Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

[tovarisch]

As for Alex Hunter, even a moron can see that this man, for some reason or another, decided to railroad this case. He declined to prosecute the case brought to him by his own police force, he declined to take the advice of the grand jury that he appointed, and for some reason, despite the fact that every professional around him was pointing at the Ramsey's, he hired washed up detective Lou Arndt, a vocal Ramsey sympathizer to take over the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Alex Hunter was not just "this man". He was a state prosecutor, with the case brought to him by his own police. Lets look at his own police. The police that cooked the rise. Your favorite Dr. H. Lee said " the rice was cooked" when he looked at the crime scene. I love those chineese sayings that go back in centuries and you need to be a chineese to understand anything.))) I understand that when rise was cooked you cannot separate grain from grain, and that`s what was done by the police department from the very start, total contamination of everything due to inability to preserve the scene. Inability to find the girl behind the door, and on and on....

I wonder why Alex Hunter had doubt in his own police force and their theories? Hm....

 

[Global Justice Ops]

If the evidence is so overwhelming that the Ramseys did it, then ask yourself why the entire RDI can't reach a consensus on which Ramsey did it?

Linda A- John Did It
Steve Thomas- Patsy Did It
James Kolar- Burke Did It, Parents Covered It Up

They don't agree because there is a cluster mess of information and evidence.

Linda A. was their when the body was found and she saw Patsy's reaction and decided no way that she did it.
Steve Thomas spent his entire career in narcotics and came to the conclusion that John did it because John was more consistent in the interviews.

 

[andreww]

Nobody on this planet with the exception of John and Burke, will ever be able to answer the question of which Ramsey did it. Why? Because each one of them lied when interviewed, they destroyed evidence, and the manufactured misleading evidence. They also refused to be interviewed separately by police in the days following the crime, denying them the ability to play them against each other. Because of their wealth and high priced lawyers, the Ramsey's were treated differently than you or I would ever be treated. IMO it really doesn't matter who actually did it because John and Patsy acted as a team in this and they are both equally responsible for the lack of justice in this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

DA Mary Lacy:

"The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.

It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide."

BPD Chief Mark Beckner:

"The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The Boulder Police Department concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding."



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otg]

DA MARY LACY:

“The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all, in... There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else.”
​

http://youtu.be/hD-E03NQ-v8?t=4m36s

 

[Mama2JML]

DA MARY LACY:

“The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all, in... There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else.”
​

http://youtu.be/hD-E03NQ-v8?t=4m36s

This statement was made in 2006, 2 years before the same DNA profile was found on two separate locations of a different garment the victim was wearing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

This statement was made in 2006, 2 years before the same DNA profile was found on two separate locations of a different garment the victim was wearing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In my mind the DNA really doesn't prove anything because we have no idea what was used to wipe her down. For instance, let's speculate that maybe they used a hand towel from the basement bathroom, where the volunteers from the "home tour" we're known to have been set up, the DNA could easily have transferred to her panties and long johns. I'm sure that all those guests weren't tested either. We also know JB had a penchant for asking anybody nearby for help on the toilet. Could the DNA have got there from that? Also, weren't the long johns actually Burke's? We're they clean? When was the last washing? Had they recently been out of the house? Was the DNA on the crotch of the panties on the inside or outside of the garment? Could the DNA be transferred if the garment came in to contact with another garment during washing or storage? Could these microscopic pieces of evidence have come from a lab technician?...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

In my mind the DNA really doesn't prove anything because we have no idea what was used to wipe her down. For instance, let's speculate that maybe they used a hand towel from the basement bathroom, where the volunteers from the "home tour" we're known to have been set up, the DNA could easily have transferred to her panties and long johns. I'm sure that all those guests weren't tested either. We also know JB had a penchant for asking anybody nearby for help on the toilet. Could the DNA have got there from that? Also, weren't the long johns actually Burke's? We're they clean? When was the last washing? Had they recently been out of the house? Was the DNA on the crotch of the panties on the inside or outside of the garment? Could the DNA be transferred if the garment came in to contact with another garment during washing or storage? Could these microscopic pieces of evidence have come from a lab technician?...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Ramseys' house was part of the "Historic Homes for the Holidays" tour in 1994. Kolar mentions a pair of pants, that were thought to belong to Burke, were found on JonBenét's bedroom floor, but I have not heard any similar speculation regarding the long johns.

More of your questions are addressed here:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/district-attorney-mary-lacy-s-statement-about-dna-evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Firstly, Mary Lacy can also take credit for the John Karr arrest. I'm not overly confident in her judgement or abilities in policing.

Most interestingly, we know the body was redressed in the size 12s after being wiped down. So how is it that no DNA is found on her actual body, yet it is found in the crotch of a brand new pair of panties?

