get centered. You have a very long way to go before you are ready to approach the likes of me with incomprehensible questions that prove you are but a babe in the woods on the path to enlightenment like I have achieved. Check your conscience and rid yourself of all logic and reason and the guilt you carry from previous lives spent in contentious relationships."

Say what?

Just watch.

Name 10 others who showed no signs of abuse and no lack of love who committed "parental homicide."

..........................................................................................................

Thank you.

 

[WHITEFANG]

No, because the police acted in good faith. And for the record, LE did not apologize. Their buddy the lady DA did, after she's spent the last eight years going to the mat for them in the most unprofessional ways, and I'm happy to list some of them for you!

That is bologna. Good faith? The leaks, for example, showed good faith? Plus, they were professionals and as such had to perform to a standard higher than your average bear. They looked into someone's eyes and convicted him of murder. The Keystone Cops, Detective Clouseau and Tinkerbell would have embarrassed these birdbrains.

 

[WHITEFANG]

and in the following post



"Rigor mortis, or postmortem stiffening and contraction of all muscles, usually occurs three or more hours after death and can last for approximately 36–48 hours in temperate climates and about 9–12 hours in tropical temperatures."

I just think this is a pretty wide range to have pinpointed her time of death so precisely. Time of death is calculated by many factors, so I was wondering if there was an actual time pinpointed by the Medical Examiner who examined her at, was it 2pm or 3pm?




"The proximal portion of the small intestine contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparently vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple"

Digestion times can vary according to where you get your information: http://www.spice-of-life.com/columns/foodCombining.html

ACID
Grapefruit
Lemon
Lime
Orange
Pineapple
Pomegranate
Strawberry
Tangerine
Tomato

Melons: 5 to 10 minutes
Acid: 20 to 30 minutes
Sub Acid: 30 to 40 minutes
Sweet: 40 to 60 minutes



Just drawing your attention, not intending to suggest either blindness or stupidity. I think you've been known to bold in an attempt to get your message over as well?

When I was 5, I was stealing steaks out of my parents padlocked freezer, throwing them onto a frying pan and having a feast. I was a poor, slovenly, slow, dimwitted lad and if I could do all that, Joni could get herself some grub, too. FANGS

 

[WHITEFANG]

"I'm starting to think I'm not communicating with anybody, HOTYH."

SuperDave is under attack? Please.

It's a common-sense observation based on what we have to work with.[/QUOTE]

No panic driven, adrenaline-fueled attempt to resuscitate or to get her medical attention? Just a frantic effort to cover their fannies?

 

[cynic]

Yes, there is boxed tissue mentioned somewhere else.

LOU SMIT: Do you know if JonBenet would ever get up in the middle of the night to eat these things?
JOHN RAMSEY: I don't think so. Not -- no.
DAVID WILLIAMS: Was that fresh? pineapple?
JOHN RAMSEY: No. But, no, that would be, certainly not a glass that with a teabag in it. It absolutely doesn't make any sense for the kids to have left that there.
LOU SMIT: Well we can come back to that later. I do want to talk about that a little bit later. You 5 got any more questions?
MIKE KANE: No.
JOHN RAMSEY: But, I mean, it's strange.It doesn't (INAUDIBLE).
LOU SMIT: This is also another picture, picture 416, which also shows the same bowl, only it shows the gingerbread house, and there's some Kleenex on there and things of that nature. So I don't know. Is that the gingerbread house that the children were making?
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. It looks like it. This was like in -- Patsy would know. I'm not sure why a Kleenex box is there either. That's not normal for a Kleenex box.
LOU SMIT: What do you say about that?
JOHN RAMSEY: Well, I guess it doesn't belong on the kitchen table. I don't know where it came from, but that's now it aught to be.
LOU SMIT: Well, I'm sure that Patsy is going to be asked the same question. Maybe she remembers more on this or not. Is it possible that that could have been left out, maybe because to be (INAUDIBLE)?
JOHN RAMSEY: I doubt it very much.
LOU SMIT: Whey do you say that?
JOHN RAMSEY: Well, we were leaving town the next morning. We would be gone nearly for a week and a half. I've never seen a teabag left in a glass like that in our house. I know we're not the neatest people in the world, but I don't think we'd have left an open bowl of fruit sitting on the kitchen table.
1998 Interview

and

TRIP DeMUTH: What about that box of Kleenex that's on the table?
PATSY RAMSEY: No.
TRIP DeMUTH: Is that supposed to be there?
PATSY RAMSEY: Not really, no, I don't think so.
TRIP DeMUTH: Do you know where that came from, where that's supposed to be?
PATSY RAMSEY: No. I mean, I had Kleenex around, usually in the kitchen, with a box in the bathroom.
TRIP DeMUTH: Was there a box of Kleenex in that dining room at all?
PATSY RAMSEY: I just -- not that I remember. It's unusual that Kleenex would be there.
TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. Got a blue, green floral pattern on the box. Does that go to a particular room?
PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't, I don't remember that box.
TRIP DeMUTH: When you say you don't remember that box, what does that mean?
PATSY RAMSEY: I mean, I don't remember that particular box, that design of that box of Kleenex.
TRIP DeMUTH: That could be your box of Kleenex, though, from somewhere in the house?
PATSY RAMSEY: It could be, but I don't remember. Usually I buy those little square boxes.
TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.
PATSY RAMSEY: Because they just fit places better.
1998 Interview

 

[WHITEFANG]

"Allow me to elaborate: with the fibers, we KNOW the people who wore those clothes was there that night. We KNOW they can't account for them (in some instances, " SUPERDAVE


Hold it, right there. What does it prove if people who wore clothing with fibers "consistent with" were there that night?

