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

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There are some people you just can't have a reasonable conversation with. Contrary to your beliefs, people do not change their handwriting, especially over a short period of time. Patsy purposely changed her style because she did write that note and she didn't want to be caught.

It is not my belief. It is a fact. She was not ever proven to be the author of the note. Not ever. Handwriting experts can tell when someone is avoiding detection by changes because there are some things that are constant even when letter change.
She didn't write the note.

 

[andreww]

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There is no proof she wrote the note neither has any expert claimed she was 100% the author.

I can write like that too. I can also copy letters they way they are written and make them look like the note, however I didn't write the note either.

I have many many different handwriting samples from over the years.

She didn't write the note. People like pinning this on her, but there is no proof she committed the crime nor wrote the note.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I wish we could all go back in time and have this handled differently from the beginning. I think there and then we could find the answers.
I do believe that the better science gets the more likely it is they will find the killer. I don't believe this is some huge cover up and I believe as a rule things are as they appear.
This was the heinous first degree murder of a child. I believe the motive was sexual assault and to take her but something happened and that all changed. They had to leave her and so they put her where it would take a while to find her.
Had there been a good search and a proper securing of the scene I bet they would have had more evidence and we would know exactly who did this and who did not.

 

[andreww]

There is no proof she wrote the note neither has any expert claimed she was 100% the author.

Due to the nature of the science, there will never be 100% proof that she wrote it. None have stated 100% that she wrote it, most however have stated that there is a good chance she wrote it.

I can write like that too. I can also copy letters they way they are written and make them look like the note, however I didn't write the note either.

I bet you couldn't. Though certain aspects of the handwriting was probably altered, there is a consistency to it. You can't copy that.

I have many many different handwriting samples from over the years.

So did Patsy apparantly.

She didn't write the note. People like pinning this on her, but there is no proof she committed the crime nor wrote the note.

This is the most absurd statement and you keep repeating it. I say she probably wrote the note based on the opinions of qualified handwriting experts. The only way you can say she DIDN"T write that note would be if she happened to be sitting in your living room at the time the note was written, and I kinda doubt that happened. That note was examined by at least six experts, including two hired by her attorneys. Not one of them has ruled her out.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Due to the nature of the science, there will never be 100% proof that she wrote it. None have stated 100% that she wrote it, most however have stated that there is a good chance she wrote it.



I bet you couldn't. Though certain aspects of the handwriting was probably altered, there is a consistency to it. You can't copy that.



So did Patsy apparantly.



This is the most absurd statement and you keep repeating it. I say she probably wrote the note based on the opinions of qualified handwriting experts. The only way you can say she DIDN"T write that note would be if she happened to be sitting in your living room at the time the note was written, and I kinda doubt that happened. That note was examined by at least six experts, including two hired by her attorneys. Not one of them has ruled her out.

A good chance? That is not proof. That is not even legal standards.

She didn't write the note. There is nothing in that note that points to her. The handwriting is not identified as hers. Not at all. Not with any really probability.
There are too many things about the note that don't fit with her or anyone in the house writing the note.
She didn't write the note. This is the IDI thread, There are other threads if you think that Patsy did it or had something to do with it, This thread is for IDI.

 

[andreww]

I don't believe this is some huge cover up and I believe as a rule things are as they appear.

I don't think you could be farther from the mark with that one. Evidence was being destroyed and fake evidence planted within minutes of that girl's death.

I believe the motive was sexual assault and to take her but something happened and that all changed. They had to leave her and so they put her where it would take a while to find her.

Then why wasn't she sexually assaulted? Unless the intruder was visiting the Ramsey's house every week for months prior. There is actually very little evidence to indicate that a sexual assault took place that night.

Had there been a good search and a proper securing of the scene I bet they would have had more evidence and we would know exactly who did this and who did not.

Actually, what evidence was destroyed? The integrity of the evidence was compromised, but it was all still there. The only evidence that was destroyed was probably a roll of tape, some rope, a third of a paintbrush and a practice ransom note that probably got carried out in John's golf bag. There was no evidence of an intruder destroyed by LE, because there never was any to begin with.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't think you could be farther from the mark with that one. Evidence was being destroyed and fake evidence planted within minutes of that girl's death.



Then why wasn't she sexually assaulted? Unless the intruder was visiting the Ramsey's house every week for months prior. There is actually very little evidence to indicate that a sexual assault took place that night.



Actually, what evidence was destroyed? The integrity of the evidence was compromised, but it was all still there. The only evidence that was destroyed was probably a roll of tape, some rope, a third of a paintbrush and a practice ransom note that probably got carried out in John's golf bag. There was no evidence of an intruder destroyed by LE, because there never was any to begin with.

Nothing was destroyed by the R's. She was sexually assaulted that day. She was brutalized by a monster. That monster was not a part of her family. There is no proof that it was anyone in the house who hurt or killed her.
The manner of the note and the way it was written points to someone else entirely.
I think you are in the wrong thread. The R's did not kill that baby.

 

[andreww]

A good chance? That is not proof. That is not even legal standards.

If it went in front of a jury, four experts saying Patsy was in their opinion, likely to have penned that note, it would have carried a lot of weight.

She didn't write the note. There is nothing in that note that points to her. The handwriting is not identified as hers.

Chet Ubowski stated that 24 of the 26 characters matched Patsy.