I do have to admit that this is compelling evidence, but it is not 100% conclusive. As I said before, maybe JB asked somebody at one of the previous parties to help her in the bathroom? Maybe when the Ramsey's wiped her down and redressed her, they were wearing gloves that had somebody else's DNA on them? There are explanations, so I don't think it was wise to dismiss the Ramseys as suspects. Also, the new technology was just that. New means that it hasn't yet been proven as reliable.

Oh, and finally, after nearly nine years they come up with this evidence to clear the Ramseys, but what was their excuse for not placing any charges prior to that? If there was a police conspiracy to keep the Ramsey's from prosecution, it would not surprise be in the least that this "new" evidence may have been manufactured to shut the public up once and for all.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Firstly, Mary Lacy can also take credit for the John Karr arrest. I'm not overly confident in her judgement or abilities in policing.

Most interestingly, we know the body was redressed in the size 12s after being wiped down. So how is it that no DNA is found on her actual body, yet it is found in the crotch of a brand new pair of panties?

I do have to admit that this is compelling evidence, but it is not 100% conclusive. As I said before, maybe JB asked somebody at one of the previous parties to help her in the bathroom? Maybe when the Ramsey's wiped her down and redressed her, they were wearing gloves that had somebody else's DNA on them? There are explanations, so I don't think it was wise to dismiss the Ramseys as suspects. Also, the new technology was just that. New means that it hasn't yet been proven as reliable.

Oh, and finally, after nearly nine years they come up with this evidence to clear the Ramseys, but what was their excuse for not placing any charges prior to that? If there was a police conspiracy to keep the Ramsey's from prosecution, it would not surprise be in the least that this "new" evidence may have been manufactured to shut the public up once and for all.

Since this is the IDI thread there is no assumption that the Ramseys did anything to her that night.

Are there any pictures of her body in just the underwear?
The technology is new and reliable. That is why they use it everyday.
The reason there were no charges is because there was no evidence they did it.

There is still no physical evidence they did it and there is evidence that another man was there.

If the evidence on this case was presented under the names smith everyone would agree that the evidence points to the killer and that would not be one of the smiths. That would be an intruder.

 

[Mama2JML]

Firstly, Mary Lacy can also take credit for the John Karr arrest. I'm not overly confident in her judgement or abilities in policing.

I don't understand the resentment some express over the Karr arrest. So, LE determined that he didn't murder JonBenét, but probable cause existed, aside from an outstanding warrant for his arrest, and public safety is a paramount concern.

Most interestingly, we know the body was redressed in the size 12s after being wiped down. So how is it that no DNA is found on her actual body, yet it is found in the crotch of a brand new pair of panties?

JonBenét may have worn the oversized panties the entire day, prior to her assault. They may have been laundered once or twice as well. I don't understand your point. The sexual assault likely involved removal of the victim's bottoms; long johns and underwear.

I do have to admit that this is compelling evidence, but it is not 100% conclusive.

Compelling? Always. 100% conclusive? Impossible without identification of the DNA donor.

As I said before, maybe JB asked somebody at one of the previous parties to help her in the bathroom? Maybe when the Ramsey's wiped her down and redressed her, they were wearing gloves that had somebody else's DNA on them?

A complete stranger's DNA? Not likely in the least.

There are explanations, so I don't think it was wise to dismiss the Ramseys as suspects.

Innocent explanations for the existence of this male DNA, with regard to both quantity and quality, that are also plausible, logical, and scientifically sound are non-existent, or nearly so, IMHO.

Also, the new technology was just that. New means that it hasn't yet been proven as reliable.

Oh, to the contrary. The technological advancements used in this case, with regard to DNA analyses, have been proven reliable and are accepted in US courts.

Oh, and finally, after nearly nine years they come up with this evidence to clear the Ramseys, but what was their excuse for not placing any charges prior to that? If there was a police conspiracy to keep the Ramsey's from prosecution, it would not surprise be in the least that this "new" evidence may have been manufactured to shut the public up once and for all.

Wishful thinking?...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tovarisch]

.

Oh, and finally, after nearly nine years they come up with this evidence to clear the Ramseys, but what was their excuse for not placing any charges prior to that? If there was a police conspiracy to keep the Ramsey's from prosecution, it would not surprise be in the least that this "new" evidence may have been manufactured to shut the public up once and for all.

After a good friendly laugh, thank you andreww, I came with a proposal to RDI.

It`s time to write a new book, that RDI collectively should do. I promise it will be a huge success. But it need to be a satire.
In the book prosecutors would be corrupted by the housewife Patsy, the lab technicians would be corrupted by prosecutors, and will manufacture a fake DNA and then relentlessly duplicate it to get more markers, the investigators would be worthless, the richest and prominent would be a children killers and pedophiles, without exception, the other citizens who refuse to believe in all the above would be morons and lunatics (definition for those non believers was taken from RDI site).

 

[aussiesheila2]

At the time Lou Smit was hired he thought the Ramseys were guilty based on the "no footprints in the snow" story

If I wasn't so lazy I'd find the quote to support what I have just said

 

[aussiesheila2]

You seem to have a great deal of
Insight in to what each line of the note meant, but in reality, those are only your opinions. There are things in that note that tell me it was Patsy who wrote it, and that is without the scores of handwriting experts opinions, none of them able to exclude her.

As for Alex Hunter, even a moron can see that this man, for some reason or another, decided to railroad this case. He declined to prosecute the case brought to him by his own police force, he declined to take the advice of the grand jury that he appointed, and for some reason, despite the fact that every professional around him was pointing at the Ramsey's, he hired washed up detective Lou Arndt, a vocal Ramsey sympathizer to take over the case.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest there was an intruder. Dr Henry Lee has said that the DNA under her fingernails was degraded and could possibly have been there for weeks. The DNA on her panties could have been left during the manufacturing process. In fact he said he found similar DNA on other freshly opened panties produced in China. And, if an intruder left through that window, how the heck did a chair get in front of that closed train room door??

Combine all that with the fact that the Ramsey's have lied on many occasions, refused to take police interviews, and protected every member of their family with a different high priced attorney, and I think it becomes pretty obvious who the guilty parties are.

You say it's an intruder, but there is no way to disprove something that didn't happen. You say these intruders were cunning enough to enter the house without leaving a print, or any evidence to suggest they were there. They were like the wind. Yet John and Patsy's fibers end up on the duct tape and Garrote???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Dr Henry Lee has said that the DNA under her fingernails was degraded and could possibly have been there for weeks."
Sure the DNA under the fingernails was degraded but show me where Lee said it could have been there for weeks. That is absolute rubbish

 

[aussiesheila2]

You seem to have a great deal of
Insight in to what each line of the note meant, but in reality, those are only your opinions. There are things in that note that tell me it was Patsy who wrote it, and that is without the scores of handwriting experts opinions, none of them able to exclude her.

As for Alex Hunter, even a moron can see that this man, for some reason or another, decided to railroad this case. He declined to prosecute the case brought to him by his own police force, he declined to take the advice of the grand jury that he appointed, and for some reason, despite the fact that every professional around him was pointing at the Ramsey's, he hired washed up detective Lou Arndt, a vocal Ramsey sympathizer to take over the case.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest there was an intruder. Dr Henry Lee has said that the DNA under her fingernails was degraded and could possibly have been there for weeks. The DNA on her panties could have been left during the manufacturing process. In fact he said he found similar DNA on other freshly opened panties produced in China. And, if an intruder left through that window, how the heck did a chair get in front of that closed train room door??

Combine all that with the fact that the Ramsey's have lied on many occasions, refused to take police interviews, and protected every member of their family with a different high priced attorney, and I think it becomes pretty obvious who the guilty parties are.

You say it's an intruder, but there is no way to disprove something that didn't happen. You say these intruders were cunning enough to enter the house without leaving a print, or any evidence to suggest they were there. They were like the wind. Yet John and Patsy's fibers end up on the duct tape and Garrote???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There was far too much DNA in the panties bloodstain for it to have been left during the manufacturing process. The only way that DNA could have gotten there is by someone leaving their DNA in or around the opening to JonBenet's vagina the night she was killed

 

[aussiesheila2]

You seem to have a great deal of
Insight in to what each line of the note meant, but in reality, those are only your opinions. There are things in that note that tell me it was Patsy who wrote it, and that is without the scores of handwriting experts opinions, none of them able to exclude her.

As for Alex Hunter, even a moron can see that this man, for some reason or another, decided to railroad this case. He declined to prosecute the case brought to him by his own police force, he declined to take the advice of the grand jury that he appointed, and for some reason, despite the fact that every professional around him was pointing at the Ramsey's, he hired washed up detective Lou Arndt, a vocal Ramsey sympathizer to take over the case.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest there was an intruder. Dr Henry Lee has said that the DNA under her fingernails was degraded and could possibly have been there for weeks. The DNA on her panties could have been left during the manufacturing process. In fact he said he found similar DNA on other freshly opened panties produced in China. And, if an intruder left through that window, how the heck did a chair get in front of that closed train room door??

Combine all that with the fact that the Ramsey's have lied on many occasions, refused to take police interviews, and protected every member of their family with a different high priced attorney, and I think it becomes pretty obvious who the guilty parties are.

