IDI: Whats your problem?

[WHITEFANG]

Yeah, I'm not sure that the DNA adds much to IDI, but it sure does test the imagination of RDI!!

WANT ME TO REMOVE MY THANKS!? you know i'm kidding, i hope

It is critically important but if you guys doubt it, you must have good reasons. How can anyone explain where it was found? On/in her personal, private areas of clothing where no guy had any business, at all?

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.

 

[MurriFlower]

WANT ME TO REMOVE MY THANKS!?
It is critically important but if you guys doubt it, you must have good reasons. How can anyone explain where it was found? On/in her personal, private areas of clothing where no guy had any business, at all?

What HOTYH said was he was IDI before DNA. What I tried to say is that IDI is not dependent on DNA, (although it's nice to have some incontrovertible evidence in support of IDI). Of course, it totally refutes RDI, so they have really had to use their imagination to come up with a scenario of how it arrived there.

PS. Please don't remove your thanks, it's the only praise I get LOL.

 

[OneLove]

What HOTYH said was he was IDI before DNA. What I tried to say is that IDI is not dependent on DNA, (although it's nice to have some incontrovertible evidence in support of IDI). Of course, it totally refutes RDI, so they have really had to use their imagination to come up with a scenario of how it arrived there.

PS. Please don't remove your thanks, it's the only praise I get LOL.

???

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.

 

[DeeDee249]

Patsy's interviews on ACR. There are about four of them. They are long, but easy enough to scroll down and find what you are looking for. There you'll find LE asking Patsy about crime scene photos they are showing her. Look for the conversations about the pineapple, bowl and spoon. Then, there is another conversation about the drawer and flashlight.

Actually- Patsy discusses the flashlight with LE in her 1998 depo. It is about 3/4 down the page, and in this discussion she discusses that JR did have a large black flashlight like the one found on the counter. She is shown a photo of an open drawer which she indicated was where the flashlight was kept. She admits to LE that the drawer, which was left open, did not have the flashlight in it, but still does not say that the flashlight on the counter is the one from the drawer.
It is fairly obvious that LE is pursuing this line of questioning because they believe the flashlight IS the R's and was taken from that drawer and left on the counter. They are trying to follow an obvious train of thought- if the flashlight is kept in that drawer and the drawer does not have the flashlight in it - and an identical flashlight appears on a nearby counter- that the one on the counter is the one from the drawer and so belongs to the Rs.

 

[MurriFlower]

What's odd is that their prints would be expected to be on it, so nothing suspicious about it. It is the absence of their prints (especially the batteries) that is suspicious. Yes, obviously they needed to distance themselves from the flashlight. Patsy said she believed JR had been given a flashlight just like it as a gift. She was being questioned about the flashlight, as well as the bowl of pineapple, glass with tea bag (WHY didn't they test that little tag on the tea bag for prints?

Here is the part about the flashlight and the drawer. I cannot see where she denies or distances herself from it. Obviously, it was a gift for JR and used by him, so he isn't too familiar with it, and the photo she is shown isn't very clear.

"ST: Patsy, to the best of your memory, how many flashlights did your family own or keep in the house on the 15th Street?
PR: I don’t know.
ST: Do you…
PR: Burke had some round ones, you know.
ST: Did John, as a pilot or for the cars in the garage or the house, did he, do you recall flashlights?
PR: I think we had kind of a big one, I don’t know where it was. I think John Andrew gave it to John for, I don’t know whether he gave it to him for the plane or not. I know he keeps one in the plane, I think.
ST: Can you describe that for me, what color it was for example?
PR: The one John gave…
ST: Uh-huh.
PR: I think it was in that drawer that, that little, we usually kept it I think in that drawer. Yeah.
ST: Maybe in this room somewhere in this vicinity.
PR: Yeah, and I think it was like a big black one, you know.
ST: Well, is this picture, and that’s not a good photo. Would that be representative of the flashlight that you are describing.
PR: Yeah, probably, I’m afraid don’t know what this it is.
ST: Ad for the purpose of the tape, I’m showing Patsy a photograph depicting, is that the kitchen table?
TT: Kitchen counter.
ST: Kitchen counter, with several items, but including what appears to be a flashlight on it.
PR: Yeah, it appears to be. I remember a big, he gave him a big flashlight at one time, but I don’t remember.
TT: Is it plastic material it’s made out of?
PR: It seemed like it was heavy, I don’t know.
TT: OK.
PR: John would remember.
TT: OK, next let me do this for the secretary. When you were talking about the drawer that the flashlight was normally kept in, refer back to that other picture, the drawer by the sink.
PR: Yeah.
TT: Bottom of the staircase.
PR: Yeah.
TT: The drawer to the left of (inaudible).
PR: Kind of a catchall, sort of.
TT: Dump drawer.
PR: Dump drawer, we have lots of junk drawers.

