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

[icedtea4me]

We can submit a request for the thread, and I would be more than happy to do so. BUT, we can't post new threads in this forum without moderator approval first.

-OR-

You/I/Someone can bump an old thread if you find one to be most fitting.

Let me know if you'd like help!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about this thread?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?49860-Ransom-note-analysis

 

[Muy Curioso]

How about this thread?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?49860-Ransom-note-analysis

I've already put the first three letters. In a few hours two more letters, and after that, two or three letters each week. Thanks.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...msey-death-investigation-mishandled/24032039/

He admits that the DNA holds the clue to who could have done this. He admits the crime scene was handled badly and that they did not handle the Ramsey's well Immediately.

"It was the Christmas holiday and we were short staffed, we faced a situation as I said earlier that no one in the country had ever seen before or since, and there was confusion at the scene as people were arriving before we had enough personnel on the scene," he wrote online.


In a follow-up interview published Wednesday by the Daily Camera newspaper of Boulder, Beckner voiced regret about the online session, saying he didn't realize his remarks would be widely quoted.

LOL.. He is a police chief and he didn't realize that his comments would be everywhere??? COME ON! He went back and deleted all his comments. IT is a shame. He finally tells the truth and then deletes it.

"Asked if there was anything he wished to clarify, Beckner told the Boulder newspaper that what he called "the unknown DNA'' found on the child's clothing "is very important.''"

" Dismissing the intruder evidence is a mistake and as I emphasized in an earlier post, the location of the foreign DNA is significant."
This is not DNA from China or where ever it was manufactured. This is DNA that is part of this crime. Find that person and you will have more answers.

 

[andreww]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...msey-death-investigation-mishandled/24032039/

He admits that the DNA holds the clue to who could have done this. He admits the crime scene was handled badly and that they did not handle the Ramsey's well Immediately.

"It was the Christmas holiday and we were short staffed, we faced a situation as I said earlier that no one in the country had ever seen before or since, and there was confusion at the scene as people were arriving before we had enough personnel on the scene," he wrote online.


In a follow-up interview published Wednesday by the Daily Camera newspaper of Boulder, Beckner voiced regret about the online session, saying he didn't realize his remarks would be widely quoted.

LOL.. He is a police chief and he didn't realize that his comments would be everywhere??? COME ON! He went back and deleted all his comments. IT is a shame. He finally tells the truth and then deletes it.

"Asked if there was anything he wished to clarify, Beckner told the Boulder newspaper that what he called "the unknown DNA'' found on the child's clothing "is very important.''"

" Dismissing the intruder evidence is a mistake and as I emphasized in an earlier post, the location of the foreign DNA is significant."
This is not DNA from China or where ever it was manufactured. This is DNA that is part of this crime. Find that person and you will have more answers.

Why do you continue to post snippets that support your version of events instead of what he actually said?

I certainly wish we could have gone to trial. However, the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is hard to overcome when you have some foreign DNA that cannot be explained. If we were to find the source of this trace DNA, we would have an explanation, regardless of which way it pointed. When you are talking about small traces of DNA, there can be several explanations and various ways it could have been transferred. Without identifying who it belongs to, we can only theorize the source of the DNA and how it got there. Without this trace DNA, I believe the prosecutors would have moved forward. It is interesting that apparently the grand jury jurors did not find the DNA reason enough not to find probable cause. Personally, I believe if the source is ever found, we will discover that there is an explanation other than belonging to the murderer. There are others, such as ex-DA Mary Lacy who believe the DNA has to be that of the murderer.

Sorry, I can't provide the rebuttal, as I agree with Jim Kolar. Exonerating anyone based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proven to even be connected to the crime is absurd in my opinion. You must look at any case in the totality of all the evidence, circumstances, statements, etc. in coming to conclusions. Mary Lacy, the DA who said the DNA exonerated them made up her mind years before that a mother could not do that to a child, thus the family was innocent. Even though we pointed out that it is not unheard of for mothers do such things.....and you would know that if you just watched the news.

Manufacturing process is one. Interactions with other people is another. Intentional placement is another. Belongs to an intruder is another. Yes, you can often tell where DNA comes from. In this case, it is small enough that it is difficult to tell. CBI thought it was either sweat or saliva.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

My quotes are accurate.

 

[andreww]

My quotes are accurate.

Your quotes are cherry picked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Your quotes are cherry picked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My quotes are correct and from the source.. Where are yours from?

"Asked if there was anything he wished to clarify, Beckner told the Boulder newspaper that what he called "the unknown DNA'' found on the child's clothing "is very important.''"

Your quotes are not from my article.

 

[KKazoo87]

My quotes are correct and from the source.. Where are yours from?

"Asked if there was anything he wished to clarify, Beckner told the Boulder newspaper that what he called "the unknown DNA'' found on the child's clothing "is very important.''"

