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

[DeeDee249]

1.Living in the trailer is not a diagnosis.
2.Being rich is not diagnosis.
3.Background history is a diagnosis.
You making assumption about #1 and #2 without applying #3. Very wrong.

I do not care where anybody lives, but I will apply #3, first thing to do.
Then I look at the modern technology forensic facts. White male DNA in three places on the body: fingernails, on the outer pants, on the inner pants mixed with JB`s blood. Right in the blood spot. Not half inch right or left of the blood spot, but right in the blood.
Trailer or mansion. Unidentified DNA.

Are you serious that you do not believe in modern forensic technology ? WE do.

I certainly believe in modern forensic technology. But what I don't believe in is saying that DNA of UNKNOWN origin and that could have gotten on her clothing in a way that had nothing to do with the crime cannot be taken as evidence (and certainly not proof) of an intruder. Semen, blood, saliva are all much less easily transferred incidentally. Skin cells via Touch DNA CAN easily be transferred incidentally. That TDNA must be sourced to a named donor before it can begin to be associated with this crime.
IF that DNA had been semen, blood- it had no business being there. But skin cells can and do come from anywhere. We all have someone else's skin cells on us right now. Including people we have never met or had contact with. The cells were transferred to our hands (most likely venue) when we touched something that person had also touched.
Not every male at that party was tested for a match. Some were children at the time. They all used the same bathroom, touched the same door handles, and may have held their parents' hands (who in turn may have shook hands with someone, thereby getting the skin cells on them).
I also believe the blood spot oozed out postmortem and whoever put those panties and longjohns on her never knew it was there. Also, the ONLY reason why the skin cells were found at all is because the blood spot was tested to see whose blood it was. There may very well have been skin cell DNA on other areas of the panties. Its location under the blood spot does not make it more significant.
As for the DNA under her nails- long determined to be degraded and long said that NO useful DNA was obtained from them. NONE of the fingernail DNA would ever be admissible in court.

 

[tovarisch]

I certainly believe in modern forensic technology. But what I don't believe in is saying that DNA of UNKNOWN origin and that could have gotten on her clothing in a way that had nothing to do with the crime cannot be taken as evidence (and certainly not proof) of an intruder. Semen, blood, saliva are all much less easily transferred incidentally. Skin cells via Touch DNA CAN easily be transferred incidentally. That TDNA must be sourced to a named donor before it can begin to be associated with this crime.
IF that DNA had been semen, blood- it had no business being there. But skin cells can and do come from anywhere. We all have someone else's skin cells on us right now. Including people we have never met or had contact with. The cells were transferred to our hands (most likely venue) when we touched something that person had also touched.
Not every male at that party was tested for a match. Some were children at the time. They all used the same bathroom, touched the same door handles, and may have held their parents' hands (who in turn may have shook hands with someone, thereby getting the skin cells on them).
I also believe the blood spot oozed out postmortem and whoever put those panties and longjohns on her never knew it was there. Also, the ONLY reason why the skin cells were found at all is because the blood spot was tested to see whose blood it was. There may very well have been skin cell DNA on other areas of the panties. Its location under the blood spot does not make it more significant.
As for the DNA under her nails- long determined to be degraded and long said that NO useful DNA was obtained from them. NONE of the fingernail DNA would ever be admissible in court.

You are not exactly right about DNA. Those on longjohns were touch DNA, T-DNA. But one in the inner panties were DNA extracted the FLUID of unknown person. Commingled with the blood. It was deposited at once together, mixed, it took lab scientists years to separate one from another. DNA of fluid of unknown male was match to touch DNA on longjohns. Under fingernails I believe it was also DNA ,though small amount of markers, that matched with the other .
To be honest, I know that we all covered with other people T-DNA, but excuse my language, we DO NOT have unknown male FLUID in our pants, or do we? that would MATCH T-DNA on our hands from handshaking and door knobs touching.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes, kids get abducted from their beds. But, never has a three page rambling ransom note been written whilst sitting in the victim's living room. The parents decline to assist LE for four months. There is no obvious sign of exit or entry in to the house. Fibres from the parents clothing is found on the body and duct tape. I could go on and on, but I would bet my life that the Ramseys are resoponsible.

That does not have to be how it happened. They could have been there before took the paper or knew the family was out and then wrote the note while they were alone in the house.
The ransom note only shows intention not completion. Show me the fiber evidence because that along with the unknown fibers, Show a stranger. The family's fibers could be anywhere and everywhere in that house and they should be. The unknown fibers are the ones that matter.
There is too much that points away from the Ramseys to bet any life.. IMO.