 

[MurriFlower]

Patsy tries to distance herself from all of it, even going as far as saying she didn't buy that type of tissue. I mean, the intruder was already supposedly bringing with him the rather large flashlight, pineapple and now a box of tissue? There can't be anyone who thinks this makes sense. Then the intruder leaves it all behind- including JB.

DD I have looked and even posted part of this interview, but I still cannot come up with PR denying purchasing a particular box of tissues.

This is from the 1998 interview, the only one that mentions tissues. Please point it out to me. I've highlighted each reference to tissues, to help you.

“22 TOM HANEY: Back to photo 57, this top
23 cabinet, it is closed in this particular photo.
24 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh.
25 TOM HANEY: What is normally kept in there,
0336
1 if you recall?
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Tissue.
3 TOM HANEY: In the video that the police took
4 walking through, which was taken some time later, there
5 are -- there is packages of Pull-ups.
6 PATSY RAMSEY: They would be in there, yeah.
7 TOM HANEY: All right. They are partially
8 hanging out in the video?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: Yup.
10 TOM HANEY: Would those be the Pull-ups that
11 you would normally put on JonBenet?”


“1 TRIP DEMUTH: Do you know, did Linda clean it
2 up, do you know?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: I -- I am sure she did, but I
4 didn't go down there and double check it.
5 TOM HANEY: Is she usually pretty confident
6 if you give her something?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
8 TRIP DEMUTH: Had you been in this bathroom
9 at all prior to Christmas of '96?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I hadn't been in there.
11 You can tell I haven't been in there since '94.
12 TOM HANEY: Anything else? The tissue of
13 some kind.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh.”


“23 TOM HANEY: We left off, I think, with 376,
24 the bible. Now 377.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: That looks like the counter
0456
1 top of the basement bathroom (inaudible). Tissue or
2 something. I don't know what that would be.
3 (Inaudible).
4 TOM HANEY: That is which bathroom?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: I think this is the basement,
6 the little bathroom there in the basement. I mean, it
7 is the only one that had -- the other ones had
8 different counter tops.
9 TOM HANEY: Okay. So would that be normal or
10 be expected there?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I just -- I just told
12 you, you know, the boys usually -- it looks like Burke
13 has been in there or somebody was there with an
14 airplane in there. But I don't know what would be
15 blue. I just -- I didn't go down there much, if ever.”

“19 TOM HANEY: Anything out of place or unusual
20 in those photos?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, the bathroom we hadn't
22 utilized very much. These little Christmas decorations
23 were left over from -- I had put those there when we
24 had the home tour two years earlier, because the
25 volunteers used this area and I had a bathroom
0408
1 available.
2 TRIP DEMUTH: That photo 244 was shut, is
3 that how you left them?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that, yes. I would have
5 left that. I left it like that.
6 Now this, I don't know what that is -- why
7 that would be there.
8 TRIP DEMUTH: Pointing to like tissue.
9 PATSY RAMSEY: It is like tissue something,
10 because I remember I specifically asked Linda some time
11 in the not-so-distant future to go down and clean that
12 bathroom because I think one of the boys had used the
13 bathroom and not flushed it. It was kind of yucko, so
14 she had gone down there. So I don't know if that is
15 her cleaning rag she left there or what.
16 TOM HANEY: Do you know for a fact that she
17 did clean it, could she have been in there since?
18 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I don't remember that too
19 much about that bathroom.
20 TOM HANEY: When you were present she wasn't
21 in there?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No. The door was usually
23 closed because that -- that door opens right when you
24 came down those steps. (Inaudible). There are a bunch
25 of smears on here.”
0409
"[/I]

