IDIs On This Forum?

[BOESP]

No, I wouldn't. Their fingerprints, like their fibers, would be strange if absent from their own house. Intruder fingerprints would be more surprising, since most intruders wear gloves.

The fingerprints prove Patsy and Burke handled the table ware. The lack of other prints suggests they were the only ones to handle it. I suppose you could assume a gloved Intruder left no fingerprints, but someone that careful, in my opinion, isn't going to risk taking extra time to feed an abducted child pineapple. Besides, you have to assume something for which you have no proof -- that there was, indeed, an Intruder and that Intruder wore gloves. Why would someone careful enough to wear gloves be careless enough to risk getting caught feeding JonBenet pineapple?

 

[coloradokares]

Would you have done the same had the source been Thomas' book? I think the Ramseys were involved just as much as you do, but don't see every single solitary word in their book as being a blatant self-serving lie.


-Tea

Honestly yes I would if the information is in direct contradiction to what I bellive I read as to the rope fibers were consistent from a rope from John Andrews room. That was a hemp type rope that was consistent with the rope fibers located on Jon Benets bed. Which we all know the cord like rope that was used in garroting Jon Benet was not hemp like . See where my doubt and confusion comes from? I am making allowances once again that my memory could be faulty as this is information that I have believed for far longer than I have been aware of any internet subculture and forums. I spent far longer trying to find verification of information by going through evidence lists which I find far more credible than any book, be it Thomases book Sinclairs PMPT DOI or any book for that matter.. I may be jaded, and this is only me but I consider DOI as not the difinitive gospel. It is only my opinion but there are many inconsistencies in their intervews with law enforcement and in media releases and interviews with media etc that I have come to look at known facts and evidence first. Books secondary. But thats me. That is why instead of relying on my recall I was hoping for verificaton that was solid and not one of the books.

 

[coloradokares]

I am having a real problem with this thread. I have several pages missing. It is not even showing the page numbers. Does anyone know how to correct this. I am so sorry that I cannot bring up the whole of this thread so I can show you Tea that others have the same problem with the cord fibers I do. I have lost the ability to have page numbers on this thread titled IDIs On This forum. There is no way for me to go back and refer to various posts and give you the page numbers to follow. I am missing totally about four pages of posts from this thread and it is no longer providing me with any page numbers at all on this thread. It is all ok on the other threads its only this one that is messed up. :truce:

 

[BOESP]

I am having a real problem with this thread. I have several pages missing. It is not even showing the page numbers. Does anyone know how to correct this. I am so sorry that I cannot bring up the whole of this thread so I can show you Tea that others have the same problem with the cord fibers I do. I have lost the ability to have page numbers on this thread titled IDIs On This forum. There is no way for me to go back and refer to various posts and give you the page numbers to follow. I am missing totally about four pages of posts from this thread and it is no longer providing me with any page numbers at all on this thread. It is all ok on the other threads its only this one that is messed up. :truce:

CK, I'm not having that problem but have you checked the "Options" in your "CP" section? Somewhere in there is an option on how many messages to display in a thread. Maybe that got inadvertantly changed???? Otherwise, I wouldn't know what else to suggest.

 

[coloradokares]

CK, I'm not having that problem but have you checked the "Options" in your "CP" section? Somewhere in there is an option on how many messages to display in a thread. Maybe that got inadvertantly changed???? Otherwise, I wouldn't know what else to suggest.

Options? CP secton? I have no idea what your talking about now:waitasec:

 

[rashomon]

The widely publicized photo of the 2nd ligature clearly shows a double slip knot at one end. Both loops would close when the cord is pulled.
http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote5.jpg

But slip knot does not mean it must be a sophisticated knot. A slip knot is basically something very simple. Anyone able to tie and overhand knot can tie a slip knot too. Look at the description the coroner gave of the knots. One loop had already come off (this is the ligature on the right in the photo), and the other was tied so loosely on top of JB's sleeve that tha the coroner had no problem removing it.
Who would loosely tie a knot on top of a sleeve if he wanted to restrain the victim? Only the 'sophisticated' criminal in Louie's fantasy world.

jmo

 

[coloradokares]