 

[Mama2JML]

RSBM

RE: Evidentiary DNA

So JB last bathed on the afternoon of the 24th. That leaves almost 2 days where that DNA could have been placed on her. You may wan't to take in to account that her body may have been wiped down. If a towel or rag with someone else DNA on it was used, could that have transferred the DNA to JB?

Sure, secondary/tertiary transfer is possible. Though the probability is slim, specifically with regard to the "matching" male DNA profiles.

And have we ever seen a thorough analysis of the DNA?

As far as I know, we don't have access to any official & thorough analysis of evidence in this case. We do have statements from the chief of police, the DA, and other officials directly involved in the investigation.

If you're interested in information coming straight from the horse's mouth, follow the link below to an interview with Angela Williamson, who led the 2008 DNA analysis in this case:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/touch-dna-cleared-jonbenets-kin/

Do we know that all the samples collected are from the same person? For a fact, not just internet rumours?

It is impossible to know for certain, but probability favors a single contributor.

All Im saying here is that the DNA samples are sketchy to begin with. They aren't semen apparently.

This case doesn't lack 'sketchy', but forensic evidence (like DNA) is minimally 'sketchy'. It isn't biased, it has no dog in the race, but it's presence at the crime scene requires scientifically sound explanations.

There is no way to tell when they got there, so we can't even be sure that they are relevant to this case.

I don't exactly disagree. We don't know when or how the DNA was deposited, but we have no basis on which this evidence should be deemed irrelevant.

So to try and use them as the determining factor to incriminate or clear anybody is just ludicrous.

I agree. To date, the contributor is unknown. Until a match is made and the totality of evidence is reevaluated in light of this finding, the DNA evidence cannot possibly clear or incriminate anyone.

Its just not there and probably never will be. So you need to look at the other evidence and decide from that.

Again, I don't disagree. Though, I certainly hope the DNA is sourced to someone. If a contributor is identified, investigators will be gifted the golden opportunity this case needs. Until we know "who", we can't possibly know "how" or "when", and we definitely can't assume the DNA evidence is irrelevant.

 

[andreww]

RSBM

RE: Evidentiary DNA

Sure, secondary/tertiary transfer is possible. Though the probability is slim, specifically with regard to the "matching" male DNA profiles.

As far as I know, we don't have access to any official & thorough analysis of evidence in this case. We do have statements from the chief of police, the DA, and other officials directly involved in the investigation.

If you're interested in information coming straight from the horse's mouth, follow the link below to an interview with Angela Williamson, who led the 2008 DNA analysis in this case:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/touch-dna-cleared-jonbenets-kin/

It is impossible to know for certain, but probability favors a single contributor.

This case doesn't lack 'sketchy', but forensic evidence (like DNA) is minimally 'sketchy'. It isn't biased, it has no dog in the race, but it's presence at the crime scene requires scientifically sound explanations.

I don't exactly disagree. We don't know when or how the DNA was deposited, but we have no basis on which this evidence should be deemed irrelevant.

I agree. To date, the contributor is unknown. Until a match is made and the totality of evidence is reevaluated in light of this finding, the DNA evidence cannot possibly clear or incriminate anyone.

Again, I don't disagree. Though, I certainly hope the DNA is sourced to someone. If a contributor is identified, investigators will be gifted the golden opportunity this case needs. Until we know "who", we can't possibly know "how" or "when", and we definitely can't assume the DNA evidence is irrelevant.

I think we are seeing a little more eye to eye now. I assume you would agree that JR could have committed this crime, despite the unknown DNA found on JB? More to the point, the DNA neither implicates or excludes him? Now if an unknown person's semen were to be found on JB, that would be a completely different story. So how does this DNA evidence help the case? It would be helpful if used in conjunction with other evidence to absolutely place a suspect at the scene. For instance, if a Ramsey business associate came under suspicion and had no alibi for the time of the crime, that in itself would not be enough to convict. But if that person's DNA matched what was found on JB, then you would start to have a pretty tight case. So the DNA doesn't exclude anybody because there is no way to prove how it got there, but it may or may not be damning if a match is ever found. Say the DNA was found to have come from FWs son, or some other kid at that party. Would it be rational to assume that an 8 year old commited the crime? Probably not.

The DNA is important. Its there if needed. Unfortunately I don't think it ever will be because I believe its all from some innocent means of transfer, and whoever it belongs to will likely never have a profile entered because they are more than likely not a criminal.