 

[joeskidbeck]

DD I have looked and even posted part of this interview, but I still cannot come up with PR denying purchasing a particular box of tissues.

This is from the 1998 interview, the only one that mentions tissues. Please point it out to me. I've highlighted each reference to tissues, to help you.

“22 TOM HANEY: Back to photo 57, this top
23 cabinet, it is closed in this particular photo.
24 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh.
25 TOM HANEY: What is normally kept in there,
0336
1 if you recall?
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Tissue.
3 TOM HANEY: In the video that the police took
4 walking through, which was taken some time later, there
5 are -- there is packages of Pull-ups.
6 PATSY RAMSEY: They would be in there, yeah.
7 TOM HANEY: All right. They are partially
8 hanging out in the video?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: Yup.
10 TOM HANEY: Would those be the Pull-ups that
11 you would normally put on JonBenet?”


“1 TRIP DEMUTH: Do you know, did Linda clean it
2 up, do you know?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: I -- I am sure she did, but I
4 didn't go down there and double check it.
5 TOM HANEY: Is she usually pretty confident
6 if you give her something?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
8 TRIP DEMUTH: Had you been in this bathroom
9 at all prior to Christmas of '96?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I hadn't been in there.
11 You can tell I haven't been in there since '94.
12 TOM HANEY: Anything else? The tissue of
13 some kind.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh.”


“23 TOM HANEY: We left off, I think, with 376,
24 the bible. Now 377.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: That looks like the counter
0456
1 top of the basement bathroom (inaudible). Tissue or
2 something. I don't know what that would be.
3 (Inaudible).
4 TOM HANEY: That is which bathroom?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: I think this is the basement,
6 the little bathroom there in the basement. I mean, it
7 is the only one that had -- the other ones had
8 different counter tops.
9 TOM HANEY: Okay. So would that be normal or
10 be expected there?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I just -- I just told
12 you, you know, the boys usually -- it looks like Burke
13 has been in there or somebody was there with an
14 airplane in there. But I don't know what would be
15 blue. I just -- I didn't go down there much, if ever.”

“19 TOM HANEY: Anything out of place or unusual
20 in those photos?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, the bathroom we hadn't
22 utilized very much. These little Christmas decorations
23 were left over from -- I had put those there when we
24 had the home tour two years earlier, because the
25 volunteers used this area and I had a bathroom
0408
1 available.
2 TRIP DEMUTH: That photo 244 was shut, is
3 that how you left them?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that, yes. I would have
5 left that. I left it like that.
6 Now this, I don't know what that is -- why
7 that would be there.
8 TRIP DEMUTH: Pointing to like tissue.
9 PATSY RAMSEY: It is like tissue something,
10 because I remember I specifically asked Linda some time
11 in the not-so-distant future to go down and clean that
12 bathroom because I think one of the boys had used the
13 bathroom and not flushed it. It was kind of yucko, so
14 she had gone down there. So I don't know if that is
15 her cleaning rag she left there or what.
16 TOM HANEY: Do you know for a fact that she
17 did clean it, could she have been in there since?
18 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I don't remember that too
19 much about that bathroom.
20 TOM HANEY: When you were present she wasn't
21 in there?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No. The door was usually
23 closed because that -- that door opens right when you
24 came down those steps. (Inaudible). There are a bunch
25 of smears on here.”
0409
"[/i]

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

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower, I believe in this interview, the tissue being referred to is toilet tissue, not boxed tissue (Kleenex, Puffs).
Becky

Yes I agree.

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.

