Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I am sure you understand that the GJ DID order indictments for both parents- basically for covering up the crime, allowing JB to be in a situation that caused her death, and obstructing the justice. There is NO way a rational person would believe the parents would do any of this for an intruder.

Sure, where is the murder charge? TO me that reads as " we are going to get you for something.. " But even them with all they had at their disposal did not see enough to indict for murder. That indictment only supports Someone other than them did it.

And since the DNA matches no one in that house, We need to look elsewhere.

 

[tezi]

Sure, where is the murder charge? TO me that reads as " we are going to get you for something.. " But even them with all they had at their disposal did not see enough to indict for murder. That indictment only supports Someone other than them did it.

And since the DNA matches no one in that house, We need to look elsewhere.

Scarlett, the accessory charge proves that someone named RAMSEY murdered JonBenet. No intruder.

Henry Lee said this wasn't a DNA case. And it isn't. The tDNA is an artifact. Nothing more.

JMO

 

[TroyinTX]

Heck, didn't Mary Lacy even state that the DNA is an artifact and may not even be from the killer?


Mary Lacy Comments. In the press conference announcing that John Mark Karr would not be charged, Mary Lacy stated: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all…there’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else."

 

[tezi]

Heck, didn't Mary Lacy even state that the DNA is an artifact and may not even be from the killer?


Mary Lacy Comments. In the press conference announcing that John Mark Karr would not be charged, Mary Lacy stated: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all…there’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else."

Yep, that is our Mary, talking out both sides of her mouth...She knows the truth. After all, she had the indictments in her office safe...LOL

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Heck, didn't Mary Lacy even state that the DNA is an artifact and may not even be from the killer?


Mary Lacy Comments. In the press conference announcing that John Mark Karr would not be charged, Mary Lacy stated: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all…there’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else."

Please source this quote? Thanks..


"In a letter hand-delivered to John Ramsey, Lacy said she is confident the DNA belongs to the killer.

Read more: DA clears Ramsey family - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/ci_9833564#ixzz2mneB8Yb5
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook"

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett, the accessory charge proves that someone named RAMSEY murdered JonBenet. No intruder.

Henry Lee said this wasn't a DNA case. And it isn't. The tDNA is an artifact. Nothing more.

JMO

No it doesn't. It proves there is no case against the R's for murder. They could have voted to indict both for murder and let the jury figure it out but they did not have enough even to INDICT them both or either one for murder.

 

[TroyinTX]

Please source this quote? Thanks..


"In a letter hand-delivered to John Ramsey, Lacy said she is confident the DNA belongs to the killer.

Read more: DA clears Ramsey family - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/ci_9833564#ixzz2mneB8Yb5
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook"

From her press conference regarding Karr: (at about the 4:30 mark)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD-E03NQ-v8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD-E03NQ-v8[/ame]

 

[tezi]

No it doesn't. It proves there is no case against the R's for murder. They could have voted to indict both for murder and let the jury figure it out but they did not have enough even to INDICT them both or either one for murder.

Scarlett, I am going to move on, OK? I can't do this anymore. You are as entrenched in the IDI theory as I am in the RDI theory, we are never going to agree.

I have tried to explain to you the politics of Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy. I can't help it if you want to believe that AH is honorable. He's not. He's a lying snake as is Lacy. AH didn't sign the indictment because he knew his lies and other things would be exposed, not because he wanted to do the right thing for the Ramseys. Lacy, well, I am not even going to source anything she says, because she doesn't know her azz from a hole in the ground. But, the DNA artifact remark was either before or after her misstep with Karr. That should leave it wide open for a source.

JMO

 

[TroyinTX]

So, even Lacy, from her own mouth, states that the DNA may not necessarily be from the killer and could just be an artifact. And she is the hero for IDI theorists. So, why, then are some SO ABSOLUTELY convinced that this DNA is so crucial and proves 100% that the Ramsey's did NOT have anything to do with the murder.

And like some have accused Kolar and Thomas of doing, Lacy also very much picked and chose what she wanted in order to ultimately "clear" the Ramseys, as completely evidenced from her quote above.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

From her press conference regarding Karr: (at about the 4:30 mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD-E03NQ-v8

"There is a probability that it is the killer's. That is her next statement. That is more than it is possible."


