IDIs On This Forum?

[Ames]

And how did his shirt fibers end up in the crotch area of JonBenet's size 12-14 panties which were fresh from the package? Why did John make a beeline for the wine cellar when searching the house?
John was involved in the staging of the scene, no question about it imo.

Sure he was. Patsy would have never been able to pull that off by herself, in the short amount of time that she had....she not only had the time to pull it off alone, she didn't have the sense. She HAD to have help.

 

[JMO8778]

Sure he was. Patsy would have never been able to pull that off by herself, in the short amount of time that she had....she not only had the time to pull it off alone, she didn't have the sense. She HAD to have help.

I believe JR not only completely guided her,he even threw evidence to sway in her direction,in case it came down to that...him or her.If HE had physically written the RN,the whole notepad would have disappeared ! He wouldn't have just handed it to LE!And I think he kept Patsy busy writing the final RN so he could shower and wash off any evidence..leaving her no time to even change clothes,and even calling the White's over,who'd just seen her the night bf in those same clothes.(add to that JB was also wearing the same shirt from the previous night).She clearly wasn't thinking.She was putting her full trust into JR.JR,however,WAS thinking! And ahead,I might add.
edited to add,re: the staging.I think JR wrapped JB that way on purpose,despite the Mindhunter book.He wrapped her to look like it was done by her *mother.I think that's the key to it.Add to that his 'this had to be an inside job' comment,and I think he had it set up 2 ways.

 

[BBB167893]

Just please say a little more about the captions being the same as the RN. Just very interessting. I don't need a whole lot just something more. Thanks, Solace

Everyone, you're in luck. You caught me on a good day, since my bro just got married!

Okay, here goes.

Well, someone already beat me to it, but let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up. The Ramsey photo album contains handwritten captions under each photo. Now, Burke's photos, coming home from the hospital for the first time and so on, are written in first person, i.e., as if he wrote them. Now, those who did the examination said that the writing matched the note to a T. The problem here is that there are some who say that the writer of the captions was not Patsy because she denied writing them. Indeed, a lot of IDIs and RSTs say that the samples matching the note couldn't be hers because she denied writing them. Like she wouldn't deny anything incriminating. Yeah, right, I'm sure. Anyhoo, that one collapses when you realize that there was a triangulation here. The captions matched the note, and her London Letter matched the captions. You could see where Ted Widmer said that you could superimpose the three writings with an overhead projectior and be blown away. Simple, isn't it? And honestly, does anyone really think the intruder would hang around writing captions under baby pictures?!

This is flatly wrong, because 'Don't think that killing will be difficult' is clearly future tense, and not necessarily referring to the killing of JBR. It would be better for your argument if the RN read "Dont think the killing was difficult." That would sound like the deed is already done, and would have referred to JBR specifically.

But it wouldn't make any sense. Let me explain. The whole idea here was to provide a reason for the Rs not to search the house. If it was written that she was already dead, it completely falls apart.

Unfortunately for RDI, you can't really use the after-the-fact behavior to establish guilt, making these claims almost irrelevant.

Are you kiddin'? Does the phrase "OJ Simpson slow-speed chase" mean anything to anyone here?

Well, of course they are. Before they killed her, they hadn't killed her yet, for crying out loud. Why act guilty then?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Sure you can, thats exaclty how a police sting would work. In the Edelman case it was after-the-fact behavior that got his goose cooked.

Cajun-style!

And lets not forget the lovely Scott Peterson.

Ah, yes. Darlie Routier, you forgot her.