Please do, I have searched but cannot find any reference to a box of tissues.

 

[MurriFlower]

???
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.

My point was that IDI does not rely entirely on the DNA.

Whereas, RDI relies on refuting the DNA and minimising its relevance.

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".

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

 

[WHITEFANG]

Patsy's interviews on ACR. There are about four of them. They are long, but easy enough to scroll down and find what you are looking for. There you'll find LE asking Patsy about crime scene photos they are showing her. Look for the conversations about the pineapple, bowl and spoon. Then, there is another conversation about the drawer and flashlight.

Hi MurriFlower.

I too had been thinking of alternative 'taser' devices that might have made those marks. Perhaps a taser used in animal training, farming,
Plans for homemade tasers are available online.

Here's some links for your perusing.

electric stun gun part list schemantics:
http://stungunreviews.tripod.com/electric-stun-gun-tazer.html

Cattleprod used to test child:
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=ce7e478e-83c5-4863-8b83-8c9cb4246567


Hudson safety products.
http://www.hudsonsafetyproducts.com/



Being unfamilar with stun gun technology, but there certainly is a range in voltage. There would a specific voltage be lethal to a child?

My electronics friend advises, that a project building an oscillator and a voltage step up circuitry is a basic of highscool electronics.

No it does not. Not at all. Many parental homicides of children are committed by parents who show signs of love and no evidence of abuse.

Reference Susan Smith, Darlie Routier, Diane Downs, who was that famous wrestler that killed his 6 year old son a year or so ago, Andrea Yates, etc. etc. etc. Way way too many to list here, and very saddening.

OneLove is great at blowing smoke. She errs and then runs and giggles. Unfortunately, others get tagged with labels she is not remotely qualified to attach.

Andrea Yates is just one example, proving that she hasn't a clue. Andrea Yates was a threat to her kids and her psychiatrist told her husband to make sure she was supervised and never left alone with her children. She had a long and full history of hospitalizations for mental illness.

No spite here. Just blowing loving thoughts your way from deep within the solar winds of light and warmth. Love, peace my child, I mean it. Harmony and joy from within will envelop your synapses and coat them with shining silver in the setting sun of destiny and your every wish. Seriously, no spite or ill within this phazed orb of azure mint.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No it does not. Not at all. Many parental homicides of children are committed by parents who show signs of love and no evidence of abuse.

Reference Susan Smith, Darlie Routier, Diane Downs, who was that famous wrestler that killed his 6 year old son a year or so ago, Andrea Yates, etc. etc. etc. Way way too many to list here, and very saddening.

Your logic does not hold up AT ALL.

It would be nice if you are going to reply so boldly to my post, that you at least READ my post:

It IS unfortunate for RDI that there was no 'accepted' evidence of non-love or abuse on the part of the parents. Another way to put it, it WOULD BE fortunate for RDI if there WAS evidence of non-love or abuse accepted into the evidence pool.

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.

 

[MurriFlower]

Hi MurriFlower.
I too had been thinking of alternative 'taser' devices that might have made those marks. Perhaps a taser used in animal training, farming,
Plans for homemade tasers are available online.

Here's some links for your perusing.

electric stun gun part list schemantics:
http://stungunreviews.tripod.com/electric-stun-gun-tazer.html

Cattleprod used to test child:
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=ce7e478e-83c5-4863-8b83-8c9cb4246567


Hudson safety products.
http://www.hudsonsafetyproducts.com/

Being unfamilar with stun gun technology, but there certainly is a range in voltage. There would a specific voltage be lethal to a child?

My friend in electronics advises, that a project building an oscillator and a voltage step up circuitry is a basic of highschool electronics.

Here is a quote from the site with the instructions for making your own stun gun:

"The device can burn and heat materials with low resistance. Those include flesh, moistened paper or wood, etc. That makes the unit potentially hazardous to humans. Remember, the daser is not a toy but a quality electrical appliance and therefore must be treated accordingly. Use the utmost discretion with this device."