IT is not an artifact and she was talking more about JOHN MARK CARR And his part in this case and not the R's.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So, even Lacy, from her own mouth, states that the DNA may not necessarily be from the killer and could just be an artifact. And she is the hero for IDI theorists. So, why, then are some SO ABSOLUTELY convinced that this DNA is so crucial and proves 100% that the Ramsey's did NOT have anything to do with the murder.

And like some have accused Kolar and Thomas of doing, Lacy also very much picked and chose what she wanted in order to ultimately "clear" the Ramseys, as completely evidenced from her quote above.

She is not my hero. The DNA matters. It has to be sourced and then we will know but as long as there is foreign DNA on the body that is in 2 different places , in any other case that is where the killers identity would lie.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett, I am going to move on, OK? I can't do this anymore. You are as entrenched in the IDI theory as I am in the RDI theory, we are never going to agree.

I have tried to explain to you the politics of Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy. I can't help it if you want to believe that AH is honorable. He's not. He's a lying snake as is Lacy. AH didn't sign the indictment because he knew his lies and other things would be exposed, not because he wanted to do the right thing for the Ramseys. Lacy, well, I am not even going to source anything she says, because she doesn't know her azz from a hole in the ground. But, the DNA artifact remark was either before or after her misstep with Karr. That should leave it wide open for a source.

JMO

I believe that AH did not sign that indictment because he knew it was bogus. Especially now that we know what it was.

I do not believe that 2 places of DNA that match are artifact. DNA always has a source. It is always important to an homicide case.

Also that press conference predates the 2008 letter that she wrote clearing the Ramseys with DNA. Most likely they had more information on the DNA 2 years later.

It stands. DNA clears the R's, john mark carr, and others that were tested so far.

 

[TroyinTX]

"a probability" that it is the killers; if she was so 100% sure that it WAS the killers, she would have said that. And after that, she states, BUT IT COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE.

Not sure it can be much more clear.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

"a probability" that it is the killers; if she was so 100% sure that it WAS the killers, she would have said that. And after that, she states, BUT IT COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE.

Not sure it can be much more clear.

That press conference was BEFORE Her statement that it was not the R's. 2 years before. Before the testing of the TDNA that matched the panties source.

 

[tezi]

I believe that AH did not sign that indictment because he knew it was bogus. Especially now that we know what it was.

I do not believe that 2 places of DNA that match are artifact. DNA always has a source. It is always important to an homicide case.

Also that press conference predates the 2008 letter that she wrote clearing the Ramseys with DNA. Most likely they had more information on the DNA 2 years later.

It stands. DNA clears the R's, john mark carr, and others that were tested so far.

Nope on Hunter. He didn't sign it because his sins would have been exposed. He knew that. He still knows that.

OK, I need to try to find my book to find the page I promised you yesterday...Locating the book, well, that could take the next month...LOL

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Nope on Hunter. He didn't sign it because his sins would have been exposed. He knew that. He still knows that.

OK, I need to try to find my book to find the page I promised you yesterday...Locating the book, well, that could take the next month...LOL

There we will have to disagree. I stand by why he did not sign it. Had he signed it it all would have gone away and been done with. He did not sign it because it was bogus. JMO.

 

[tezi]

He should have done the right thing, signed it, and then dismissed it in open court. Not hide it in his safe.

There are right ways to do things and wrong ways. This was beyond wrong.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

He should have done the right thing, signed it, and then dismissed it in open court. Not hide it in his safe.

There are right ways to do things and wrong ways. This was beyond wrong.

JMO

I would not have signed something I knew was wrong. I couldn't. I can not see any reason for him not to sign it other than that.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I would not have signed something I knew was wrong. I couldn't. I can not see any reason for him not to sign it other than that.

By not signing it, AH makes himself look complicent.

It's human nature to believe that we are the "smartest guy in the room" but a truly intelligent person allows for other's opinions and a jury of their peers.

AH didn't do that. Fatal mistake. A career-ender, in essence.

 

[tezi]

By not signing it, AH makes himself look complicent.

It's human nature to believe that we are the "smartest guy in the room" but a truly intelligent person allows for other's opinions and a jury of their peers.

AH didn't do that. Fatal mistake. A career-ender, in essence.

^^^^^^^^^^

Exactly!