Holdon, since I'm feeling so generous today, I'm going to give you a treat. Not just you, but everyone. This whole "unknown DNA" business. Now, I've been asked several times to provide examples where DNA was seen as irrelevant to a murder case. Very well. Here you are:

Has anyone ever heard of Dennis Dechaine? I came across this just by chance. He's in prison in Maine serving a life sentence for murdering a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Cherry. There is a large effort on the part of some, including a former ATF agent, to free him. Why? Here's how the caper came down:

In 1988, Jennifer Henkel returned to her home in Bowdoin, Maine. Oddly, her baby was alone. The girl charged with watching the infant? Gone without trace. Her name was Sarah Cherry. Henkel called the police, and while waiting, found a notebook and a car repair receipt with Dechaine's name on them. The cops found him in the woods. He said he'd been fishing, but had no pole or tackle. Initially, he denied the papers were his. Then he changed his story to the classic _"i've been framed" story, saying the papers were stolen from his truck. The cops found his truck in the same woods, locked tight. Worse, they caught him trying to hide the keys under the seat of the police cruiser. (Oh, but that's after-the-fact behavior. So sorry.) The tire tracks in the driveway matched his truck tires.

Now, before Cherry's body was found, Dechaine's lawyer pulled a Westerfield and told three gov't attorneys that the cops were looking in the right place. They found Cherry's body near where the truck was. She'd been bound, gagged, raped anally and vaginally with sticks, stabbed and strangled with a scarf. The rope used to tie her hands was matched to rope in the truck cab. The knife he kept on his keychain matched the stab wounds. Witnesses saw his truck at Henkel's home and one couple claimed he asked to wash off with their garden hose. Dechaine confessed profusely. He was convicted in 1989.

And, as if this wasn't enough already, guess what? NO HISTORY! Not even an inkling of trouble with anyone. He wouldn't even strangle the chickens on his farm!

But those who insist he's innocent latched onto somthing: There was DNA under Cherry's fingernails that wasn't his. What does this prove, ladies and jaywalker? It proves that there was DNA under Cherry's fingernails that wasn't his. It doesn't prove he didn't kill her. The world is fairly bristling with human DNA.

Only in cases of rape can DNA exclude suspects- and even then if the victim was not sexually overactive and there was only a single rapist. In virtually all other cases, DNA can only include people.

Now, as a topper to this, when Karr was nabbed, as it were, Bill O'Reilly had a criminologist on his show talking about the DNA, wondering how it was possible that DNA could be found that wasn't crime related. She (it was a woman) said that as DNA testing methods and technology get better, the chances of finding irrelevant DNA actually increase, and forensic techs now have the task of determining relevance; separating the wheat from the chaff, as it were. That's the problem with new technology, and this is true from time immemorial: just when you think you have a winner, there's a new hitch.

And you don't have to take my word for this story, either! I'm three for three on this one! Three challengers, and I shut them down cold!

 

[JMO8778]

Everyone, you're in luck. You caught me on a good day, since my bro just got married!

Okay, here goes.

Well, someone already beat me to it, but let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up. The Ramsey photo album contains handwritten captions under each photo. Now, Burke's photos, coming home from the hospital for the first time and so on, are written in first person, i.e., as if he wrote them. Now, those who did the examination said that the writing matched the note to a T. The problem here is that there are some who say that the writer of the captions was not Patsy because she denied writing them. Indeed, a lot of IDIs and RSTs say that the samples matching the note couldn't be hers because she denied writing them. Like she wouldn't deny anything incriminating. Yeah, right, I'm sure. Anyhoo, that one collapses when you realize that there was a triangulation here. The captions matched the note, and her London Letter matched the captions. You could see where Ted Widmer said that you could superimpose the three writings with an overhead projectior and be blown away. Simple, isn't it? And honestly, does anyone really think the intruder would hang around writing captions under baby pictures?!



But it wouldn't make any sense. Let me explain. The whole idea here was to provide a reason for the Rs not to search the house. If it was written that she was already dead, it completely falls apart.



Are you kiddin'? Does the phrase "OJ Simpson slow-speed chase" mean anything to anyone here?



Couldn't have said it better myself.



Cajun-style!



Ah, yes. Darlie Routier, you forgot her.

Holdon, since I'm feeling so generous today, I'm going to give you a treat. Not just you, but everyone. This whole "unknown DNA" business. Now, I've been asked several times to provide examples where DNA was seen as irrelevant to a murder case. Very well. Here you are:

Has anyone ever heard of Dennis Dechaine? I came across this just by chance. He's in prison in Maine serving a life sentence for murdering a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Cherry. There is a large effort on the part of some, including a former ATF agent, to free him. Why? Here's how the caper came down:

In 1988, Jennifer Henkel returned to her home in Bowdoin, Maine. Oddly, her baby was alone. The girl charged with watching the infant? Gone without trace. Her name was Sarah Cherry. Henkel called the police, and while waiting, found a notebook and a car repair receipt with Dechaine's name on them. The cops found him in the woods. He said he'd been fishing, but had no pole or tackle. Initially, he denied the papers were his. Then he changed his story to the classic _"i've been framed" story, saying the papers were stolen from his truck. The cops found his truck in the same woods, locked tight. Worse, they caught him trying to hide the keys under the seat of the police cruiser. (Oh, but that's after-the-fact behavior. So sorry.) The tire tracks in the driveway matched his truck tires.

Now, before Cherry's body was found, Dechaine's lawyer pulled a Westerfield and told three gov't attorneys that the cops were looking in the right place. They found Cherry's body near where the truck was. She'd been bound, gagged, raped anally and vaginally with sticks, stabbed and strangled with a scarf. The rope used to tie her hands was matched to rope in the truck cab. The knife he kept on his keychain matched the stab wounds. Witnesses saw his truck at Henkel's home and one couple claimed he asked to wash off with their garden hose. Dechaine confessed profusely. He was convicted in 1989.

And, as if this wasn't enough already, guess what? NO HISTORY! Not even an inkling of trouble with anyone. He wouldn't even strangle the chickens on his farm!

But those who insist he's innocent latched onto somthing: There was DNA under Cherry's fingernails that wasn't his. What does this prove, ladies and jaywalker? It proves that there was DNA under Cherry's fingernails that wasn't his. It doesn't prove he didn't kill her. The world is fairly bristling with human DNA.

Only in cases of rape can DNA exclude suspects- and even then if the victim was not sexually overactive and there was only a single rapist. In virtually all other cases, DNA can only include people.

Now, as a topper to this, when Karr was nabbed, as it were, Bill O'Reilly had a criminologist on his show talking about the DNA, wondering how it was possible that DNA could be found that wasn't crime related. She (it was a woman) said that as DNA testing methods and technology get better, the chances of finding irrelevant DNA actually increase, and forensic techs now have the task of determining relevance; separating the wheat from the chaff, as it were. That's the problem with new technology, and this is true from time immemorial: just when you think you have a winner, there's a new hitch.

And you don't have to take my word for this story, either! I'm three for three on this one! Three challengers, and I shut them down cold!

:clap::clap::clap:

Considering all the human handling material and underwear must get bf being completed and packaged,I would think it odd if there wasn't any DNA found on some.
I meant to ask you,what did Robert Ressler say about the 'fat cat' line in the RN? thx.

 

[BOESP]

I believe John found out after reading the ransom letter. He recognizes Patsy's handwriting and demands to know what the heck is going onl If John knew anything before reading the note, then why take precious minutes to shower? Patsy had no time left..not even to take a shower.

I'd speculate that whoever did the staging would likely strip to their underwear to take JonBenet downstairs and set up the scene in the basement. Taking a shower would get rid of lots of evidence if that is the case.

 

[Ames]

Everyone, you're in luck. You caught me on a good day, since my bro just got married!

Okay, here goes.

Well, someone already beat me to it, but let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up. The Ramsey photo album contains handwritten captions under each photo. Now, Burke's photos, coming home from the hospital for the first time and so on, are written in first person, i.e., as if he wrote them. Now, those who did the examination said that the writing matched the note to a T. The problem here is that there are some who say that the writer of the captions was not Patsy because she denied writing them. Indeed, a lot of IDIs and RSTs say that the samples matching the note couldn't be hers because she denied writing them. Like she wouldn't deny anything incriminating. Yeah, right, I'm sure. Anyhoo, that one collapses when you realize that there was a triangulation here. The captions matched the note, and her London Letter matched the captions. You could see where Ted Widmer said that you could superimpose the three writings with an overhead projectior and be blown away. Simple, isn't it? And honestly, does anyone really think the intruder would hang around writing captions under baby pictures?!