 

[WHITEFANG]

Not to change the subject or anything, but I was wondering if anybody has any comments on the level and type of anger displayed in the ransom note. That is, anger on the part of the author at the time it was written. Is there a clue?

He was toying with them. He was a sadistic, sexually perverted, mad man who loved to hate and torture and humiliate. He was a sick and a deviant predator. He took great pleasure in exercising total control over others who couldn't retaliate. Possessed is a good word. Possessed by pure evil.
If ever there was an example of the influence of real evil, this is it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No panic driven, adrenaline-fueled attempt to resuscitate or to get her medical attention? Just a frantic effort to cover their fannies?

Hmm...

...get her medical attention for the 'little accident',

OR

...make it look like a capital murder, handwrite a kidnapping note so the FBI gets brought in, and use stuff from the kitchen, pantry, basement.

Decisions decisions.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

He was toying with them. He was a sadistic, sexually perverted, mad man who loved to hate and torture and humiliate. He was a sick and a deviant predator. He took great pleasure in exercising total control over others who couldn't retaliate. Possessed is a good word. Possessed by pure evil.
If ever there was an example of the influence of real evil, this is it.

On the other hand, people raised in a climate of violence, who have needed to kill to survive, whose life has been a constant struggle, where there is constant turmoil and a 'dog eat dog' mentality, would find little difficulty in killing and abusing a child.

Finally we're getting somewhere.:woohoo:

 

[BBB167893]

Yet SuperDave said if the DNA was matched to a suspect it would be case closed.

Just so we're all crystal clear on this, here's what I said:

if the DNA is matched to a suspect, he might as well change his address to prison. BUT--and this is where it gets tricky--if a suspect is captured and his DNA doesn't match, then by IDI standards, you'd have to let him go, because IDI has put all of their eggs in the DNA basket, as it were. Whereas madeleine is taking a very practical approach. Even if the DNA truly is useless, that doesn't kill IDI in the cradle. They could still make a case using older investigative techniques, which I believe were not given enough weight in this case. By making the DNA out to be the dealmaker or -breaker, IDI has painted themselves into the proverbial corner. It's either the clincher or it isn't. It can't be both.

From a personal standpoint, this case illustrates perfectly the overreliance on technology all to prevalent in police work now, along with the misunderstanding that too many people have about it. Cynic posted to that effect a while ago, and he's absolutely right. A few night ago, I was having trouble sleeping, so I was flipping through the channels and I came upon FOXNews. The show had on Dr. Michael Baden, a well-known forensic pathologist. He wasn't talking about this case specifically, but he said a few things that resonated with me. He described the evolution of police work from the time he became a pathologist to the present day, and it bothered him a little bit. Back 40 someodd years ago, the police mantra was "we have to get him in 48 hours or we'll never get him." That meant shoe-leather, a LOT of it. Running down leads, canvassing neighborhoods, etc., etc. Now, they just wait for lab results.

Forensic technology is invaluable, but it's no replacement for good old-fashioned legwork. You can't discard the old techniques. Don't forget: at one time, the old techniques were all police had.

Madeleine has ably illustrated the way the police botched the initial hours of the investigation. But those intials problems could still have been overcome by some good old-fashioned police work: throwing the Rs in jail to see if they would confess, planting informants in the cells with them, tapping their phones, planting bugs in their house, in their cars, interviewing suspects and witnesses within the first few days, bringing in forensic specialists when they still had JB's body, coordinating with the Feds instead of slapping away the helping hand...

The police WANTED to do ALL of the things I've just listed above. The FBI, the gov't lawyers they hired, the other police agencies they worked with--they all TOLD them to do those things. Who shot the ideas down? The DA's office, that's who.

I realize most here don't hold ST in much esteem. Even for me, the shine has gone off that apple. But I think he said it best: when the police lost control of the crime scene, they made a big mistake. When the DA's office became more interested in protecting their image (and that of the town) than serving justice, they made a bigger one.

The police can't enforce laws that don't exist. And the DA's office? They're just a symbol of how the American legal system has gone off the rails.

 

[BBB167893]

There's evidence for this and there's evidence for that. One thing there is evidence of is JR/PR love for JBR. Its unfortunate for RDI that no evidence of non-love or abuse has been accepted into the pool of evidence.

There are a few reasons for that.

Takes the wind out of RDI's sails.

I'm afraid not. Plenty of people have killed the ones they love. Isn't that how the old saying goes? "You always hurt the ones you love?"

