IDIs On This Forum?

[Albert18]

Which Patsey Ramsey cannot be excluded as the writer. Practiced and written on a pad from the home.

One of my favorite moments in the Larry King TV interview with Steve Thomas and the Ramsey's, regards the ransom note.

Larry King pushes the issue of wouldn't the writer of the ransom note also be the killer. John practically jumps out of his chair in his eagerness to agree with that statement. After being dragged about 100 yards on loose gravel, Patsy finally agrees with the statement.

I wonder if John had one of his fingers bent back after the interview was over. That must have been a fascinating marriage.

 

[Ames]

Holdontoyourhat,

Sure but can you you link any of the above items to an intruder?

You left out JonBenet's missing size-6 underwear?


.

And why an intruder would re-dress her after the paintbrush insertion, and why the intruder would wrap her loving in a blanket, like a "papoose" (John's words, not mine)....AND why Patsy's fibers from her jacket were found entwined in the garotte, on the tape, and in the paint tray....AND why Patsy's handwriting was never ruled out, but ruled inconclusive...AND why pineapple was found in JB's intestine, and she didn't eat any at the White's...but a bowl was left out on the table, along with a tea glass, that none of the Ramsey's seem to know where it came from. AND why would an intruder sit down and have a glass of tea, while JB ate pineapple. AND why the Ramsey's flashlight, that was usually kept in a drawer...was found wiped clean of prints on the kitchen counter....AND how would an intruder know where the flashlight was kept...AND how the intruder saw to get around in that pitch dark basment, and as John says...there is no way a person could see, and it was full of junk. AND how, since the intruder left the Ramsey's flashlight out on the counter, did he see when he went back down to the basement, to climb out the window (John says that this is how the intruder left, by climbing onto the suitcase that was against the wall...because John says that the suitcase was not there, it was in another place in the basment before that night)....the list goes on of ANDS....but, I will stop for now. Some of these, I know..are not forensic evidence....but, I hope you get the point.

 

[Ames]

One of my favorite moments in the Larry King TV interview with Steve Thomas and the Ramsey's, regards the ransom note.

Larry King pushes the issue of wouldn't the writer of the ransom note also be the killer. John practically jumps out of his chair in his eagerness to agree with that statement. After being dragged about 100 yards on loose gravel, Patsy finally agrees with the statement.

I wonder if John had one of his fingers bent back after the interview was over. That must have been a fascinating marriage.

LOL...I am sure it was.

 

[rashomon]

Hi, folks...I am a new member and would like to know if there are any others on this board that lean to the IDI theory?

Welcome over here, Fenton.
IDIs here on Websleuths - there not many who are currently posting.
But it was fascinating to see how many IDIs (several of them Websleuthers who had stopped posting years ago) suddenly showed up here on the forum again after the John M. Karr arrest, claiming they had known all along that an intruder had killed JonBenet, and praising Lou Smit. But the following fiasco was like a cold shower to them of course.
Of the regular posters, 'Holdontoyourhat' is an IDI.

 

[BOESP]

LOL..thanks for pointing this out...I was going to, but afraid that I would get into some sort of trouble.

This the Hall Monitor speaking. You are being given an Infraction Ames. :behindbar

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon,

But the DNA is OLDER than JonBenet's DNA. That it means it was there prior to that evening.

There's no relationship between the male DNA being older than JBR's DNA and it being 'there prior to that evening.' One doesn't automatically lead to the other.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

Sure but can you you link any of the above items to an intruder?

You left out JonBenet's missing size-6 underwear?


.

OK, add it to the things missing from the crime scene. Underwear, a piece of paintbrush (right?), remainder of the rope and tape rolls.

The rope and tape were both new, recently purchased, right?

 

[DeeDee249]

It seems so...by PR. (according to the hardware store receipt)

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It seems so...by PR. (according to the hardware store receipt)

I meant that the cord and tape evidence found on JBR were new, cut from new rolls, as opposed to taken from existing used materials found in the house.

If you want to presume the items on the receipt were tape and cord, then go ahead. Its an assumption, though, because as I understand, no description for anything was printed on the receipt, only a similarly priced item. What was the price? $2.49?

 

[OceanEyes]

I am 80% IDI....still haven't quite made up my mind

 

[UKGuy]

OK, add it to the things missing from the crime scene. Underwear, a piece of paintbrush (right?), remainder of the rope and tape rolls.

The rope and tape were both new, recently purchased, right?

Holdontoyourhat,

The rope and tape were both new, recently purchased, right?

Were they?

The rope is nylon cord, and the tape allegedly dual colored electrical tape, silver side/dark side.

The nylon cord may have been already in use, or locally available, and the tape may have been the last length on the roll? Why do they need to be new, unused items?

Why did the intruder bring his own tape and cord, leaving with them, but wipe the flashlight clean and leave it behind? There is no need for the intruder to remove the tape and cord.

Why did the intruder leave no forensic evidence at the crime-scene? The dna is a biologically degraded sample which may have originated anywhere, so cannot be used to infer it was deposited at the crime-scene by an intruder, on the night of JonBenet's death, it may already have pre-existed.

There is simply no direct forensic evidence linking an intruder to the death of JonBenet!

.

 

[Solace]

There's no relationship between the male DNA being older than JBR's DNA and it being 'there prior to that evening.' One doesn't automatically lead to the other.

Holdon,

Well, there sure is. Older DNA as opposed to DNA that was released that night from JB is different. That is exactly why they use the word "older"; otherwise there would be no need.

The DNA was, in all liklihood, on the underwear when purchased.

 

[sister]

In the Danielle Van Dam case, no forensic evidence of her killer (neighbor David Westerfield) was found in the Van Dam household, although it is assumed that he came into the house and took her out of her bed (all forensic evidence in that case was found in his home and motor home and on his clothing).
Wasn't there also a hair (maybe pubic?) found on JB's blanket that was never matched to anyone?

 

[IrishMist]

Holdontoyourhat,

Sure but can you you link any of the above items to an intruder?

You left out JonBenet's missing size-6 underwear?


.

But how do we know that pair of undies is missing? When reading what the police took from the house, many pairs are listed without size, and/or without description.

Is there another source for this information that I'm forgetting? :blushing:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

The nylon cord may have been already in use, or locally available, and the tape may have been the last length on the roll? Why do they need to be new, unused items?

.

I don't think investigators found the original roll of tape or cord. Nor did they find any other application in the house where either material was used.

In the photos, all cord ends appear freshly cut, and the cord itself appears new (not dirty or worn, as if taken from elsewhere in the house where it was originally used for another purpose).

This gives the appearance that both the cord and tape were brought in for the purpose of kidnapping or killing JBR, not improvised from materials already on hand, originally intended for another purpose.

Holdontoyourhat,




The dna is a biologically degraded sample which may have originated anywhere, so cannot be used to infer it was deposited at the crime-scene by an intruder, on the night of JonBenet's death, it may already have pre-existed.

.

The DNA could not have originated anywhere, as you claim. It could only originate with one person. The question is, was this person's old, degraded DNA deposited there innocently or not. You don't know which until you match the DNA. The fact that the DNA was old and degraded has nothing to do with when it was transferred to JBR's underwear. There's no requirement that only fresh, complete DNA can be deposited on JBR's underwear.

 

[BOESP]

...
The DNA could not have originated anywhere, as you claim. It could only originate with one person. The question is, was this person's old, degraded DNA deposited there innocently or not. You don't know which until you match the DNA. The fact that the DNA was old and degraded has nothing to do with when it was transferred to JBR's underwear. There's no requirement that only fresh, complete DNA can be deposited on JBR's underwear.

Hi Holdon - I don't quite understand what you mean since if the DNA came from an Intruder/Killer, it would be "fresh" and not degraded. It was of such poor quality that not all markers could be determined. That means it was of no use.

I wonder if there is a DNA sample the public has no knowledge of since so many keep saying this is a DNA case (which, in my view, it is not).

 

[Solace]

Hi Holdon - I don't quite understand what you mean since if the DNA came from an Intruder/Killer, it would be "fresh" and not degraded. It was of such poor quality that not all markers could be determined. That means it was of no use.

I wonder if there is a DNA sample the public has no knowledge of since so many keep saying this is a DNA case (which, in my view, it is not).

I doubt it BOESP. It is another ploy by "Team Ramsey" to smokescreen the truth. They absolutely know it is degraded of of no value, but for the people that are not educated in this type of thing, it goes over quite well.