Tea there seems to be no way I can "fix" the page number thing. I think it was Rash that said the rope was hemp like and Guessing it was on pges nine twenty something or another, try 922-927 or so . Mu memory is not what it once was at all, and I hope I am close on that page number it should be around there. BOESP and JM also had posts on this. Till I get this fixed or we start a new thread for this discussion I am dead in the water as my page numbers have gone missing in action. JMHO but Fenton started this thread asking about IDIs a long time ago and the thread has taken a detour and seems to have no consistency since shortly after Fenton started it. I have no power to close a thread but it does me no good to keep posting on that one when several pages have gone to the ozone.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

But slip knot does not mean it must be a sophisticated knot. A slip knot is basically something very simple. Anyone able to tie and overhand knot can tie a slip knot too. Look at the description the coroner gave of the knots. One loop had already come off (this is the ligature on the right in the photo), and the other was tied so loosely on top of JB's sleeve that tha the coroner had no problem removing it.
Who would loosely tie a knot on top of a sleeve if he wante to restrain the victim? Only the 'sophisticated' criminal in Louie's fantasy world.

jmo

LE officials, trained in investigations, assigned to the JBR homicide, were quoted as saying 'sophisticated', weren't they?

Sophistication is irrelevant anyway. If it was a slipknot then it could be tightened, and if it was found loose, then that only means it was found loose, if you know what I mean.

The 'loosely tied' knot on top of JBR's sleeve assumes that knot was only on her arm, never anywhere else, and never able to be tightened. Thats a lot of assumptions. We really don't know how it was used. According to RDI it wasn't used at all, it is casually dismissed as a prop.

 

[rashomon]

LE officials, trained in investigations, assigned to the JBR homicide, were quoted as saying 'sophisticated', weren't they?

Who were those offficials besides from Lou Smit (who took the staged scene at face value)?

Sophistication is irrelevant anyway. If it was a slipknot then it could be tightened, and if it was found loose, then that only means it was found loose, if you know what I mean.

It is the unsophistication which is relevant in this staged scene. This is what the CASKU experts pointed out.

Lou Smit: "I see someone taking that handle and pulling it very violently tight and killing her."
Smit saw exactly what the stager of the scene wanted him to see. He was so blinded by the staged scene that he obviously didn't take the time to read what the autopsy report said about the neck knot - that it was a double knot. Well, with a double knot tied first, the perp can pull all he wants at the 17-inch cord and it will have no effect at all. Try it out yourself: tie a cord around an object with a double knot and you won't need any cord looped around a handle to pull anything tight here.
And if Lou Smit was so convinced of his intruder theory, taking the garrote contraption for real, then why on earth didn't he open his mouth at the CASKU meeting and presented his insights there to these FBI experts who were the cream of the crop in that field? But Smit did not say one word at this meeting. Not one word. Speaks volumes imo.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Who were those offficials besides from Lou Smit (who took the staged scene at face value)?


It is the unsophistication which is relevant in this staged scene. This is what the CASKU experts pointed out.

Lou Smit: "I see someone taking that handle and pulling it very violently tight and killing her."
Smit saw exactly what the stager of the scene wanted him to see. He was so blinded by the staged scene that he obviously didn't take the time to read what the autopsy report said about the neck knot - that it was a double knot. Well, with a double knot tied first, the perp can pull all he wants at the 17-inch cord and it will have no effect at all. Try it out yourself: tie a cord around an object with a double knot and you won't need any cord looped around a handle to pull anything tight here.
And if Lou Smit was so convinced of his intruder theory, taking the garrote contraption for real, then why on earth didn't he open his mouth at the CASKU meeting and presented his insights there to these FBI experts who were the cream of the crop in that field? But Smit did not say one word at this meeting. Not one word. Speaks volumes imo.

Maybe he was dumbfounded at the ability of some to curiously look past the deep furrow around JBR's neck, the large hemorrhage thereabouts. with the odd claim that the cord around her neck didn't have anything to do with it.

 

[DeeDee249]

There's no such thing as a fingerprint-free dish in a house. Every dish has fingerprints on it as soon as it leaves the dishwasher. The bowl has to have PR's or somebody's prints on it. PR's fingerprints found on her bowl doesn't seem very remarkable.

There's no such thing as a fingerprint-free flashlight either. Or fingerprint-free batteries inside the flashlight. SOMEONE had to handle them to put them in there. Yet the Rs would have us believe there is nothing unusual about that.

