Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[Mama2JML]

So if it can't be sourced to the R's and it can't be proven it was NOT their rope, it should be dismissed. Correct?

Not in my opinion, but I don't dismiss the evidentiary DNA either. Every tidbit of unsourced evidence is a little pebble of doubt that RDI. Lots of pebbles, IDI or not, might suggest we look elsewhere TOO, just in case. Or, maybe not, JMO...

 

[redheadedgal]

Refresher needed, already?...

good idea...


[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4708"]THE TRUTH About Judge Carnes' Decision - A Documented Rebuttal - Forums For Justice[/ame]

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yeah sorry, you have simply just made that up.
"But is shows..."

Firstly, you have assumed that an intruder brought in the rope.
Secondly, you have assumed that said intruder planned to use it.
Thirdly, you have assumed that having brought it in, the intruder decided not to use something that you assumed he was going to use.
Fourthly, you have assumed it was left behind because of some risk involved in returning to get it?

Sure, you say "I have no idea", and that is the only correct statement in the entire post.

I suggest that for a thread that only wants to stick to facts, and I'm all for that, this is not sticking to facts.

Carry on.

Well there is a lot made up about that case. But no I did not make that up. It shows that they brought it there, With some intention. For whatever reason it was not used. But it was not the R's.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So if it can't be sourced to the R's and it can't be proven it was NOT their rope, it should be dismissed. Correct?

No. If it can not be proven to BE their rope, Since it was in their house than it wasn't.

 

[Tawny]

It can't be proven it ISN'T their rope either. JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It can't be proven it ISN'T their rope either. JMO

I don't see how that works. If it can't be proven that it is theirs and it was in their house, Then it was not theirs.

To me that fibers or pieces of the bag were found on JBR and in her room, Would mean that whoever touched that bag touched her.

Yet there is no link to the R's with that rope. It was not connected to them.

 

[wonderllama]

So if it can't be sourced to the R's and it can't be proven it was NOT their rope, it should be dismissed. Correct?

I don't think it should necessarily be dismissed, but I don't think it is therefore ripe for the story-telling. It is what it is...unsourced. The End.

If it can be shown to have been used or relevant, then sure, include it. But let's not develop a story involving it.

 

[Little Jedi]

This is an indication JonBenet struggled with her attacker, and he wasn't a Ramsey. So sad...

Article Excerpt; Daily Camera (02.07.98):

"Investigators also are taking mouth swabs in hopes of matching DNA to genetic material extracted from skin tissue recovered under the slain 6-year-old's fingernails, sources said." (K. Dizon)

I think this has been proven to be an inexplicable screw-up by the coroner ...

"Mitch Morrissey, the district attorney in Denver and a national DNA and forensics expert, agrees the case ran into trouble from the start. Among other things, the crime scene was contaminated and the coroner used the same clipper to clip the fingernails of several corpses, including JonBenet and someone else, rendering the fingernail clippings useless as evidence."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/10/04/jonbenet-ramsey-investigation-reopening.html

 

[wonderllama]

Well there is a lot made up about that case. But no I did not make that up. It shows that they brought it there, With some intention. For whatever reason it was not used. But it was not the R's.

Shows that who brought it there?

An intruder?

What?

It shows nothing of the sort.

 

[wonderllama]

I don't see how that works. If it can't be proven that it is theirs and it was in their house, Then it was not theirs.

To me that fibers or pieces of the bag were found on JBR and in her room, Would mean that whoever touched that bag touched her.

Yet there is no link to the R's with that rope. It was not connected to them.

Isn't that same transfer of fibres theory used to explain why fibres from Patsy's jumper/top/whatever were found on JBR, and the cords, and the tape on the mouth?

Pretty sure it is. So it works one way to innocently explain fibres in one instance, but is a clear indication of direct contact in another?

Errr

 

[Tawny]

Didn't Patsy herself say it could have been JAR's rope for "like, uh, camping or something, you know"?

I have no source. Don't ask me for it LOL

 

[BBB167893]

She looked at everything that pertained to the lawsuit. Both sides got their chance.

That's my point.

Again, it is in the record. She felt it was an intruder. Not something a judge would put out there willy nilly.

It wasn't her call to make. She was ruling on a libel suit. She should have stuck to that.

 

[BBB167893]

Not when he knew there was no evidence to support that. The GJ only says what they think.. Not what IS. It is up to AH to prosecute and win. He knew that he would not win because there was not enough evidence to convict them for that or anything else.

He knew that he wouldn't win because he had no courtroom skill.

 

[BBB167893]

It is not fear of losing. DA's don't go to trial if there is not enough evidence.

AH NEVER went to trial, Scarlett! He hadn't in ten years!

Don't make him out to be some kind of hero.

 

[BBB167893]

A GJ investigates (from the prosecutor's perspective) & determines probable cause. There is no defense. Alex Hunter was likely aware of the existence of evidence that would establish reasonable doubt had he followed through with the filing of charges. A DA is ethically bound to prosecute "winnable" cases. (Double jeopardy, and all that.)

Except that this Grand Jury was never MEANT to hand down an indictment, Mam2JML. It was a dog-and-pony show for the media to cover AH's butt so the governor wouldn't step in. PMPT and ST's book make that abundantly clear.

 

[BBB167893]

I also think the reason the case was not prosecuted was because information would have been exposed that powerful people (outside of the Ramsey's) did not want made public. This is the real reason this murder has never been solved.

That's what my brother thinks, too. And as time goes by, I can't help but wonder if he's right.

 

[BBB167893]

Because they didn't. He said she killed JBR out of malice. That is not what GJ found. They did not agree with him based on that ruling.

And I don't think ST has any clue as to what happened. OMO

I admit it's been a while since I read his book, but if memory serves, ST did NOT say that PR killed JBR out of malice. Quite the opposite: that it was an unintentional killing that spun out of control. txsvicki is right: it does sound like the GJ agreed.

 

[BBB167893]

1. Lou Smit was NEVER paid by the Ramseys.
2. There are many investigators (aside from LS) that believe that IDI is more than likely. Just to name a few: Robert Whitson (BPD), one of the first investigators on the scene; John Douglas (FBI), not "on the Rs' payroll; Trip Demuth (BDA), former deputy DA & lead investigator...

All of whom (Whitson possibly excluded) have SERIOUS credibility problems in this case. I devoted several chapters in my book to them for that reason.

 

[BBB167893]

..."as is your faith in the dark side"'s false quotes attributed Ubowski.I understand what McKinley said,

I wonder.

but do you understand that Ubowski cannot, legally, disclose his findings (to this day) to journalists, the media, the general public, etc. as the investigation is ongoing & there remains potential litigation?

Not his official findings. We know he also told his boss that he thought she wrote it.

Also, you surely consider his employment with the CBI? ...and his affiliation with the ABFDE? You must be aware of the legal and ethical standards implicated? Or, do you think Ubowski would risk his career for a case commentator's "scoop"? Doubtful, right?

I'm not the least bit psychic, Mama2JML.

Recall ST's deposition & the KCNC report in which Ubowski denied ST's claims, essentially refuting McKinley's statements too. Or, do you think Lin Wood committed perjury? Again, DOUBTFUL. Don't you think?

No, it's not doubtful, as far as I go. he may well have made it up. I've never seen that KCNC report, and I've looked. Remember, he can say ANYTHING in a civil case, and if the other side doesn't challenge it, it's taken as fact, whether it is or not. I wouldn't put anything past that creep.

 

[BBB167893]

AH does not even come close to doing this in this case
He should be ashamed of himself for what he did in this case!!!

he should be worse than that! If it were within my power to do so, I'd have him AND his merry band in front of a Grand Jury so damn fast their heads would spin!