John Ramsey doesn't need much to hold his head high. This will do.

 

[Solace]

The DNA could not have originated anywhere, as you claim. Why not?
It could only originate with one person. That person could be ANYWHERE. The question is, was this person's old, degraded DNA deposited there innocently or not. More than likely, since it is OLDER. You don't know which until you match the DNA. We should probably start in Taiwan. The fact that the DNA was old and degraded has nothing to do with when it was transferred to JBR's underwear. There's no requirement that only fresh, complete DNA can be deposited on JBR's underwear.[/quote] Are you kidding?

Since this "sexual assault" happened December 26th and that is when JB's DNA was deposited there, and we have "unsourced" DNA that the Ramseys claim is the INTRUDERS, we can assume that the intruder deposited his DNA there on December 26th. So his DNA SHOULD BE FRESH.

However, if the UNSOURCED DNA IS NOT FRESH and it is DEGRADED and MISSING MARKERS, and OLDER, we can assume, scientifically, that the DNA was in the UNDERWEAR before THAT NIGHT.

Since the underwear CAME FROM THE RAMSEY HOUSE, the "intruder" would have no other time to deposit his DNA there, so therefore, he deposited there that night. That is what the Ramseys are saying. So if it is FRESH that night, why is it degraded and "old". Because it is from someone other than an intruder. A packager, more than likely some time prior handled the underwear and left his DNA there.

This is clear Holdon. It is a science. This is not an opinion. Science is difficult to argue with.

 

[UKGuy]

But how do we know that pair of undies is missing? When reading what the police took from the house, many pairs are listed without size, and/or without description.

Is there another source for this information that I'm forgetting? :blushing:

IrishMist,

As Holmes might suggest: Its elementary, my dear Watson.

Because JonBenet was not wearing any size-6 underwear when discovered, and it is safe to assume, she did not wear the size-12's to the White's party.

If JonBenet's already worn size-6 underwear was clean and available, then there would be no need to redress her in size-12 underwear?

If they are not missing, can we identify them, is a Wednesday size-6 pair sufficient information, if they are not missing and can be shown to have been lying on her bedroom floor, or in a laundry basket, then being redressed in a pair of size-12's appears even more mysterious?

.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't think investigators found the original roll of tape or cord. Nor did they find any other application in the house where either material was used.

In the photos, all cord ends appear freshly cut, and the cord itself appears new (not dirty or worn, as if taken from elsewhere in the house where it was originally used for another purpose).

This gives the appearance that both the cord and tape were brought in for the purpose of kidnapping or killing JBR, not improvised from materials already on hand, originally intended for another purpose.



The DNA could not have originated anywhere, as you claim. It could only originate with one person. The question is, was this person's old, degraded DNA deposited there innocently or not. You don't know which until you match the DNA. The fact that the DNA was old and degraded has nothing to do with when it was transferred to JBR's underwear. There's no requirement that only fresh, complete DNA can be deposited on JBR's underwear.

Holdontoyourhat,

In the photos, all cord ends appear freshly cut, and the cord itself appears new (not dirty or worn, as if taken from elsewhere in the house where it was originally used for another purpose).

This does not mean any roll of nylon cord was new, or arrived on a roll, it may have been wrapped in cellophane?

This gives the appearance that both the cord and tape were brought in for the purpose of kidnapping or killing JBR, not improvised from materials already on hand, originally intended for another purpose.

Sure it gives the appearance, but appearances can be deceptive, particularly when you know you are dealing with a staged crime-scene, so why did the intruder deliberately wipe the flashlight clean, inside and out, then leave it at the crime-scene, but remove any remaining tape or cord?

The DNA could not have originated anywhere, as you claim.

Of course it could, it may have originated from a toilet seat at the Whites, or from any floor JonBenet sat on, or from any location through which the underwear passed from the manufacture of the material on a roll to its patterned cutting at the underwear factory, then as the underwear was sewn together any person may have sneezed depositing the now degraded dna.

JonBenet will most likely have other examples of degraded dna on her body e.g. her hands , under her nails, her feet, but these will be recognized for being what they are, e.g. random degraded dna.

Also the degraded dna is to be found on her clean out of the packet size-12 underwear, why not on her white gap-top, or her longjohns, or on her genitals. Most likely because the dna was already present on the size-12's?


.