Your quotes are not from my article.

In a previous post you mentioned Beckner not realizing his posts would go viral, I believe in one of the articles I read he said he thought it was for a class and would be a "members only" thing, since he needed a password to access the chat.

Full AMA with Beckner: http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html

HTH

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

In a previous post you mentioned Breckner not realizing his posts would go viral, I believe in one of the articles I read he said he thought it was for a class and would be a "members only" thing, since he needed a password to access the chat.

Full AMA with Breckner: http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html

HTH

It is beckner and He did think it would be private but it was on REDDIT. for goodness sakes. Nothing on the internet is private. Nothing. He should have known better.

 

[tovarisch]

It is beckner and He did think it would be private but it was on REDDIT. for goodness sakes. Nothing on the internet is private. Nothing. He should have known better.

Exactly! After he felt regretful.
I wonder if he was regretful when he named all us, immature detectives, crazy? May be crazy may be not, but not paid from state funds, thus harmful in every sense considering all harm had been done to the case not by us, altruists.

Or was he regretful that something he said was not intended to be said? What was it, I wonder. What caught my eye, and that I never read it before-- AJR palm print on the cellar door. Melinda`s -yes. But Andrew`s?

Was Chief correct in everything what he said?
More smoke and mirrors added.

 

[tovarisch]

I meant to say we are harmless ( I printed harmful), crazy we are or not.

 

[andreww]

My quotes are correct and from the source.. Where are yours from?

"Asked if there was anything he wished to clarify, Beckner told the Boulder newspaper that what he called "the unknown DNA'' found on the child's clothing "is very important.''"

Your quotes are not from my article.

Mine are from the actual Q&A. Did you even read it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

Mine are from the actual Q&A. Did you even read it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Beckner's final post:

"This will be my last post, but after reading some of the follow-up posts, I believe there may have been some misinterpretation of some of my comments or 'reading between the lines'. I want to emphasize that I do not fully know what happened that night or who killed JonBenet, as some have surmised. If anyone did, this would not be a mystery. This is why I do not speculate. I simply answered questions as truthfully as possible and only on things that have already been reported. Dismissing the intruder evidence is a mistake and as I emphasized in an earlier post, the location of the foreign DNA is significant. This could very likely be the person who killed JonBenet. However, we will not be sure until and if they find out who it belongs to. And, just because we can not prove a point of entry, doesn't mean someone didn't find a way to get in. Just as I believe we can not exonerate on one piece of evidence, neither can we ignore evidence. Finally, everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Thanks again."​

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

For anyone who is interested...

DNA TIMELINE

1997:
-Unsourced male DNA obtained from victim's left hand fingernail clippings.
-Unsourced male DNA obtained from victim's right hand fingernail clippings.
-Unsourced male DNA isolated from a drop of blood in the crotch of the victim's panties.

2001:
-Unsourced male DNA isolated from a drop of blood in the crotch of the victim's panties.

2003:
-Unsourced male DNA isolated from a drop of blood in the crotch of the victim's panties.

2008:
-Unsourced male DNA obtained via touch collection from the outer, left side of the victim's pants.
-Unsourced male DNA obtained via touch collection from the outer, right side of the victim's pants.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Beckner's final post:

"This will be my last post, but after reading some of the follow-up posts, I believe there may have been some misinterpretation of some of my comments or 'reading between the lines'. I want to emphasize that I do not fully know what happened that night or who killed JonBenet, as some have surmised. If anyone did, this would not be a mystery. This is why I do not speculate. I simply answered questions as truthfully as possible and only on things that have already been reported. Dismissing the intruder evidence is a mistake and as I emphasized in an earlier post, the location of the foreign DNA is significant. This could very likely be the person who killed JonBenet. However, we will not be sure until and if they find out who it belongs to. And, just because we can not prove a point of entry, doesn't mean someone didn't find a way to get in. Just as I believe we can not exonerate on one piece of evidence, neither can we ignore evidence. Finally, everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Thanks again."​

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BBM, And there it is. No matter what people think there is a probability that that dna came from the person who murdered her. It is really that simple and that is why I am IDI.

 

[Tawny]

Unsourced...

Are they legally allowed and able to get DNA from minors?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Unsourced...

Are they legally allowed and able to get DNA from minors?

They had burkes dna. If that is what you are going for. They would know if it was him It wasn't. IT is no one related to the R's or anyone they tested.

 

[Tawny]

Thanks for answering

 

[Mama2JML]

Unsourced...

Are they legally allowed and able to get DNA from minors?

Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tovarisch]

I want to ask folks about Andrew`s palm print, does this bother anyone?

What bothers me not the palm print itself but the fact it was hidden knowledge for 20 years. They pretended it was Melinda`s.
I found it strange.
But I assume only one thing- they twisted and lied on every step. The little facts what we know about the case, might be all not real.