<snipped>

There are some IDI's that would probably say that's exactly what happened. You know, after all...the "intruder"...had HOURS to kill while waiting for the Ramsey's to come home that night. He wrote the RN...and scoped out the place, found JB's bedroom, and then the wine cellar..and then got bored, and wrote captions under baby pictures.

 

[BOESP]

There are some IDI's that would probably say that's exactly what happened. You know, after all...the "intruder"...had HOURS to kill while waiting for the Ramsey's to come home that night. He wrote the RN...and scoped out the place, found JB's bedroom, and then the wine cellar..and then got bored, and wrote captions under baby pictures.

Ames, you are slipping. You left out the part about the "hundreds" of "unsourced fibers" that were found and how that proves someone was in the Ramsey household besides the Ramseys.

(Sorry ... couldn't resist. :blushing

 

[UKGuy]

I'd speculate that whoever did the staging would likely strip to their underwear to take JonBenet downstairs and set up the scene in the basement. Taking a shower would get rid of lots of evidence if that is the case.

BOESP,

Or wrap her in blankets in preparation for placing her outside or moving her to the basement.

The person who killed JonBenet was probably already naked at the time of her death, as was possibly JonBenet, since there is no mention of forensic debri upon her white gap-top?

JonBenet's missing size-6's will likely contain dna from her killer, this will be why they were removed, otherwise they could have been left on her and their appearance blamed on an intruder?


.

 

[JMO8778]

But then how did JR's shirt fibers get on her? to me it seems he was in contact with her after coming home from the White's,while still wearing those same clothes.
IA about her underwear,and it was important she was wearing new underwear after being wiped down to rid of any DNA evidence.and that they said Wed. on them as well was a bonus I think,to the perp,no matter the fact they were way too big for her.

 

[DeeDee249]

I just cannot believe ANYONE would take PR seriously when she claims not to have written the captions in the family photo album! Who the H else would write them, if not either P or J. That spells guilt to me as much as anything does. You can tell a lot about a persons' guilt by what they distance themselves from. In this case: the FAMILY photo album, the bowl, pineapple and spoon, the kleenex box, the flashlight, and, oh yes, let's not forget the most important thing they distanced themselves from...the body of theor DAUGHTER.
The Rs were given a pass on SO many things by LE- anyone know if PR was ever asked who she thought DID write the captions on HER family photo album? Think she'd suggest a newborn, supehuman BR wrote his own? Would she say JR? Oh wait, lets see, how many family members (who else would know where this album was kept) match the handrwiting on the RN? Just ONE. PR.

 

[UKGuy]

But then how did JR's shirt fibers get on her? to me it seems he was in contact with her after coming home from the White's,while still wearing those same clothes.
IA about her underwear,and it was important she was wearing new underwear after being wiped down to rid of any DNA evidence.and that they said Wed. on them as well was a bonus I think,to the perp,no matter the fact they were way too big for her.

JMO8778,

Presumably someone wiped JonBenet down with the shirt? Now you do not need to use an expensive shirt to remove the result of some toilet incident, so it must be human dna that was being removed?

The shirt may have been lying close by, probably just having been removed to engage with JonBenet? Was Patsy present, did she use the shirt or was it John?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think JR. I can definitely see PR as abusive, but not sexually. Both those parents abused JBR in their own way.

 

[UKGuy]

I think JR. I can definitely see PR as abusive, but not sexually. Both those parents abused JBR in their own way.

DeeDee249,

This assumption may be why most people cannot resolve the issues involved, particularly since it appears that not only did Patsy assist with the staging she defended John, publicly, against allegations of sexual abuse.

.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Presumably someone wiped JonBenet down with the shirt? Now you do not need to use an expensive shirt to remove the result of some toilet incident, so it must be human dna that was being removed?

The shirt may have been lying close by, probably just having been removed to engage with JonBenet? Was Patsy present, did she use the shirt or was it John?


