IDI: Whats your problem?

[WHITEFANG]

Where is this quote from please TP?

Wow. I can't remember the last time I was confronted with such a stark example of throwing stones in a glass house.

If it walks like a duck...

Suzanne holds the mirror.

This is it. We are here. The defining moment.

Proof.

Just proof. Right now, right here, no excuses, no rationale, no nothing. Show your cards.
Proof.

One more time. Proof. Last call.

Proof.


P.S. I will guarantee 100%, we will see no proof.

 

[madeleine]

If you disagree with me, that's fine. But I BEG you to give what I have to say serious thought before you make up your minds.

I DID,for more than 2 years.

I promise no less in return. I've put a lot of years of my life into this, on BOTH sides. I didn't do all that to made a fool of. So, unless you want to talk to me seriously--and this little one deserves the very best efforts we can give, no matter what sides we're on--then you might as well all put me on "ignore," because there's nothing to talk about.

That's because you're very passionate about it and it's the same as "love is blind".
My replies weren't necessarily addressed to you ,but to RDI in general and that's why maybe you thought I was not paying attention to what YOU are thinking.I will be more careful from now on.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Sorry, Fang, but it's apples and handgrenades. Maybe you haven't noticed, but your comment about the "majority standard" reveals a certain misunderstanding (it also makes some implications which are DEFINITELY not appreciated.) In fact, your comparison of the DNA and fibers illustrates my point superbly. 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, just adding more inconsistencies). We don't know ANY of that about the DNA. Not how it got there, not how long it was there, nothing like that at all. So I'm puzzled as to how you and the other IDIs assert it so adamantly when you haven't got a leg to stand on.

In fact, let me offer an olive branch and say this:

1) The DNA would be the clincher if a suspect was caught, no doubt. But it's zero for excluding suspects.

2) Moreover, let's speak the unspeakable here. Let's say you arrest someone. He has no alibi, his story is garbage, he has a record and his handwriting is a strong match-up...but his DNA doesn't match. What then? You've got quite a pickle!

So in response to your assertion that it's a done deal, all I can say is "don't bet on it."



Yup! Kind of puts a new light on things, doesn't it?

Would you like me to post what they said? You betcha!



And I'm Elvis Presley!



No, just the unit that specializes in kidnappings, serial killers and child murders. As in, the people who handle these cases every day.


They achieved consensus?



Wow, if I didn't know better, I'd call that a wildcard...

They have blown profiles aplenty.

But, more than that Super. We got you on the record. Couldn't have said it better or proved my point more cogently. Ready?

2) Moreover, let's speak the unspeakable here. Let's say you arrest someone. He has no alibi, his story is garbage, he has a record and his handwriting is a strong match-up...but his DNA doesn't match. What then? You've got quite a pickle!

By Jove, I think you've got ti.

 

[madeleine]

this little one deserves the very best efforts we can give, no matter what sides we're on--

Exactly,she deserves MUCH MORE than "her mother did it in a fit of rage" (without having any proof).


IMO if you REALLY care about this victim you owe it to her to check ALL the possibilities and I will repeat,this was someone else's job (LE) and they didn't do it.

 

[BOESP]

...
2) Moreover, let's speak the unspeakable here. Let's say you arrest someone. He has no alibi, his story is garbage, he has a record and his handwriting is a strong match-up...but his DNA doesn't match. What then? You've got quite a pickle!

By Jove, I think you've got ti.

My take on SuperDave's comment is that with the type thinking IDI theorists use concerning the value of the DNA sample, they will be in a pickle if they continue to base their theory entirely or mostly on the DNA sample, which seems to be what some do.

The DNA sample is of no more or less value than the fiber evidence, which is consistent with garments worn by two people
who irrefutably were at the scene. In fact, the fiber evidence is of higher value since it can be connected to those on the scene.

 

[BBB167893]

I DID,for more than 2 years.

I know, madeleine. That's why I can't figure this. I feel like I've lost a good friend. But I will say this: IF (and that's as far as I'll go) you ever find yourself coming back to where you started, you'll have a friend in me.

That's because you're very passionate about it and it's the same as "love is blind".

I kind of thought my passion was one of my more admirable qualities, no matter what side you were on.

My replies weren't necessarily addressed to you ,but to RDI in general and that's why maybe you thought I was not paying attention to what YOU are thinking.I will be more careful from now on.

That's more than fair.

Exactly,she deserves MUCH MORE than "her mother did it in a fit of rage" (without having any proof).

You want some proof? Okay. There's proof in her intestines: that pineapple. It didn't get there by itself. Pineapple takes 1-2 hours to digest that far down. She was in full rigor when she was brought up, which meant that she had to be dead for 12 hours or so. That was at 1:00 PM. So she had to have died a little after midnight, which is JUST enough time for JB to have eaten it after they got home. They said she was asleep. Do you guys know anyone who eats in their sleep? Or more accurately, someone who could climb up to the top of a table to get it in their sleep? Moreover, can anyone think of any reason why JB would eat it from a stranger? No way. Even if it was a person she knew, what did they do, just wait for it to digest before they killed here? What did they do in that time, play cards? Their story doesn't hold water.

Yeah, that will do for an opener.

IMO if you REALLY care about this victim you owe it to her to check ALL the possibilities

Ah, but you know that I have. Most of them at least.

and I will repeat,this was someone else's job (LE) and they didn't do it.

To borrow a phrase that seems to be all the rage around here at the moment, you can repeat it; doesn't make it true.

 

[BBB167893]

Suzanne holds the mirror.

This is it. We are here. The defining moment.

Proof.

Just proof. Right now, right here, no excuses, no rationale, no nothing. Show your cards.
Proof.

One more time. Proof. Last call.

Proof.

I'd love to help you, Fang, but it seems to me that "proof" is a pretty subjective thing. I mean, I can give plenty of evidence, but I'm not sure just how much evidence is needed to become "proof." I mean, just how far back have you set the goalpost here? (More aptly, how far back do you intend to keep moving it?)

Tell you what. I guess the best thing I can do is do like I did in the book: make a list and show you how it all fits together.

P.S. I will guarantee 100%, we will see no proof.

I'm sure you won't see it. That's pretty much what I've been trying to say.

 

[BBB167893]

Would you like me to post what they said? You betcha!

Your wish is my command. From PMPT, pb pg 305-308:

Profilers studied the physical evidence and all the known circumstances of homicides in order to provide a probable portrait of the perpetrator. JonBenet was at home in bed on Christmas night in an affluent neighborhood while her parents were supposedly sleeping, which put her at extremely low risk of encountering a stranger who intended harm. This risk was also low because she hardly ever interacted with strangers.

Appearing in child pageants, however, increased the potential risk for meeting death at the hands of a stranger, but if a stranger had murdered JonBenet in her home, he took a big risk that family members might wake and discover him.

The sexual violation of JonBenet did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrator's gratification. The penetration, which had caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police.

If the duct tape had been used to silence her during an attempted abduction, the kidnapper would have taken her out of the house immediately. There was no reason to stay where the kidnapper could be discovered at any moment. Instead, they theorized, the duct tape was probably used as part of a cover-up, along with the loosely tied cord around JonBenet's right wrist. Whether the duct tpae had been placed on her mouth before or after her death could be determined by examination of the body and tape. Skin trauma would evident if she had been alive. Applying the tape after her death would not produce noticeable skin markings. Meyer had not reported any trauma to the skin around JonBenet's mouth.

Once JonBenet had been murdered, the only reason to write the note or to leave it behind was to provide a false motive for the crime. And to give credibility to the ransom note and a bogus kidnapping, the offender had to make the police believe that JonBenet had been restrained and silenced. That was called staging within staging.

The moment JonBenet died and her body was left in a place where it would be found, the ransom money was lost forever. If it was a real abduction gone sour, why leave the note? The only reasonable conclusion was that the note had been left behind in an attempt to hide the killer's identity and the real reason for JonBenet's death.

If the killer was a stranger, why did he wrap her body in a blanket? Why try to comfort someone who was no longer of use? The dominant sign of hostility toward JB was the noose. Even then, it's elevation at every point around the neck was equal in disctance from the shoulders, indicating it had not been tied during a struggle.

Everything suggested that the killer had no fear of discovery at any point. A further analysis led the FBI to conclude that the killer felt comfortable and secure within the home.

Some of the FBI experts believed that the head wound had been intentional. When accidents happen, people usually call for an ambulance. Still, the head wound had not produced any bleeding and might not have been noticed at first. The experts considered a third possibility: the offender might have intended to hit a third party, missed, and hit JonBenet instead.

A more extensive section comes from pages 496-499:

By now, the Bureau's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit was quite certain that JonBenet's killer had never committed a murder before. They thought the ransom note was written by someone intelligent but not criminally sophisticated. Someone who planned a kidnapping in advance would have tried to impress the parents with how great a threat he or she posed. Words like "us" and "we" "my group" and "we're large" were absent. The kidnappers called themselves a "small foreign faction." Foreign to whom? Real foreigners would not refer to themselves as foreign.

The FBI pointed out that every item used in the crime came from within the house, including the pen, pad, and broken paintbrush. They believed the duct tape and rope had most likely been purchased by Patsy Ramsey early in December. Nothing seemed to have come from outside the house. There was no evidence of anyone turning on any lights, trying to find their way around an unfamiliar house. One agent told the assembled group: Is this an offender who came into the house totally unprepared to do anything? Kidnappers are usually in and out in a heartbeat. They don't kill and then hang around to write a bogus note. And why pick Christmas of all days, when someone could wander in on them? If the perp had enough time to write the note, he had enough time to take the victim alive or to take the dead body someplace else.

To the FBI, the time spent staging the crime scene and hiding the body pointed to a killer who asked, "how do I explain this?" and had answered the question: "A stranger did it." The staging suggested a killer desperate to divert attention. Moreover, there was staging within staging. The loop of cord around one of JonBenet's wrists was not a real indication that JonBenet had been restrained. The ligature that strangled JB was in their opinon, an unusual cover-up attempt. The way the cord had been made into a noose--with the stick tied 17 inches from the knot--suggested staging rather than a bona fide attempt to strangle JonBenet. It suggested that the killer was a manipulative person with the courage to believe that they could control the subsequent investigation. In short, everything about the crime suggested an attempt at self-preservation on the killer's part.

On the other hand, the killer cared about JonBenet and wanted her found. He or she didn't want her outside in the dead of winter in the middle of the night. She had been wrapped in a white blanket, her nightgown lying next to her. Such caring and solicitude were not usually associated with a malevolent criminal.

Here's an article with an extensive section as well: http://www.crimemagazine.com/murder-jonbenét-ramsey

I'm just getting warmed up!

Here's an article on what Roger DePue, former head of the Behavioral Sciences Unit, had to say:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/28/193035.shtml

Around that same time, Clint Van Zandt went on national TV several times over a period of days. During an interview with cable news outlet MSNBC, Van Zandt said that he and several other profilers had studied the note and concluded that the writer was either a woman or a "very genteel male." He listed ten points of interest.

Ten years after Jonbenet's death, Rober Ressler, the founder of the Behavioral Sciences Unit, echoed many of DePue's sentiments, saying that "it's absolutely phony. Usually, a ransom note just gives the basics. But this one was full of colorful language and mixed messages. Then there's the matter of why any kidnapper would demand money when the victim's dead body was left behind. There's an almost maternal quality to comments like, 'the delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. A hardened criminal would never use those terms."

Lastly, we have Ron Walker, the FBI man on the scene that morning. He was interviewed by the cable channel "A&E." When asked straight out if a parent were capable of doing what was done to JonBenet, he was forced to say yes. Here's what he had to say:

"Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children."

PHEW!

They achieved consensus?

They did.




They have blown profiles aplenty.[/quote]

More dismissal. Disappointing, but not unexpected.

But, more than that Super. We got you on the record. Couldn't have said it better or proved my point more cogently. Ready?

2) Moreover, let's speak the unspeakable here. Let's say you arrest someone. He has no alibi, his story is garbage, he has a record and his handwriting is a strong match-up...but his DNA doesn't match. What then? You've got quite a pickle!

By Jove, I think you've got it.

I think we took a wrong turn at Albuquerque here. Exactly HOW does that prove your point?

 

[MurriFlower]

I DID,for more than 2 years.




That's because you're very passionate about it and it's the same as "love is blind".
My replies weren't necessarily addressed to you ,but to RDI in general and that's why maybe you thought I was not paying attention to what YOU are thinking.I will be more careful from now on.

Hi Madeline

I'd be interested to hear (sorry if this has already been done) what caused you to turn from RDI to IDI?

 

[MurriFlower]

You want some proof? Okay. There's proof in her intestines: that pineapple. It didn't get there by itself. Pineapple takes 1-2 hours to digest that far down. She was in full rigor when she was brought up, which meant that she had to be dead for 12 hours or so. That was at 1:00 PM. So she had to have died a little after midnight, which is JUST enough time for JB to have eaten it after they got home. They said she was asleep. Do you guys know anyone who eats in their sleep? Or more accurately, someone who could climb up to the top of a table to get it in their sleep? Moreover, can anyone think of any reason why JB would eat it from a stranger? No way. Even if it was a person she knew, what did they do, just wait for it to digest before they killed here? What did they do in that time, play cards? Their story doesn't hold water.

SD you just told Whitefang you had no proof but you also told Madeline that the pineapple is proof.

Can you enlarge on where you get the information that allows you to be so precise about the time of death and the rate at which pineapple digests, which leads you to believe that the R's must have fed it to her? What I need to see is a credible source for this information, rather than just your opinion, because this is important. If I'm not mistaken, it is the one thing above all others that has convinced you RDI?

 

[WHITEFANG]

The DNA would be the clincher if a suspect was caught, no doubt. But it's zero for excluding suspects. SD

In my starring role in One Flew Over the Coo Coo's Nest we couldn't come close to recreating the culture of a hospital for the poor souls who lost touch with reality, no matter how hard we worked, compared with the ease with which this circus performs.

Alright then. Let us match the DNA. (We already know it eliminates J and P and B, even though it is not good at eliminating suspects. We can drop anything to do with them.)

 

[BBB167893]

My take on SuperDave's comment is that with the type thinking IDI theorists use concerning the value of the DNA sample, they will be in a pickle if they continue to base their theory entirely or mostly on the DNA sample, which seems to be what some do.

The DNA sample is of no more or less value than the fiber evidence, which is consistent with garments worn by two people who irrefutably were at the scene. In fact, the fiber evidence is of higher value since it can be connected to those on the scene.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say.

 

[BBB167893]

SD you just told Whitefang you had no proof but you also told Madeline that the pineapple is proof.

Exactly WHEN did I tell Fang that I had no proof? Don't put words in my mouth.

Can you enlarge on where you get the information that allows you to be so precise about the time of death and the rate at which pineapple digests, which leads you to believe that the R's must have fed it to her? What I need to see is a credible source for this information, rather than just your opinion, because this is important.

Will this do: http://www.unani.com/digestion_time_of_foods.htm

2 1/4 Hours
fig, fresh
pear, fresh
pineapple
strawberry
asparagus
carrot
cauliflower
lettuce: cos, loose leaf, iceberg

And you didn't need to use all of that bolding. I'm not blind or stupid.

If I'm not mistaken, it is the one thing above all others that has convinced you RDI?

You are mistaken, in the sense that there is no ONE thing above all others that convinces me. It's the combination of everything.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Exactly,she deserves MUCH MORE than "her mother did it in a fit of rage" (without having any proof).


IMO if you REALLY care about this victim you owe it to her to check ALL the possibilities and I will repeat,this was someone else's job (LE) and they didn't do it.

:clap:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The DNA would be the clincher if a suspect was caught, no doubt. But it's zero for excluding suspects. SD

In my starring role in One Flew Over the Coo Coo's Nest we couldn't come close to recreating the culture of a hospital for the poor souls who lost touch with reality, no matter how hard we worked, compared with the ease with which this circus performs.

Alright then. Let us match the DNA. (We already know it eliminates J and P and B, even though it is not good at eliminating suspects. We can drop anything to do with them.)

Oh I did way back in 1997, but I've learned a lot with the back and forth. Like misspelling, whitespace, the Fall of the Soviet Union, and why an intruder probably put the RN on the rear stairs instead of the front stairs.

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't think IDI can offer proof, either. The only proof either side will be able to offer will happen when the killer and/or stager can be positively identified.
And I mean TRULY identified, linked to the crime by evidence. Not some sensational media headlines like we saw with Karr. I'll never forget the huge bold print "SOLVED" with JB's photo next to JMK's mug shot.
And it wasn't solved, was it?

We all want it to be solved. But it's gotta stick.

 

[BBB167893]

The DNA would be the clincher if a suspect was caught, no doubt. But it's zero for excluding suspects. SD

In my starring role in One Flew Over the Coo Coo's Nest we couldn't come close to recreating the culture of a hospital for the poor souls who lost touch with reality, no matter how hard we worked, compared with the ease with which this circus performs.

I'm not even going to guess what that's supposed to mean.

Alright then. Let us match the DNA.

Easier said than done, obviously.

(We already know it eliminates J and P and B, even though it is not good at eliminating suspects. We can drop anything to do with them.)

I can see what we have here is failure to communicate.

I'm afraid not. Maybe you should read your own statement a little bit more closely. When I said that DNA was zero for eliminating suspects, I wasn't just talking out of my nether regions. Only in the case of rape (and that's rape in the classic sense: penile penetration) is DNA capable of excluding a suspect--and even then only if the victim was not sexually active and there was only one rapist. In virtually all other cases, DNA can only include suspects; it can't exclude suspects. That's straight from the mouth of a well-known constitutional law professor.

 

[BBB167893]

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?

You wouldn't like what I have to say, anyhow.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You wouldn't like what I have to say, anyhow.

We're all entitled to our theories. I happen to believe rather strongly that what actually happened is more than just a little outside the scope of your theory. And I further believe the experts aren't going to be much help with their statistics or standard approaches, because the case is atypical.

"It is highly, highly unusual. I mean, the whole thing is totally bizarre. I've never, in my 35-year career, seen anything like this."

--Robert Ressler


"Its a paradox"

--Gregg McCrary


That doesn't mean your knowledge is useless. I respect that.