 

[Global Justice Ops]

None of us were obviously there that night, so what we can do is look at the evidence available online and the books and interviews given by people who were involved in a investagative manner or suspect/witness like.

When I do that I can't seem to find anything that points the finger at the Ramseys. It's possible they did this but unlikely from what I've seen.

The only reasonable way they could have been involved is if it was an accidental death followed by a staging.

But listen to the 911 call. If this was a staging how the hell did Patsy sound so genuine? She is hysterical during the call.

 

[Mama2JML]

I think we are seeing a little more eye to eye now. I assume you would agree that JR could have committed this crime, despite the unknown DNA found on JB? More to the point, the DNA neither implicates or excludes him?

He's obviously excluded as the contributor of the DNA in question, but this alone doesn't clear him.

Now if an unknown person's semen were to be found on JB, that would be a completely different story. So how does this DNA evidence help the case? It would be helpful if used in conjunction with other evidence to absolutely place a suspect at the scene. For instance, if a Ramsey business associate came under suspicion and had no alibi for the time of the crime, that in itself would not be enough to convict. But if that person's DNA matched what was found on JB, then you would start to have a pretty tight case. So the DNA doesn't exclude anybody because there is no way to prove how it got there, but it may or may not be damning if a match is ever found.

Agreed.

Say the DNA was found to have come from FWs son, or some other kid at that party. Would it be rational to assume that an 8 year old commited the crime? Probably not.

Agreed, but I believe little Fleet's DNA was collected. I believe all individual's present @ the White's dinner party submitted non-testimonial evidence including blood or by cal swabs for DNA analysis. I know of no other males including family, friends, playmates, or associates of the Ramseys, who have not submitted to DNA testing.

The DNA is important. Its there if needed. Unfortunately I don't think it ever will be because I believe its all from some innocent means of transfer, and whoever it belongs to will likely never have a profile entered because they are more than likely not a criminal.

You could be right, but the remaining evidence to which we are privy lends considerable doubt to JDI, PDI, and BDI theories. There is much left unsourced, aside from the evidentiary DNA.

 

[tovarisch]

Huge revelation, thanks to resourceful Mama2, her link post #1550.

It bothered me for years. Now its answered. Where did bonus money go ?

John`s bonus went electronically to his private pension plan. The whole amount contributed, tax deferred( no full tax), until distribution taken.

Patsy did not know. She said so. John said sotoo, there was no point to discuss with Patsy since it went to pension ( his words).

It makes this amount double private, hardly discussed with anybody, besides trust handler and financial adviser (his words).
Not discussed at family-friends gathering.
Out of reach for common people.

And yet, on the ransom-118,000, "don`t underestimate us", John. Terrifying how much they knew about the family.

Makes it highly unlikely that John or John let Patsy to point so openly to themselves exposing in the ransom the private information that he shared with NOBODY. He said to investigators he shared with nobody, just couple of financial advisers, and an accountant of cause knew. Means scenario is- he knew he was the only one who knew, and yet put it in ransom. It`s im-po-sible scenario.

It`s answered a big deal of questions and yet put so many more-- who in the world somebody gained the information?. Thank you, Mama2.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I have never understood why people have not ever questioned the amount in the Ransom. If you think that the R's were so calculating and looking to hide their deeds, Why in the blue heck would they claim to want 118000? Who puts that amount on a ransom note.. I will tell you who, people who want to make the R's look bad. People who want to say.. I know you better than you think but you don't know me.....

If you are faking a Ransom note, It says.. Leave 1 million dollars at such and such a place. Not 3 pages of nonsense. That is written by a rambling, power hungry little person, wanting to be noticed.

 

[midwest mama]

None of us were obviously there that night, so what we can do is look at the evidence available online and the books and interviews given by people who were involved in a investagative manner or suspect/witness like.

When I do that I can't seem to find anything that points the finger at the Ramseys. It's possible they did this but unlikely from what I've seen.

The only reasonable way they could have been involved is if it was an accidental death followed by a staging.

But listen to the 911 call. If this was a staging how the hell did Patsy sound so genuine? She is hysterical during the call.

If PR sounded genuinely hysterical during the 911 call, it would have to be because SHE knew nothing about what had happened to JB. To then make this an RDI crime, we have to boil it down to the only known Ramseys in the home....JR and/or BR. I do not believe BR could have carried off the entire crime/note/staging by himself. At some point JR would have had to become involved. But I do believe it would have been possible the other way around.

No matter how I try, I can't see why there would have been a need to cover up anything that might have been considered accidental happening at any point of the crime between the 2 Ramsey kids.