She didn't write the note. This is the IDI thread, There are other threads if you think that Patsy did it or had something to do with it, This thread is for IDI.

I never said Patsy did it, that is for another thread. But I certainly can say that Patsy likely wrote that note.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If it went in front of a jury, four experts saying Patsy was in their opinion, likely to have penned that note, it would have carried a lot of weight.



Chet Ubowski stated that 24 of the 26 characters matched Patsy.



I never said Patsy did it, that is for another thread. But I certainly can say that Patsy likely wrote that note.

It didn't go in front of a jury and there would have been just as many experts saying it wasn't.
Chet is wrong IMO.

You can think it but if IDI the evidence supports that it was not written by any of the r's.

 

[andreww]

Nothing was destroyed by the R's. She was sexually assaulted that day. She was brutalized by a monster. That monster was not a part of her family. There is no proof that it was anyone in the house who hurt or killed her.
The manner of the note and the way it was written points to someone else entirely.
I think you are in the wrong thread. The R's did not kill that baby.

I really have no idea where you are getting your info from but its wrong. What evidence do you have that she was sexually assaulted that night? And again, just because this is an IDI thread, doesn't mean you can just make stuff up.

 

[andreww]

You can think it but if IDI the evidence supports that it was not written by any of the r's.

What does that even mean? The evidence is the same.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I really have no idea where you are getting your info from but its wrong. What evidence do you have that she was sexually assaulted that night? And again, just because this is an IDI thread, doesn't mean you can just make stuff up.

I am not wrong, She was sexually assaulted.
"During his Dec. 27 autopsy on the 6-year-old, Boulder County Coroner John Meyer found scraping and swelling of the child's vaginal area, as well as a series of scrapes on the back of her right shoulder, left lower back and left lower leg."
Sheila Rappaport, a Denver prosecutor who tries individuals accused of sexually assaulting or killing small children, said such a pattern is indicative of a forceful sexual attack.
Rappaport said the scraping on JonBenet's back may have been caused as the helpless child lay on her back and was sexually assaulted by her killer. JonBenet could have been moved about by her attacker, causing the scraping, Rappaport said.
"There would appear there is trauma to the back area, and one could hypothesize that it was inflicted during the course of the sexual abuse," said the prosecutor. "I would assume there was some movement, or pressure or force that would cause that, especially when we are talking about scraping. Usually there is some movement involved there."
Rappaport said that without knowing the severity or size of the abrasions it would be difficult to say the degree of force used.
"Obviously there was force used and mistreatment, but in terms of the degree of force I'd be hard pressed to say," she said.
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon22.htm
And just because you don't like the facts does not make them wrong.

 

[Mama2JML]

I don't have the info in front of me but as I recall, even though all of the non-Ramsey hired experts would identify Patsy as the author, the all felt that there were strong similarities. You also have to remember a couple of things:

No, no, no.

-Patsy would have disguised her writing style when penning that note.

That's why we have experts.

-Patsy likely would have further disguised any samples she provided.

(See my previous statement) ...& LE collected historical exemplars.

-The Ramsey's were using there legal goons to sue or dig up dirt on anyone that accused them.

Even if this was the case, SOOO???

With that in mind, do you actually think anybody could or would positively identify her?

???

Cina Wong, Gideon Epstein, Thomas Miller, Michelle Dresbold, and too many others to list here, have publicly named Patsy as the author of the RN.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

If it went in front of a jury, four experts saying Patsy was in their opinion, likely to have penned that note, it would have carried a lot of weight.



Chet Ubowski stated that 24 of the 26 characters matched Patsy.



I never said Patsy did it, that is for another thread. But I certainly can say that Patsy likely wrote that note.

Steve Thomas attributed that "24 out of 26" comment to Ubowski via Wickman or Trujillo, BUT Ubowski denied the claim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

I really have no idea where you are getting your info from but its wrong. What evidence do you have that she was sexually assaulted that night? And again, just because this is an IDI thread, doesn't mean you can just make stuff up.

Innocent mistake, typo, I hope?
:waitasec:



hwow:

Or, did you really intend to post this message?
:facepalm:

:slap:

:no:

:gaah:





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Innocent mistake, typo, I hope? hwow:

Or, did you really intend to post this message?
:facepalm:

:facepalm:






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Besides a microscopic piece of cellulose? What else? There was evidence of long term sexual abuse, but unless an intruder was living in the basement, we can't attribute that to him.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Besides a microscopic piece of cellulose? What else? There was evidence of long term sexual abuse, but unless an intruder was living in the basement, we can't attribute that to him.

She was sexually assaulted. The problem is that if people don't except the evidence as facts they are never going to find the killer. IDI works off the evidence found. And she was indeed assaulted.
The problem comes when the evidence is altered to suit alternative theories as opposed to making a theory that fits the evidence.

 

[BBB167893]

That's why we have experts.

What good are they, when they have limited experience with disguised handwriting, put less than a day's effort into their "analysis" and are slaves to groupthink and methods that are 60+ years-old?

Even if this was the case, SOOO???

What do you mean, "SOOO???" Are you kidding? I doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to connect those dots.

 

[Mama2JML]

Besides a microscopic piece of cellulose? What else? There was evidence of long term sexual abuse, but unless an intruder was living in the basement, we can't attribute that to him.

You are wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk