IDIs On This Forum?

[DeeDee249]

Linking the parents to the crime-scene, when the crime-scene is their own house, doesn't require any forensic evidence. Both parents are inherently linked to the crime scene.

Linking them to the crime itself is another story. An example of a real link would have been a scratch on a parent's face or arms that was noticed by detectives. Or JBR's blood found on a parents article of clothing. Instead, most links are contrived and seem to be motivated by sensationalism. "Oh they're rich and bought their way out of it" is an RDI rationalization that doesn't explain why LE never even bothered to book them. OJ, RB, and MJ were all booked, remember?

The R's didn't get booked because there was no evidence linking them to the crime itself. Obvously they're llinked to the crime scene. Big difference.

They ARE linked to the crime scene. PRs jacket fibers (from the jacket she wore the night JBR was killed) were found entwined IN the garrotte knot. Also on the mouth side of the tape. The tape was removed by JR before she was brought upstairs and before PR "supposedly" saw her. JR shirt fibers were found on her pubic area. You can explain away those fibers on everything else, but those three places are SPECIFIC TO THE CRIME ITSELF and links them to the crime.
The Rs didn't get booked because the DA refused to allow it. Period.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

They ARE linked to the crime scene. PRs jacket fibers (from the jacket she wore the night JBR was killed) were found entwined IN the garrotte knot. Also on the mouth side of the tape. The tape was removed by JR before she was brought upstairs and before PR "supposedly" saw her. JR shirt fibers were found on her pubic area. You can explain away those fibers on everything else, but those three places are SPECIFIC TO THE CRIME ITSELF and links them to the crime.
The Rs didn't get booked because the DA refused to allow it. Period.

PR and JBR spent the whole evening together. PR's jacket fibers are naturally going to tranfer to JBR's hair. If hair was entwined then so will PR's jacket fibers.

JR and JBR spent the whole evening together too. His shirt fibers will transfer to JBR as soon as he picks her up. He's her dad.

Parental fibers absent from JBR would be strange. The fibers from the clothing the parents were wearing that long evening will transfer to JBR in profusion, and once on JBR will transfer from place to place. That seems more natural than not finding any fibers. These fibers should be expected on JBR, and so they don't link the parents to the crime, IMO.

 

[coloradokares]

CK - did you know if anyone in Boulder (besides Fleet White) ever protested about how JonBenet's case was handled?

Everyone it seemed, or at least everyone I knew. Ramseys support and their friends quickly faded away as time passed and the Ramseys threw out accusations against even long standing friends like Pasta Jays Whites and the list grew as time passed. I do not believe there is much of any support left. If so it is not the theme in the restaurants etc. Let me tell you , you should of been from around here for the Karr debacle talk on the street was all still very biased against the possibility the infamous "intruder" even existed. Or at least that is the Boulder I am familiar with. We might be a bit different but we are not that gullible I dont think!!

 

[DeeDee249]

PR and JBR spent the whole evening together. PR's jacket fibers are naturally going to tranfer to JBR's hair. If hair was entwined then so will PR's jacket fibers.

JR and JBR spent the whole evening together too. His shirt fibers will transfer to JBR as soon as he picks her up. He's her dad.

Parental fibers absent from JBR would be strange. The fibers from the clothing the parents were wearing that long evening will transfer to JBR in profusion, and once on JBR will transfer from place to place. That seems more natural than not finding any fibers. These fibers should be expected on JBR, and so they don't link the parents to the crime, IMO.

What about the tape? How'd it get there?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What about the tape? How'd it get there?

Tape is a fiber magnet. Fibers that should be expected to be found on JBR's body that evening discovered on tape that was in contact with her doesn't seem very surprising.

Fibers aren't like DNA. Fibers consistent with JR's black shirt could also be consistent with black clothes the perp was wearing, maybe to match the black duct tape he used.

 

[BOESP]

Tape is a fiber magnet. Fibers that should be expected to be found on JBR's body that evening discovered on tape that was in contact with her doesn't seem very surprising.

Fibers aren't like DNA. Fibers consistent with JR's black shirt could also be consistent with black clothes the perp was wearing, maybe to match the black duct tape he used.