Of COURSE the bowl had PR's fingerprints on it. It's her bowl. THAT is not unusual at all!
BUT her prints on the bowl that has the same pineapple inside that JBR had in her digestive tract (tested as identical right down to the rind) is what places PR with an alive and awake JBR after the return from the White's. And that means the Rs are lying about the fact that she was awake.
Keep in mind that the same bowl photgraphed at the party Dec.23 does not have pineapple in it. The pineapple is specific to Christmas Day. The Rs' claim to have last seen JBR alive Christmas night. Don't get confused with dates, here. The 26th is when she was found dead, not the last day of her life. She died (by Rs own admission, they put it on her grave)on Christmas night.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

BUT her prints on the bowl that has the same pineapple inside that JBR had in her digestive tract (tested as identical right down to the rind) is what places PR with an alive and awake JBR after the return from the White's.

Not hardly.

The bowl leaves the dishwasher via PR's hands, collecting her fingerprints on the way to the cupboard. A criminal wearing gloves (I know, a lot like the movies) removes the bowl from the cupboard and puts pineapple into it.

Fingerprints on the bowl hardly places PR with an alive and awake JBR. You're assuming that the fingerprints were left at the same time pineapple was fed to JBR.

 

[DeeDee249]

Not hardly.

The bowl leaves the dishwasher via PR's hands, collecting her fingerprints on the way to the cupboard. A criminal wearing gloves (I know, a lot like the movies) removes the bowl from the cupboard and puts pineapple into it.

Fingerprints on the bowl hardly places PR with an alive and awake JBR. You're assuming that the fingerprints were left at the same time pineapple was fed to JBR.

if not, there'd be someone elses on it. Or JBR's would be on it if she'd helped herself. Or NOBODY's would be on it if it was wiped down (like the flashlight) At the very least it shows she was awake after returning home that night and ate pineapple!
Because the flashlight played an important part in the crime, it was duly wiped down by the killer(s). But the pineapple played no part in the actual killing. It was simply something she ate before dying. It wasn't part of the crime or staging. It wasn't in the kitchen (like the flashlight was), but rather on a table in the dining room next door. The Rs just never gave it a second thought. They never thought it would show up in a autopsy. It is the pineapple that gives the approx. time of death. And that, to ME, is the smoking gun. What I do feel also is that just because BR was the tea-drinker in the family and there was a teabag in a glass with BR's prints does not mean he had the tea at the same time as JBR had the pineapple. Also, I myself have put a used teabag in some other container, like a glass or dish, if it was available when I made the tea. The teabag and glass do not arouse my suspicion. The pineapple bowl with PR's prints and pineapple that match the residue in JBR's digestive tract DOES arouse my suspicion, as does a wiped-clean flashlight and batteries! The fingerprints on the bowl are not the issue. The pineapple in the bowl is the issue.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

if not, there'd be someone elses on it. Or JBR's would be on it if she'd helped herself. Or NOBODY's would be on it if it was wiped down (like the flashlight) At the very least it shows she was awake after returning home that night and ate pineapple!
Because the flashlight played an important part in the crime, it was duly wiped down by the killer(s). But the pineapple played no part in the actual killing. It was simply something she ate before dying. It wasn't part of the crime or staging. It wasn't in the kitchen (like the flashlight was), but rather on a table in the dining room next door. The Rs just never gave it a second thought. They never thought it would show up in a autopsy. It is the pineapple that gives the approx. time of death. And that, to ME, is the smoking gun. What I do feel also is that just because BR was the tea-drinker in the family and there was a teabag in a glass with BR's prints does not mean he had the tea at the same time as JBR had the pineapple. Also, I myself have put a used teabag in some other container, like a glass or dish, if it was available when I made the tea. The teabag and glass do not arouse my suspicion. The pineapple bowl with PR's prints and pineapple that match the residue in JBR's digestive tract DOES arouse my suspicion, as does a wiped-clean flashlight and batteries! The fingerprints on the bowl are not the issue. The pineapple in the bowl is the issue.

PR's bowl is naturally going to have her fingerprints on it. All anybody has to do is put it away or move it to have their fingerprints on it. Therefore, there is nothing signficant about PR's fingerprints on the bowl.

From IDI perspective, more signficant is the fact that it was just left out and not put back in the refrigerator. They just left it on the counter. Anybody who cared would've put it in the refrigerator, but criminals typically don't care, so they left it out. After the intruder(s) were done with the pineapple, they left the bowl on the counter.

That's probably the only IDI scenario for the pineapple.

 

[DeeDee249]

I've already said there was nothing unusual about PR's prints on the bowl. It was the fact that her prints (and ONLY her prints) on the bowl containing the pineapple that was in her dead daughter's digestive tract that is significant.
The bowl left out of the fridge is not surprising. According to her housekeepers (both LGP and a previous housekeeper were interviewed), no one in the R house ever put anything away. Ever. Including food that belongs in the fridge. Take a look at crime scene photos of that kitchen. It's a mess! They said it was because it was Christmas, but her housekeeper said it was always like that.
SO...the bowl of pineapple being left out isn't surprising for 2 reasons. The first, PR never put stuff away. All the more reason to believe it was her who put it there.
Second- she was so busy with the crime and staging, she never got around to putting it away. There were much more important things to deal with and she never thought the pineapple bowl would be important.
If an "intruder" served JBR that pineapple, other prints would be on it. If the "intruder" wiped them off, then PR's prints would NOT be on it, because they would be wiped off. And an intruder would not be able to see their own fingerprints and distingush them from PR's prints.
So PR fed JBR that pineapple.

Can anyone else help me out here? I can't explain it any more clearly. It just doesn't seem to be getting through.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If an "intruder" served JBR that pineapple, other prints would be on it. If the "intruder" wiped them off, then PR's prints would NOT be on it, because they would be wiped off. And an intruder would not be able to see their own fingerprints and distingush them from PR's prints.
So PR fed JBR that pineapple.

Nope. A gloved intruder doesn't need to 'wipe' prints off. IDI scenario probably has the intruders with gloves. Otherwise their prints would be on everything from knobs to doors to duct tape and to dishes.

​

 

[DeeDee249]

Residue from latex gloves would be seen on testing. Why wipe the flashlight and batteries if wearing gloves? Latex gloves don't automatically point to an intruder anyway. PT used them when she dyed her (and JBR's) hair. I believe they were seen by LE when they took the crime scene photos.
And we need to move past the bowl and fingerprints. PRs prints, guilty or innocent, would be expected to be on the bowl. It belonged to her. It's the contents of the bowl matching the contents of the JBR's intestines that raises suspicion.

 

[Ames]

Not hardly.

The bowl leaves the dishwasher via PR's hands, collecting her fingerprints on the way to the cupboard. A criminal wearing gloves (I know, a lot like the movies) removes the bowl from the cupboard and puts pineapple into it.

Fingerprints on the bowl hardly places PR with an alive and awake JBR. You're assuming that the fingerprints were left at the same time pineapple was fed to JBR.

I am not making fun of your theory....but excuse me while I laugh..........................................................................okay, I am done. So, an intruder wearing gloves, pulls the bowl out of the cupboard, digs up a spoon...and then somehow manages to find a can of pineapple, and a can opener so that he can open the can of pineapple, and then pours the pineapple in the bowl and then offers it to JB before he molests and kills her. Here is MY questions....WHY would he do that? And why would he take the TIME to do that? Absolutely ridiculous....IMO No offense though...

 

[Ames]

The fingerprints prove Patsy and Burke handled the table ware. The lack of other prints suggests they were the only ones to handle it. I suppose you could assume a gloved Intruder left no fingerprints, but someone that careful, in my opinion, isn't going to risk taking extra time to feed an abducted child pineapple. Besides, you have to assume something for which you have no proof -- that there was, indeed, an Intruder and that Intruder wore gloves. Why would someone careful enough to wear gloves be careless enough to risk getting caught feeding JonBenet pineapple?

That is my question too. IMO..the answer is pretty clear......because the someone was a residence of the home, so of course, they had no fear of getting caught.

 

[DeeDee249]

Ames, sometimes I feel like I am :banghead: on this thread. And you?

My DH always says to me (when I try and try something to no avail- don't you know what the definition of insanity is? Repeating the same thing over and over but expecting different results!