 

[WHITEFANG]

It would be nice if you are going to reply so boldly to my post, that you at least READ my post:

It IS unfortunate for RDI that there was no 'accepted' evidence of non-love or abuse on the part of the parents. Another way to put it, it WOULD BE fortunate for RDI if there WAS evidence of non-love or abuse accepted into the evidence pool.

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.

One Love is too advanced in the mysteries of universal intelligence and the whispering from dead sources for the likes of earth people. No spite. No ill feelings. True love and peace baby. Love is all love is all I am the walrus.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

My point was that IDI does not rely entirely on the DNA.

Whereas, RDI relies on refuting the DNA and minimising its relevance.

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".

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

I'll add that RDI uses mirrors:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

What it looks like: PR can't spell advise, RN author can. PR can spell business, RN author can't.
What RDI says it is: PR deliberately misspelled some words in both exemplars and RN. Wouldn't you?

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

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.

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

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.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

One Love is too advanced in the mysteries of universal intelligence and the whispering from dead sources for the likes of earth people. No spite. No ill feelings. True love and peace baby. Love is all love is all I am the walrus.

I can't help but notice RDI's little sailboat sitting there not moving. At least if the parents had a criminal record beyond Ozzie and Harriet we'd be getting somewhere.

Besides, I don't buy this whole Jekyl and Hyde thing where loving parents suddenly turn on their kids. Somebody somewhere heard something and did nothing.

 

[WHITEFANG]

No it does not. Not at all. Many parental homicides of children are committed by parents who show signs of love and no evidence of abuse.

Reference Susan Smith, Darlie Routier, Diane Downs, who was that famous wrestler that killed his 6 year old son a year or so ago, Andrea Yates, etc. etc. etc.



Way way too many to list here, and very saddening.



Just don't ask her to cite them. Things get a little rough for her when she's pinned down. She squirms out of what she just said by trying to condescend to you, chirp chirp chirp, says something she hopes will annoy and disappears behind bluster.

 

[WHITEFANG]

???

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.

imagination? evidence helps, too. any of them? indeed. particularly those based on nonsense, pure conjecture, false premises, undiagnosed mental illness, undiagnosed personality disorders by people who claim to know much, but can't spell attorneys and defendant among other words these experts should have down pat.

 

[MurriFlower]

Let's take a look at our own life experiences.
Maybe you'll laugh or roll your eyes now,but yesterday I ran over a pigeon.I was a mess all day long,still am.Don't tell me that parents who killed their child (ACCIDENT,not planned) can survive the guilt and mock everybody on national TV.If it was an accident they would have been devastated,ESPECIALLY after finding out that she was still alive when they finished her off with the garrote.
Okay,maybe they covered up for BR,I could understand why they would wanna protect him,still,put a cord around her neck and pull and then sexually assault her?Nope.
IMO they would have found other ways to divert attention.

Madeline, I'm reading what you say. People who have never been involved in any violence, whose life is basically urban, who don't hunt or have never needed to kill to survive, cannot take the life even of a little bird (however accidentally) without feeling overwhelming remorse.

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.

This is the way life has evolved today. People who have never experienced violence and people who have never gone a day without it. Sad but true.

This is why I don't believe RDI. These people (the Ramseys) would not commit such an act and then defend it endlessly, regardless of the so called 'reasons' put forth by RDI. PR was a lot of things that people here may not have approved of, but there was never a hint that she accepted or practiced the kind of violence required to commit and cover up this crime.

 

[DeeDee249]

Yes I agree.



Please do, I have searched but cannot find any reference to a box of tissues.

There is another section where she speaks about not ever buying that kind of box. She says she usually buys the other shape because they fit places better. She is most likely saying that the box on the table is the standard flat rectangular box and she usually buys the square "boutique" boxes.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'll add that RDI uses mirrors:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

What it looks like: PR can't spell advise, RN author can. PR can spell business, RN author can't.
What RDI says it is: PR deliberately misspelled some words in both exemplars and RN. Wouldn't you?

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

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.

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

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.

OMG! Right on every point!