 

[BBB167893]

What I meant by IDI doesn't play by the rules, is that if an intruder was responsible, he might not use a 'store bought, Government approved' stun gun, nor might he use it in an 'approved' way. I'm thinking that a home made or modified 'stun gun' in the hands of this intruder would not be for the purpose of 'defence' but designed purely to 'disable'. Therefore I think that saying that you have 'proven' it's not possible by trying an Air Taser on yourself doesn't cover what I'm referring to.

Check!

No, as I said, I am trying to be flexible and consider all the options. I can't paste the picture I enhanced of the marks here, but they do appear to be like burns (at least the largest of the two) with a square outer ring, darker inner area and a lighter central point. At least, what I'm seeing isn't an even mark like a bruise, nor is it round like a cigarette burn. It is also quite different from the face mark.

Couldn't say. I know Werner Spitz mentioned a shape inside the marks.

 

[BBB167893]

It is critically important but if you guys doubt it, you must have good reasons.

You bet!

You know what? The perp cannot be Patsy; because when he is apprehended, I have something to give him.

And punk, if you read this website, just remember, we will catch you. If it takes 40 more years, just know beyond any doubt, you are ours and at any moment you will be snagged. They will catch you and you will beg God to kill you, and you won't be able to die. I promise. Any moment. Watch, listen. You are done.

You mind if I join you? I'll take some of that action!

 

[BBB167893]

???

In no way does it refute RDI.

It also is NOT "incontrovertible evidence in support of IDI".

It is what it is.

There are possible explanations for it being there in either RDI or IDI.

All law enforcement officials from every agency know this and all attornies from both a defendent and prosecutorial position know this.

Since this is STILL an unsolved crime, imagination is used in EVERY possible scenario. One of them, and ONLY one of them, is the truth. It could be ANY of them at this point in time.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[BBB167893]

Finding unidentified male DNA in several places in the underwear of a murder victim who has been sexually abused in the course of the murder is "incontrovertible evidence in support of IDI".

That assumes that it was an intended murder and the sexual attack was done for gratification. Indeed, one has to assume all of that in order for the DNA to have any value. Thus the problem.

Possible explanations so far put forth by RDI are too imaginative to be taken seriously.

Sadly, MurriFlower, if the statements of the criminologists are anything to go by, not only are they not too imaginative, they become more likely as testing methods become more sensitive.

 

[BBB167893]

Dont take my word for it. Ask Super if evidence of prior abuse accepted into the evidence pool would help RDI's case. My guess is yes.

You guess correctly.

 

[DeeDee249]

"Allow me to elaborate: with the fibers, we KNOW the people who wore those clothes was there that night. We KNOW they can't account for them (in some instances, " SUPERDAVE


Hold it, right there. What does it prove if people who wore clothing with fibers "consistent with" were there that night?

As I see it, it indicates they were there when the crime was committed. Does it PROVE it? Debatable from a legal standpoint. To me, it proves it. To others, it doesn't. I would think a defense team would poke some holes in it. Parental fibers on their own child and all. But it is the fibers on the tape and cord, specifically, which are indicative to me that there was parental involvement.

 

[BBB167893]

I'll add that RDI uses mirrors:

I think Gregg McCrary said it best: look in the opposite direction of deception.

What it looks like: a ransom note from a foreign faction
What RDI says it is: a theatrical explanation for JBR dead in the basement

Yep.

What it looks like: a garrote in a furrow, murder by strangulation
What RDI says it is: a garrote in a furrow, staging placed on a barely living JBR

Yep.

What it looks like: wrist restraints
What RDI says it is: last minute staging not even tied tight.

Too bad it's not just us saying that.

What it looks like: a fractured skull, by blunt instrument in a violent act as part of a strangulation murder
What RDI says it is: an accident that led to a coverup

Yep.

What it looks like: acute injury from sexual assault
What RDI says it is: acute injury from sexual assault to coverup prior abuse

Yep.

What it looks like: unknown male DNA relates to sexual assault
What RDI says it is: unknown male DNA relates to factory worker, or playmate, or bathroom assistant, but NOT to sexual assault.

Yep.

What it looks like: PR's handwriting is different than RN.
What RDI says it is: disguised handwriting

Too bad it's not just us saying that.

What it looks like: PR or JR never owned or operated the tape or cord.
What RDI says it is: PR purchased the cord, relative removed remnants.

Too bad it's not just...aw, heck, you know!

What it looks like: the GJ wouldn't indict
What RDI says it is: the GJ were not allowed to indict

That's actually an area where a lot of IDIs agree. The difference is that they call it an act of courage on Hunter's part, not letting them indict. I'm not really sure how this made it onto the "RDI uses mirrors" list!

What it looks like: ML found additional DNA in suspect locations that matched DNA from a blood stain on the inside crotch of her underwear found years earlier.
What RDI says it is: ML is biased in favor of JR.

I'd say the record on that more than speaks for itself!

Thanks for the exercise, HOTYH. We'll have to do it again sometime!