JB/wine cellar

[UKGuy]

If you had made the slightest effort, you would have learned that Muslims pray facing the Kaaba in Mecca.

The Qibla (Arabic: قبلة‎‎‎, "direction"), also transliterated as Qiblah, Qibleh, Kiblah, Kıble or Kibla, is the direction that should be faced when a Muslim prays during salah prayers. It is fixed as the direction of the Kaaba in Mecca. Most mosques contain a wall niche, known as mihrab, that indicates the Qiblah. Most multifaith prayer rooms will also contain a Qibla, although usually less standardized in appearance than one would find within a mosque.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla

icedtea4me,

Muslims are usually buried with the body at right angles to the Qibla and the face turned right towards the direction of the Qiblah.

As well as facing east to mecca for prayers they bury bodies facing mecca too.

 

[UKGuy]

Q: Why are people buried facing east?

A: QUICK ANSWER
Under Christian traditions, people are buried with their feet pointed eastwards to follow the belief that the Second Coming of Jesus would occur from the east. This belief originates from a statement in the book of Matthew where the return of Jesus would originate from the East.

https://www.reference.com/world-view/people-buried-facing-eeast-df088ee5963da6ff

Patsy: "Jesus! You raised Lazarus from the dead! Please raise my baby!"

icedtea4me,
uh, uh, so have you checked the evidence against your hypothesis, if so what is the result?

.

 

[Miz Adventure]

And JBR was not buried in the basement anyway.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,

As well as facing east to mecca for prayers they bury bodies facing mecca too.

You have provided no proof that Muslims face east to Mecca for prayers or during burial.

Would a Muslim residing along the 40 E longitude face east during prayer?

 

[kanzz]

That morning was a period of discovery for John. The RN likely got the gears turning in his head. Something wasn't right. So it isn't that odd that he would want the weakest link out of the house. I'd protect my kids too.

If it's so obvious that John was in on it please explain why he would do such stupid things as handing over the RN pad or telling cops the house was secure?

John suspected Patsy from the moment he saw that note but he had to put that aside as he was concerned for JB. When he found the body he put two and two together and figured Burke might have been responsible. Burke's knife at the scene would have assured that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree with this.. up to the part about the knife. I doubt that JR ever even noticed it. I just think his wheels were turning all morning after PR handed him the RN. And then when he found JB, it all came together. He knew BR had issues. "He didn't mean to kill her, he wrapped her in a blanket."

 

[UKGuy]

You have provided no proof that Muslims face east to Mecca for prayers or during burial.

Would a Muslim residing along the 40 E longitude face east during prayer?

icedtea4me,
You are starting to come over as a theistic pedant. Facing east is a colloquialism for the muslim practice of facing mecca geographically.

.

 

[icedtea4me]

And JBR was not buried in the basement anyway.

It was a symbolic burial. <modsnip>

 

[UKGuy]

Agree with this.. up to the part about the knife. I doubt that JR ever even noticed it. I just think his wheels were turning all morning after PR handed him the RN. And then when he found JB, it all came together. He knew BR had issues. "He didn't mean to kill her, he wrapped her in a blanket."

kanzz,
Nope, how does JR manage to distinguish between BR and PR as suspect?

This manner of analysis sounds similar to Lou Smit and JR discussing the case, where they end up agreeing, yeah it was an intruder

The forensic evidence supports all the R's being involved, from fibers to telephone calls!

Apply occam first, where all the R's are involved, then invoke some special reason for excluding JR.



.

 

[kanzz]

kanzz,
Nope, how does JR manage to distinguish between BR and PR as suspect?

This manner of analysis sounds similar to Lou Smit and JR discussing the case, where they end up agreeing, yeah it was an intruder

The forensic evidence supports all the R's being involved, from fibers to telephone calls!

Apply occam first, where all the R's are involved, then invoke some special reason for excluding JR.

UKGuy: What?! I may have had issues in the past with something you've said or your analysis, but I would never stoop so low as to compare it to Lou RedHerring Smit. That's not even civilized.

:notgood:

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy: What?! I may have had issues in the past with something you've said or your analysis, but I would never stoop so low as to compare it to Lou RedHerring Smit. That's not even civilized.

:notgood:

UKGuy,
I know, but its the procedure I'm referencing and not you as a poster, who I find quite objective.

JR as an innocent party just does not fly when contrasted with the available evidence.

Being civilized, lol, I'm suggesting your exhibiting confirmation bias wrt your theory.

.

 

[kanzz]

UKGuy,
I know, but its the procedure I'm referencing and not you as a poster, who I find quite objective.

JR as an innocent party just does not fly when contrasted with the available evidence.

Being civilized, lol, I'm suggesting your exhibiting confirmation bias wrt your theory.

.

"its the procedure I'm referencing and not you as a poster" -- Huh?

Procedure? "manner of analysis"? - OK, from where do you think the "manner of analysis" or "procedure" comes? Aha! it came from me! So, yeah, UKGuy. As much as you might like to try to walk it back, ya can't. You were comparing me (my "manner of analysis", my "procedure", whatever) to Lou RedHerring Smit. That's below the belt.

JR as an "innocent party"? Who ever said he was innocent? Not I. I just suspect that might not have known anything until after the RN was written and PR called him down to see it. He became complicit in this crime at some point. Not innocent.

 

[UKGuy]

"its the procedure I'm referencing and not you as a poster" -- Huh?

Procedure? "manner of analysis"? - OK, from where do you think the "manner of analysis" or "procedure" comes? Aha! it came from me! So, yeah, UKGuy. As much as you might like to try to walk it back, ya can't. You were comparing me (my "manner of analysis", my "procedure", whatever) to Lou RedHerring Smit. That's below the belt.

JR as an "innocent party"? Who ever said he was innocent? Not I. I just suspect that might not have known anything until after the RN was written and PR called him down to see it. He became complicit in this crime at some point. Not innocent.

kanzz,
Nope, its not intended as ad hominem is it. Its just a parallel process, consider inductive events, same events, different people interpret them to suit their favored conclusion.

Its a process, a means to arrive at a particular conclusion, but its not foolproof.

Proof: consider Smit's dialog with JR.

Otherwise what your telling me is your manner of thinking is unique, so do not compare with Smit, etc.

Consider my thinking on the JonBenet case, i.e I was correct all the way via JDI, PDI, to BDI.

Yet other people arrived at BDI independent of my thoughts, e.g. Kolar.

Its only below the belt if you think the analogy does not apply, which of course would be a test of your objectivity?


.

 

[kanzz]

kanzz,
Nope, its not intended as ad hominem is it. Its just a parallel process, consider inductive events, same events, different people interpret them to suit their favored conclusion.

Its a process, a means to arrive at a particular conclusion, but its not foolproof.

Proof: consider Smit's dialog with JR.

Otherwise what your telling me is your manner of thinking is unique, so do not compare with Smit, etc.

Consider my thinking on the JonBenet case, i.e I was correct all the way via JDI, PDI, to BDI.

Yet other people arrived at BDI independent of my thoughts, e.g. Kolar.

Its only below the belt if you think the analogy does not apply, which of course would be a test of your objectivity

BBM
You say you were "correct all the way via JDI, PDI, to BDI."? -- What does that even mean? You were correct at every step of the way? How could that be? Your manner of thinking is unique, I guess.

And "other people arrived at BDI independent of my thoughts, e.g. Kolar." -- Sorry, I'm not sure I'm following you on this, either. Although I'm sure I arrived at BDI independent of your thoughts and on my own after reviewing the info available.

Are you implying that there some advantage to first thinking that JDI? If so, I fail to see why.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
You are starting to come over as a theistic pedant. Facing east is a colloquialism for the muslim practice of facing mecca geographically.

.

Not if one is east of the 39 E 49 longitude.

 

[UKGuy]

BBM
You say you were "correct all the way via JDI, PDI, to BDI."? -- What does that even mean? You were correct at every step of the way? How could that be? Your manner of thinking is unique, I guess.

And "other people arrived at BDI independent of my thoughts, e.g. Kolar." -- Sorry, I'm not sure I'm following you on this, either. Although I'm sure I arrived at BDI independent of your thoughts and on my own after reviewing the info available.

Are you implying that there some advantage to first thinking that JDI? If so, I fail to see why.

kanzz,

Consider my thinking on the JonBenet case, i.e I was correct all the way via JDI, PDI, to BDI.

That's intended as obvious irony, else I would have solved the case.

You were correct at every step of the way?

Nope, I patently got stuff wrong until I settled on BDI.

Although I'm sure I arrived at BDI independent of your thoughts and on my own after reviewing the info available.

That is my point.

Are you implying that there some advantage to first thinking that JDI? If so, I fail to see why.

No.

What I am implying is that specific forms of inductive reasoning can lead you astray.

If you think this view is false just consider the theories that have preceded your own.

Where are they now?

.

 

[icedtea4me]

If we had made the slightest bit of effort....!" Thanks for that, but I suspect that most of us already know about bodies facing east. The question was why in the world would anyone want JBR's body to face east?

This person who did the killing would have surely had a bit more than that on his mind?

Burke didn't place JonBenet's body in the windowless, tomb-like, Lazarus-esque room. Why? Because his feces aren't smeared all over the walls.

 

[Miz Adventure]

Burke didn't place JonBenet's body in the windowless, tomb-like, Lazarus-esque room. Why? Because his feces aren't smeared all over the walls.

If you say so.

 

[kanzz]

kanzz,

That's intended as obvious irony, else I would have solved the case.

Nope, I patently got stuff wrong until I settled on BDI.

That is my point.

No.

What I am implying is that specific forms of inductive reasoning can lead you astray.

If you think this view is false just consider the theories that have preceded your own.

Where are they now?

I missed the irony. Still do.

I have thoughts and hunches, but no set conclusions. It's simply a theory, and from what I recently read on reddit, it seems as if Kolar might agree.

We can disagree with opinions and theories all day long. Because, frankly, I think your theory is off, too. But I never say anything because I don't need to. I do not call you out and say, "Nope." We need to be able to discuss theories and opinions in a respectful manner.

My issue is with your comparison of me to Lou RedHerring Smit, a Ramsey apologist and defender, and a roadblock in the JBR case. Whether that was ad hominem or about my "method of thinking" (ok, that's still about me), I object.

 

[kanzz]

Burke didn't place JonBenet's body in the windowless, tomb-like, Lazarus-esque room. Why? Because his feces aren't smeared all over the walls.

Not the first logical fallacy I've read today, but probably the most glaring. :wink:

 

[AndHence]

Can't they tell medically whether a corpse has been moved after death? I remember reading it had been determined that her body wasn't moved (at least not hours after she had died).