"Consistent with" means microscopically similar so as to appear to be alike or the same. It is not likely they were consistent with clothing worn by "the perp" if by "the perp" you mean an Intruder. It is also a stretch to assume 4-5 fibers consistent with Patsy's jacket were found on the underside of the tape that was placed over JonBenet's mouth as well as the same consistent fibers being found in Patsy's art bin and also, if memory serves me, the same fibers being found wound in the ligature, and believe that as you say they all appeared accidentally by secondary transfer.

It is strange to me no mention is made of any unsourced fibers being on JonBenet. I'd think the killer would have left several fibers on JonBenet and her clothing. In fact, I think the number and locations of the fibers that are mentioned point to the killer.

 

[DeeDee249]

Well said. Sometimes it's what ain't there that says it all.

 

[UKGuy]

Linking the parents to the crime-scene, when the crime-scene is their own house, doesn't require any forensic evidence. Both parents are inherently linked to the crime scene.

Linking them to the crime itself is another story. An example of a real link would have been a scratch on a parent's face or arms that was noticed by detectives. Or JBR's blood found on a parents article of clothing. Instead, most links are contrived and seem to be motivated by sensationalism. "Oh they're rich and bought their way out of it" is an RDI rationalization that doesn't explain why LE never even bothered to book them. OJ, RB, and MJ were all booked, remember?

The R's didn't get booked because there was no evidence linking them to the crime itself. Obvously they're llinked to the crime scene. Big difference.

Holdontoyourhat,
Your use of logic makes your position alike that of King Canute, wishing the rising tide of guilt to obey your desires and recede.

The R's didn't get booked because there was no evidence linking them to the crime itself. Obvously they're llinked to the crime scene. Big difference.

Well The R's didn't get booked because there was no evidence linking them to the crime itself. how do you know this, you are not privy to the as yet unreleased forensic evidence? There is evidence linking them to the crime-scene, this means they are prime suspects, no linkage would allow your curious logic to work. Also it is not obviously the case that Obvously they're llinked to the crime scene. because you would expect foreign fibers and foreign dna to be present in obvious quantity at the crime-scene, this as I keep telling you is missing e.g. zero intruder forensic evidence!


The R's didn't get booked because they staged the crime-scene and the police needed to have one parent testifying against the other, which never occurred due to skilfull defense lawyers and attorneys.

Incidentally, your throw away remark:

Obvously they're llinked to the crime scene. Big difference.

does not deny that they are linked to the crime-scene, when they should not be, only that you are trying to associate an absence of charges with the R's innocence.

So your case for an IDI has nothing to do with the evidence, you simply want to personally defend the ramsey's against any claims of involvement in their daughters death.

.

 

[rashomon]

Holdontoyourhat,
Your use of logic makes your position alike that of King Canute, wishing the rising tide of guilt to obey your desires and recede.


Well The R's didn't get booked because there was no evidence linking them to the crime itself. how do you know this, you are not privy to the as yet unreleased forensic evidence? There is evidence linking them to the crime-scene, this means they are prime suspects, no linkage would allow your curious logic to work. Also it is not obviously the case that Obvously they're llinked to the crime scene. because you would expect foreign fibers and foreign dna to be present in obvious quantity at the crime-scene, this as I keep telling you is missing e.g. zero intruder forensic evidence!


The R's didn't get booked because they staged the crime-scene and the police needed to have one parent testifying against the other, which never occurred due to skilfull defense lawyers and attorneys.

Incidentally, your throw away remark:

does not deny that they are linked to the crime-scene, when they should not be, only that you are trying to associate an absence of charges with the R's innocence.

So your case for an IDI has nothing to do with the evidence, you simply want to personally defend the ramsey's against any claims of involvement in their daughters death.

Good points, UKGuy!

 

[Solace]

Solace
An incestuous relationship is more consistent with the forensic evidence that some psychopathic intruder, more so, if you accept JonBenet's genital injuries, such as the enlargement of her hymen, which was chronic and suggests prior sexual molestation?

.

I know it does, but in all honesty, I just can't get past the belief (my belief) that Patsy would not allow this. I just feel her personality is too strong to allow this.

 

[BOESP]

I know it does, but in all honesty, I just can't get past the belief (my belief) that Patsy would not allow this. I just feel her personality is too strong to allow this.