.

most likely JR,IMO.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

This assumption may be why most people cannot resolve the issues involved, particularly since it appears that not only did Patsy assist with the staging she defended John, publicly, against allegations of sexual abuse.

.

This is true. We are all familiar with mothers who cannot believe or find a way to explain away the sexual abuse of their children by the man in their life, whether it is the child's own father, stepfather, or mother's boyfriend. Some women would turn a blind eye to such abuse rather than face life without that man, with all the disgrace that comes with outing the abuser, possibly in much less affluent circumstances.
Everyone that knew PR said that appearences were very important to her. If this was something she could keep under wraps, she would.

 

[Rino]

It is strange, in my opinion, that parents whose daughter had been kidnapped would send their son away to stay with someone else. If Burke was going to be safe, staying in the home, surrounded by parents, friends and several policemen would be the logical place.

But she was not kidnapped. She was murdered right there.

You do make a good point. PR says keep your babies close there is a killer out there, and the first thing they do is ship their other baby out of their hands.

 

[Ames]

But she was not kidnapped. She was murdered right there.

You do make a good point. PR says keep your babies close there is a killer out there, and the first thing they do is ship their other baby out of their hands.

No, but she was supposedly kidnapped, and then found murdered in her home. And "supposedly"....she had been kidnapped when Burke was sent out of the house to stay with friends. That is the point that BOESP is trying to make here.

 

[Rino]

No, but she was supposedly kidnapped, and then found murdered in her home. And "supposedly"....she had been kidnapped when Burke was sent out of the house to stay with friends. That is the point that BOESP is trying to make here.

I understand, my point was sloppy.

and...by sending him away, they may have been saving him from being present when they made the discovery. Either to be kind or to better be able to keep up the pretense they had hatched???

 

[Ames]

I understand, my point was sloppy.

and...by sending him away, they may have been saving him from being present when they made the discovery. Either to be kind or to better be able to keep up the pretense they had hatched???

Good point...I bet you are right...they sent him away, because they KNEW that JB was in that house, and they KNEW that she would have to eventually be found, and they didn't want him there to see it. Excellent point!!! That is the ONLY thing that makes sense....if it had of been a real kidnapping, with a real intruder...then they would have "kept their baby close"....as Patsy said, and not let him out of their sight. Do you think for one skinny second, that if one of MY children were kidnapped...and I had found a ransom note, stating that we were being watched, and that my daughter would be killed....that I would even THINK about sending my other child out the door with friends?? I think NOT!! So, we all know ....well, most of us anyway...know that there was no intruder, so the only thing that makes sense....is that they sent Burke away, so that he wouldn't be there when John...or the police..."found" JB. I am sure that they didn't want to scar him for life.....poor kid, his life was already messed up enough as it was, having killers for parents.

 

[JMO8778]

Good point...I bet you are right...they sent him away, because they KNEW that JB was in that house, and they KNEW that she would have to eventually be found, and they didn't want him there to see it. Excellent point!!! That is the ONLY thing that makes sense....if it had of been a real kidnapping, with a real intruder...then they would have "kept their baby close"....as Patsy said, and not let him out of their sight. Do you think for one skinny second, that if one of MY children were kidnapped...and I had found a ransom note, stating that we were being watched, and that my daughter would be killed....that I would even THINK about sending my other child out the door with friends?? I think NOT!! So, we all know ....well, most of us anyway...know that there was no intruder, so the only thing that makes sense....is that they sent Burke away, so that he wouldn't be there when John...or the police..."found" JB. I am sure that they didn't want to scar him for life.....poor kid, his life was already messed up enough as it was, having killers for parents.

that,and I think they didn't want any q's asked of him,in case he'd overheard something during the night.he was sent back to bed so LE could see for themselves that he was asleep and hadn't woken up yet.(or so they thought...)
In DOI,JR has the nerve to get angry about BR being q'd later at the White's.well THEY sure didn't bother to ask him anything,so if indeed it was a real KN,he'd have been ever so grateful BR was asked anything at all,like did he see or hear anything during the night??? Instead he goes on about how BR was q'd without his consent. @@ Oh PLEASE.