If JR alone covered up for BR, which is not what the GJ figured, then JR had to have done so because he KNEW BR had killed JB intentionally and could not fathom PR learning this and them having BR end up being taken away to face whatever treatment would be necessary.

So, uninvolved and innocent PR means JR most likely ultimately responsible for a staged kidnapping gone awry masking an RDI murder, or it was a crime committed by an intruder.

I'm going to keep praying that one day we will all know the truth.

 

[andreww]

Huge revelation, thanks to resourceful Mama2, her link post #1550.

It bothered me for years. Now its answered. Where did bonus money go ?

John`s bonus went electronically to his private pension plan. The whole amount contributed, tax deferred( no full tax), until distribution taken.

Patsy did not know. She said so. John said sotoo, there was no point to discuss with Patsy since it went to pension ( his words).

It makes this amount double private, hardly discussed with anybody, besides trust handler and financial adviser (his words).
Not discussed at family-friends gathering.
Out of reach for common people.

And yet, on the ransom-118,000, "don`t underestimate us", John. Terrifying how much they knew about the family.

Makes it highly unlikely that John or John let Patsy to point so openly to themselves exposing in the ransom the private information that he shared with NOBODY. He said to investigators he shared with nobody, just couple of financial advisers, and an accountant of cause knew. Means scenario is- he knew he was the only one who knew, and yet put it in ransom. It`s im-po-sible scenario.

It`s answered a big deal of questions and yet put so many more-- who in the world somebody gained the information?. Thank you, Mama2.

And you believe John never mentioned to his wife that he just came in to a $118,000 ? I don't buy that for a second. Just like Patsy didn't know about the Santa bear that JB had just won mere days earlier. Selective Ramnesia if you ask me.

 

[andreww]

I have never understood why people have not ever questioned the amount in the Ransom. If you think that the R's were so calculating and looking to hide their deeds, Why in the blue heck would they claim to want 118000? Who puts that amount on a ransom note.. I will tell you who, people who want to make the R's look bad. People who want to say.. I know you better than you think but you don't know me.....

If you are faking a Ransom note, It says.. Leave 1 million dollars at such and such a place. Not 3 pages of nonsense. That is written by a rambling, power hungry little person, wanting to be noticed.

The reason they put that $118,000 amount in there was to lend credence that the author was a business acquaintance that was aware of John's dealings. Nothing more.

 

[andreww]

None of us were obviously there that night, so what we can do is look at the evidence available online and the books and interviews given by people who were involved in a investagative manner or suspect/witness like.

When I do that I can't seem to find anything that points the finger at the Ramseys. It's possible they did this but unlikely from what I've seen.

The only reasonable way they could have been involved is if it was an accidental death followed by a staging.

But listen to the 911 call. If this was a staging how the hell did Patsy sound so genuine? She is hysterical during the call.

Sorry, I've never thought Patsy sounded genuine in that conversation at all. In my opinion she is intentionally hyperventilating to make it appear she is more distressed than she is. Then she simply hangs up, probably because she knows she can't maintain the act for an extended period of time. You have to remember that at this point she already knows her daughter is dead, and she is under stress knowing that she may be going to jail, so it probably wouldn't have been that hard to sound like she was in distress. But this wasn't a case of a child being injured and needing attention. She needed police help, and being on the phone with them should have been somewhat comforting, so it makes no sense that she ended the call so abruptly.

 

[THE BUNK]

I have never understood why people have not ever questioned the amount in the Ransom. If you think that the R's were so calculating and looking to hide their deeds, Why in the blue heck would they claim to want 118000? Who puts that amount on a ransom note.. I will tell you who, people who want to make the R's look bad. People who want to say.. I know you better than you think but you don't know me

That works both ways. If you were a killer that knew the Ramsey's why would you want to point to the fact that you are close enough to them that you know they have $118,000.

I have always maintained that the reason the amount was chosen was because it was a reasonably liquid amount that would not harm the Ramsey's financially.

From a kidnapping theory, the announcement of the bonus may be what precipitated the kidnap plan.

From a IDI perspective, the above fact would make the kidnapping dupe all the more plausible. Someone kidnapped their child because they wanted the bonus money.


Another possibility is that the letter writer assumed that $118,000 was a significant amount for a kidnapping. That would be a large amount in 1970's. Case in point, DB Cooper asked for a amount close to that. The thing is that $118,000 in 1970 is like a $2 or 3 million today. (sorry for the inexact figures). You have to imagine that movies and novels of that time probably used that amount for ransom and kidnapping plots. I can't help but think that the ransom note writer read or watched a few of those movies and just assumed that was a reasonable amount to put in the note.

 

[THE BUNK]

Sorry, I've never thought Patsy sounded genuine in that conversation at all. In my opinion she is intentionally hyperventilating to make it appear she is more distressed than she is.

Why would Patsy be hyperventilating then? It had been some time since the note was found. I could see her hyperventilating then, but why when she is making the phone call? And if your John, why in God's name would you let your hysterical hyperventilating wife make what might be the most important phone call of your life. It's not like John has anything to do at that point. If they are calling the police, they have already decided they aren't paying the ransom amount. They need to wait for the police to arrive and follow their instructions on what to do.

 

[tovarisch]

To RDI:

please, explain me anybody from RDI side what to you mean saying that Ramsey purposely put 118,000 and in the same time John told investigators he was the only One WHO KNEW about this bonus directly rollovered to his pension plan?

He said to investigators that it was not discussed verbally with anybody as far as he concerned.

I`m confused about your reasoning what and when do you think he was staging?when putting his pension contribution on the ransom or when assuring investigators he was the only one who knew about this pension contribution?

 

[THE BUNK]

please, explain me anybody from RDI side what to you mean saying that Ramsey purposely put 118,000 and in the same time John told investigators he was the only One WHO KNEW about this bonus directly rollovered to his pension plan?

The people that processed it would know. Possibly even his FA and their office. Did John have a CPA.

I`m confused about your reasoning what and when do you think he was staging?when putting his pension contribution on the ransom or when assuring investigators he was the only one who knew about this pension contribution?

Maybe to open the possibility that his phone was tapped. Helps with the idea as to why JonBenet was never returned when they made the phone call to the police.

John could also have panicked when the possibility of who knew could lead to Patsy or the rest of his family.

Remember...the Ramseys did not have the benefit of planning this whole thing ahead like an intruder would. That is why there are so many pieces of evidence that conflict with one another. Their plan was improvised. Try improvising a bank robbery right now and see how well thought out your plan is.

 

[tovarisch]

The people that processed it would know. Possibly even his FA and their office. Did John have a CPA.



Maybe to open the possibility that his phone was tapped. Helps with the idea as to why JonBenet was never returned when they made the phone call to the police.

John could also have panicked when the possibility of who knew could lead to Patsy or the rest of his family.

Remember...the Ramseys did not have the benefit of planning this whole thing ahead like an intruder would. That is why there are so many pieces of evidence that conflict with one another. Their plan was improvised. Try improvising a bank robbery right now and see how well thought out your plan is.

You have not answered. I was asking simple questions--- Why in the world--- his very private pension contribution came to his mind right after killing his daughter? It was not pre-planned, why he suddenly remembered his pension contribution, for the God sake, in this tragic moment? And instead of believable ransom request he requested his own pension contribution? Remember, that he could put half million, one or couple millions, and he would nave not need ever to pay it, it`s staging, right?

Why in the world to assure detectives he was the only one who knew, instead of saying he had told about the bonus to numerous people, hard to remember how many and who .

When you say, people, it was collateral amount he could withdraw, I sit my jaw down and try to comprehend what was said. Collateral? Where, what address he would take the brown paper bag with money if there was no kidnappers and he knew call would never come ? HE DID NOT need the collateral, if he was the killer.

I know, there is no answer from your side of view. Great amusement for real killers.

 

[Nick No Nora]

Q: Did the intruder plan to commit a crime in a dark house but didn't bring his/her own flashlight? He/she just figured he/she would find one there?

 

[tovarisch]

Q: Did the intruder plan to commit a crime in a dark house but didn't bring his/her own flashlight? He/she just figured he/she would find one there?

The answer to your question was found on the kitchen counter top, the OLD WORN-OUT heavy duty flashlight with BRAND NEW batteries.
Brand new batteries tell us that the FL was brought to the crime scene that night for purposed of lighting up the dark space without failure.
For the FL being looking shabby and worn-out somebody needed to use it A LOT. The wear out a metal heavy duty object is hard , and takes years of use.
If you believe that people give an old worn-out flashlights as a gift, I do not buying it.
As well I`m not buying that 20 y.o. student could have 118,000 on his account to pay off the ransom. Why John`s older son was making statements not based on reality but rather imaginary, it`s a different question. We know nothing about his personality. We know that he used to talk a lot, and this is all we know. The question is why he was never had been asked additional questions how, when, why. For example-how come you have so much money, and what year you gave a FL to your parents, are you sure that one you gave because the one on the counter top was obviously not new.