Sol, I agree with you about Patsy not allowing molestation, if she knew about it. As far as physical evidence on JonBenet's body, an incestuous relationship would be the same as a pedophile molesting JonBenet. Using the word "incest" doesn't change what to expect in the way of damage and the damage described in the autopsy doesn't suggest pedophilia, whether it be from a relative or a non-relative.

I can't dismiss Steve Thomas' speculation that corporal cleansing was involved. He had reasons to believe that or else he wouldn't have said it, in my opinion. If I had to choose an alternative theory, I'd suspect an older child might have "played doctor" to the extent that caused the damage listed in the autopsy. Yet, if so, I believe JonBenet would have told her mother.

 

[Squishified]

I know it does, but in all honesty, I just can't get past the belief (my belief) that Patsy would not allow this. I just feel her personality is too strong to allow this.

That is my belief as well.

 

[Rino]

Sol, I agree with you about Patsy not allowing molestation, if she knew about it.

I agree with you guys on this, too.

 

[JMO8778]

but if it was occuring,what could she have done about it? what would she have done about it? JR held all the money stings,correct? I don't think she would have sold him out..she needed $ to keep up the cancer treatments,should it recur.And she seemed to be a very save face kind of person..not wanting their family rep. or finances to be ruined.

 

[Squishified]

but if it was occuring,what could she have done about it? what would she have done about it? JR held all the money stings,correct? I don't think she would have sold him out..she needed $ to keep up the cancer treatments,should it recur.And she seemed to be a very save face kind of person..not wanting their family rep. or finances to be ruined.

Hi JMO,
You may be right. It is just my gut feeling that John was not molesting JB. But my gut could be wrong!

 

[Rino]

but if it was occuring,what could she have done about it? what would she have done about it? JR held all the money stings,correct? I don't think she would have sold him out..she needed $ to keep up the cancer treatments,should it recur.And she seemed to be a very save face kind of person..not wanting their family rep. or finances to be ruined.

Again, you may be right. But without real evidence I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she knew of no sexual abuse and if she did she would taken the appropriate steps.

That is not to say I think she is innocent of the harm that may appear to indicate sexual abuse, such as corp. cleansing.

 

[JMO8778]

I'm not 100% sure he was molesting her either...but my gut feeling leans twd he was...he seems to be a very morally loose person...despite being quiet,going to church,and pretending to lead a very family life.and then Patsy seemed to be a cover up kind of person..I wouldn't have trusted her at all.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,
Your use of logic makes your position alike that of King Canute, wishing the rising tide of guilt to obey your desires and recede.


Well The R's didn't get booked because there was no evidence linking them to the crime itself. how do you know this, you are not privy to the as yet unreleased forensic evidence? There is evidence linking them to the crime-scene, this means they are prime suspects, no linkage would allow your curious logic to work. Also it is not obviously the case that Obvously they're llinked to the crime scene. because you would expect foreign fibers and foreign dna to be present in obvious quantity at the crime-scene, this as I keep telling you is missing e.g. zero intruder forensic evidence!


The R's didn't get booked because they staged the crime-scene and the police needed to have one parent testifying against the other, which never occurred due to skilfull defense lawyers and attorneys.

Incidentally, your throw away remark:

does not deny that they are linked to the crime-scene, when they should not be, only that you are trying to associate an absence of charges with the R's innocence.

So your case for an IDI has nothing to do with the evidence, you simply want to personally defend the ramsey's against any claims of involvement in their daughters death.

.

My case for an IDI has the most to do with the evidence. The ransom note, ligature, paintbrush, cord, and tape aren't part of a facade as you repeatedly claim.

They are the real evidence of how and why JBR was murdered.

JBR was strangled by the garrote, restrained by the second ligature, and bashed in the head, under very criminal circumstances.

The forensic evidence of an intruder are the ranson note handwriting, unidentified dark fibers, and cord and tape that could never be sourced to anything else in the house.

The perp really does not respect our country, really had 2 gentlemen helping, and finds it easier if his victims are fat cats. Anyone who wants to find JBR's real killer would be better off searching for someone who signs their letters 'Victory!' and S.B.T.C.

 

[Brefie]

Anyone who wants to find JBR's real killer would be better off searching for someone who signs their letters 'Victory!' and S.B.T.C.

Easy. Patsy Ramsey.

 

[coloradokares]

Easy. Patsy Ramsey.

:woohoo: