Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[wonderllama]

That and the fact that police did not link it to them.

There is no evidence it was theirs.

I have rope in my garage.
How would you link it to me out of interest?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I have rope in my garage.
How would you link it to me out of interest?

Is it yours?

I would expect a rope to be in a garage. Not in a bedroom. I would expect if asked you could say when you bought it or at least where it came from.

If there was a murder in your house, I think it would need to be looked into thoroughly.

Would you lie about a rope?

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Is it yours?

I would expect a rope to be in a garage. Not in a bedroom. I would expect if asked you could say when you bought it or at least where it came from.

If there was a murder in your house, I think it would need to be looked into thoroughly.

Would you lie about a rope?

Nope because I'd hire the best lawyers money could buy and I wouldn't have to answer much after their good job of a "shell game".

Sadly, justice does have a price tag in the good ole' USA.

moo

 

[txsvicki]

I probably should have asked if the paper bag fiber was found on the blanket. How would they know that the fibers in the body bag didn't come from the bags placed on her hands?

 

[wonderllama]

Is it yours?

I would expect a rope to be in a garage. Not in a bedroom. I would expect if asked you could say when you bought it or at least where it came from.

If there was a murder in your house, I think it would need to be looked into thoroughly.

Would you lie about a rope?

I didn't buy it!
My wife didn't buy it.
My 7 year old didn't buy it.

(There hasn't) but let's say there was a murder in my house and that is the information I'm giving you. It is not mine and I didn't buy it.

Now what?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I didn't buy it!
My wife didn't buy it.
My 7 year old didn't buy it.

(There hasn't) but let's say there was a murder in my house and that is the information I'm giving you. It is not mine and I didn't buy it.

Now what?

Someone brought it in the house. It got there some how. If you didn't bring it in I would be more concerned with who has been in your house..



Im sticking to the R's and the evidence not walking down, maybe what if lane..

 

[tezi]

Condescending much?

I never directed my post toward you, don't take it personally.

My new word of the day condescending....LOL

 

[wonderllama]

Someone brought it in the house. It got there some how. If you didn't bring it in I would be more concerned with who has been in your house..



Im sticking to the R's and the evidence not walking down, maybe what if lane..

Just trying to follow your path of logic jumps.

I think it is very simple.
You and other IDI treat the Ramsey's as the victims.
RDI treat JonBenet as the victim.

 

[wonderllama]

My new word of the day condescending....LOL

Greek parachutist?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I probably should have asked if the paper bag fiber was found on the blanket. How would they know that the fibers in the body bag didn't come from the bags placed on her hands?

Good question. I don't have fact but I know that it could have been different kinds of bags. But for them to source the fibers to the bag that the rope came in and not the paper bags from her hands there must have been a difference.

 

[tezi]

Is there any proof other than he said she said. Is there any proven misconduct or censures from this case? That is all that matters.

There isn't proof of an intruder either, but yet you argue the tDNA proves there was one, or rather six.

You circular logic just confuses the hell out of me.

I'll leave you to defending St. Hunter and the sainted Ramseys.

JMO

 

[questfortrue]

This was a suggestion made by ST. It's hardly been proven to be a fact. (Kolar EVEN refutes it.)

Besides that, if one takes a step back and analyzes the "contaminated clippers suggestion", one should wonder how it came to be that the unknown, consistent, male DNA profiles isolated from each hand revealed a differing # of detected loci.
Thank you. I welcome your thoughts regarding my opinions.

For clarification purposes, and if I’m muddying the water, not my intent. It is true that the trace DNA under JB’s nails was not linked to the 8 preceding autopsies in the coroner’s office, so it’s assumed that the nail clippers were not part of any contamination. However, the DNA was so tiny, the techs couldn’t tell if it were from blood or skin cells. Fast forward to PR’s interviews, she couldn’t say when JB last bathed or when she last washed her hands. So while one can be correct that something could be from a nefarious source, who knows where it came from and whether it is relevant or not.

The other item I’ll mention then move on from is that I also read that Kolar does mention reviewing past medical treatment of JB, and one should acknowledge they had some reports written by Detective JH from her verbal interviews with the staff at Dr. B’s office and from Dr. B himself. They also had Michigan doctor medical records obtained by one of the R’s investigators (EA), who was hired by the H law firm. Those records, from the Michigan doctor’s office, were allegedly given to the BPD/DA’s office. What we don’t know is whether what Kolar reviewed were the actual written records from a Colorado doctor, which could have been subpoenaed by the GJ. Unspecified, unknown.

Another interesting discrepancy between Kolar and ST merits mentioning. The therapist visit did not ring a bell with Kolar, so it’s a question whether JB saw a therapist or not. In ST’s book he states that when Detective G phoned a therapist who “we were told had seen JB, he was told to speak to the parents’ attorneys.” No subsequent follow-up is listed, but it’s doubtful that – if the therapist hearsay is true – that they received permission, or they would have written a report. Kolar had no report on a therapist to review; so, here again one chooses which source makes most sense – Kolar or ST.

There were supposedly 40,000 pages of documentation of evidence in this case. Kolar states in one interview – after our leader TG says something about Kolar seeing all the evidence – something to the effect “I didn’t review it all.” I respect Kolar's humility.

Personally I make no pretense of knowing this case the way our long-time posters here do. And again a repeated caveat, take from this info what you will.

I also frequently operate on hunches.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Just trying to follow your path of logic jumps.

I think it is very simple.
You and other IDI treat the Ramsey's as the victims.
RDI treat JonBenet as the victim.

I am not treating anyone as a victim. I just don't jump to conclusion people are guilty without real evidence. They have been cleared by DNA so this is all kind of moot.

JBR is The victim in this case. Absolutely and I don't believe any IDI feel any differently.


I care only what the evidence tells me. The evidence shows me someone else was there. They left DNA in two places. There is no DNA on her that matches the Ramseys.. ANY OF THEM.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There isn't proof of an intruder either, but yet you argue the tDNA proves there was one, or rather six.

You circular logic just confuses the hell out of me.

I'll leave you to defending St. Hunter and the sainted Ramseys.

JMO

Sure there is.. That DNA matters. DNA that matches in her underwear and her pajamas.

That is not 6 people.. Just one.

 

[wengr]

This not everything.. This is a bag that left fibers on the body and in the body bag. It has to be sourced. It has to be to all extent possible. And if it can not be then that goes more toward IDI than the R's bringing it in.

Actually, by your logic - no.
What you have shown here- by your own method of evaluating fiber evidence is that PR and JR abused and murdered JBR using items that included the rope in a bag.

 

[wengr]

This not everything.. This is a bag that left fibers on the body and in the body bag. It has to be sourced. It has to be to all extent possible. And if it can not be then that goes more toward IDI than the R's bringing it in.

Actually, by your logic - no.
What you have shown here- by your own method of evaluating fiber evidence is that PR and JR abused and murdered JBR using various items including the rope in a bag.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Actually, by your logic - no.
What you have shown here- by your own method of evaluating fiber evidence is that PR and JR abused and murdered JBR using items that included the rope in a bag.

No. Let me find the evidence.. The fibers are linked to that specific bag. not the bags on the hands. I would think they would know exactly what they look like since they are used all the time and the whole point is to preserve evidence.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Please share your thoughts, sources, etc. on this excerpt from Carnes' ruling:

"Likewise, other items not belonging on the second floor were found there on the day after the murder, thereby suggesting that some preparation or activity was ongoing in that area on the night of the murder. Specifically, a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them. (SMF ¶ 181; PSMF ¶ 181.) Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom. Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the 'vacuuming' of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF ¶ 181; PSMF ¶ 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet."

It is not just the sack but the material on this sack that linked it to the fibers.. It was not just plain fibers from the bags used for her hands.

 

[wengr]

No. Let me find the evidence.. The fibers are linked to that specific bag. not the bags on the hands. I would think they would know exactly what they look like since they are used all the time and the whole point is to preserve evidence.

Scarlett, I do not dispute that the fibers are from the bag with the rope.
I do not know, as I do not personally know the specifics. I tend to assume that they found fibers that were consistent with the bag fibers.
What I also do not know is how many other items are made of consistent
fibers? Items both in the R home and other places visited by JBR in the time shortly before her death. And exactly how rare are these type of fibers? And to what degree of accuracy were they found to be consistent?
Imo, the fact fact that these questions go unanswered render the rope in a bag of no evidentiary value

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If they were consistent with the fibers used to bag her hands that would have been noted. There has to be a difference for them to be specific. It says material found ON THE BAG.
"Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the 'vacuuming' of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body "

It does not say OF this bag but ON This bag.. So that singles that bag out.