You say it's an intruder, but there is no way to disprove something that didn't happen. You say these intruders were cunning enough to enter the house without leaving a print, or any evidence to suggest they were there. They were like the wind. Yet John and Patsy's fibers end up on the duct tape and Garrote???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There were no fibres from John found on the duct tape or on the garotte

OK so there were red and black fibres found on the duct tape that could have come from Patsy's red and black jacket. SO WHAT. That duct tape was very likely left in the basement by Patsy when she opened a package from her art supplier and the intruders re-used it.

There were red fibres found on the garotte that COULD have come from Patsy's red and black jacket. But oddly, there were no black fibres. And since Patsy did not normally wear her red and black jacket in the house anyway and was wearing her red sweater that night why were there no red fibres from her sweater found anywhere at the crime scene? Because if you knew what the actual evidence was you would know that.
Your supposed knowledge of the evidence is up the creek Andreww. And it doesn't belong here on the IDI thread

 

[aussiesheila2]

Lou Smit
Sorry, typing on an iPhone on a train, early in the morning, before my first coffee.



Early on in this case, forensic scientist Henry Lee purchased a new pair of similar panties for examination and found that they too had unidentified male DNA. Although different from that found on the victim’s underwear, it did suggest the possibility of contamination during the manufacturing or packing process, i.e., the unidentified male DNA might not have anything whatsoever to do with the murder.

Hmmm, do I believe Henry Lee or do I believe you?




That's your opinion, but then why would the supposed intruder prop the suitcase up beneath the window? And If he intended to leave through a door, why even go in to the basement?



I beg to differ, its all fact



How do you disprove a lie. If I lie and tell you that while I was away from my desk, someone used my pencil, how do you prove that did or didn't happen? Provided there are no witnesses or video surveillance, as was the case in the Ramsey home, it is impossible to prove. If there are fingerprints or DNA on that pencil, it can only support my lie. In fact, any signs of any human contact, or any items that I suggest are out of place, can only bolster my lie.




Show me



4 red fibers from a sweater that Patsy was wearing at the time are found on the duct tape that was placed on that girls dead mouth, and you don't see a problem with that?

OFFS there were NO red fibres from Patsy's sweater on the duct tape.
There were 2 red and 2 black fibres possibly from her red and black jacket.
Can't you even get such basics as the evidence right before you launch into your theories?

 

[Mama2JML]

OFFS there were NO red fibres from Patsy's sweater on the duct tape.
There were 2 red and 2 black fibres possibly from her red and black jacket.
Can't you even get such basics as the evidence right before you launch into your theories?

From the deposition of Steve Thomas in Wolf v. Ramseys:

"Q. There were no black fibers that were found on the duct tape that were said to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there?

A. It's my understanding that the four fibers were red in color."​

​

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You seem to have a great deal of
Insight in to what each line of the note meant, but in reality, those are only your opinions. There are things in that note that tell me it was Patsy who wrote it, and that is without the scores of handwriting experts opinions, none of them able to exclude her.

As for Alex Hunter, even a moron can see that this man, for some reason or another, decided to railroad this case. He declined to prosecute the case brought to him by his own police force, he declined to take the advice of the grand jury that he appointed, and for some reason, despite the fact that every professional around him was pointing at the Ramsey's, he hired washed up detective Lou Arndt, a vocal Ramsey sympathizer to take over the case.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest there was an intruder. Dr Henry Lee has said that the DNA under her fingernails was degraded and could possibly have been there for weeks. The DNA on her panties could have been left during the manufacturing process. In fact he said he found similar DNA on other freshly opened panties produced in China. And, if an intruder left through that window, how the heck did a chair get in front of that closed train room door??

Combine all that with the fact that the Ramsey's have lied on many occasions, refused to take police interviews, and protected every member of their family with a different high priced attorney, and I think it becomes pretty obvious who the guilty parties are.

You say it's an intruder, but there is no way to disprove something that didn't happen. You say these intruders were cunning enough to enter the house without leaving a print, or any evidence to suggest they were there. They were like the wind. Yet John and Patsy's fibers end up on the duct tape and Garrote???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IT is only your opinion also. The facts are that Patsy did not write that note and even the experts showed that it was not her that wrote.

The problem in this case is that the police let people run rampant, did not fully search or secure crime scene and so they botched this from the start. There is DNA that someone else was there. There is evidence that that someone else was there. There was most likely more evidence that was destroyed because of bad police work.

The problem is that people use the R's because they are convenient. I still believe this case will be solved and when it is lots of people will have to choke on their horrible accusations of all the R's.

 

[TroyinTX]

IT is only your opinion also. The facts are that Patsy did not write that note/QUOTE]


Were you there? Because unless you were, you cannot say that is a fact. And nowhere have I ever seen this claimed as being 100% a fact.