No intruder?

[MurriFlower]

Just maybe the fact that John and Patsy turned in the additional pairs of size 12 underwear to police a couple of years after the fact, stating it was the REST of the package should alter your above statement, since according to you the R's never lied.

Where did they get them? They never went back to the house. What happened to the remaining furniture/clothing/possessions in the house? Were they packed by removalists?

 

[wonderllama]

You've got it all bass-ackwards.

RDI asserts that PR and/or JR did it. Therefore, RDI has the unenviable role of accounting, in a plausible way, for ALL the evidence.

Umm...no.
Evidence is evidence irrespective of which side of the "whodunnit" fence you sit on.

Whilst I agree that supporting quotes/citations are important to sort fact from fiction, your suggestion that it is up to those of us who happen to believe the RDI side of things to account for everything is just absurd.

The evidence is there. What people MAKE of that evidence should be independent of the evidence gathering/quoting itself.

For those here who lean towards the IDI side of things, the evidence and quoting/citations are just the same.

Getting lost in the minutia of details and then requesting a quote for it is in my opinion wasting our time on non-essentials which don't further the investigation.

eg: socks, Korea, blah blah.

 

[MurriFlower]

It would be pretty difficult to jab her with the paintbrush handle with her pants on, wouldn't it?

Just point out to me in the autopsy where it says she was jabbed with a paintbrush handle. There was some 'befringent material' which has been suggested on this forum to have been wood fragments, but as far as I know hasn't been identified as being from the paintbrush. Even if so, the brush was broken, so there may have been something on the finger that was inserted.

Leaving that aside for a moment, you'll have to explain to me what you're saying. Is the idea that the creep who killed her merely slipped his hands down into her pants and did it? Doesn't that contradict the DNA you IDIs love so much?

Probably he just pulled them down to the hips. The point is you said she would have HAD to have her panties and longjohns removed before a sexual assault could have been achieved. The suggestion that she was 'redressed' as a fact is not established. It merely adds to your RDI theory, but of course there is no reason why an IDI could not pull up pants/longjohns and in fact according to the DNA this is exactly what happened.

 

[MurriFlower]

HOTYH,

If it was that simple, why did PR have to lie? Why lie at all if you are Innocent? Whether or not LE lied, why did PR?

PR did not lie.

 

[MurriFlower]

Umm...no.
Evidence is evidence irrespective of which side of the "whodunnit" fence you sit on.

Whilst I agree that supporting quotes/citations are important to sort fact from fiction, your suggestion that it is up to those of us who happen to believe the RDI side of things to account for everything is just absurd.

The evidence is there. What people MAKE of that evidence should be independent of the evidence gathering/quoting itself.

For those here who lean towards the IDI side of things, the evidence and quoting/citations are just the same.

Getting lost in the minutia of details and then requesting a quote for it is in my opinion wasting our time on non-essentials which don't further the investigation.

eg: socks, Korea, blah blah.

It isn't possible to provide supporting evidence to refute unsubstantiated claims.

I agree, these trivial details bog us down and prevent proper investigation of the crime. I get the impression though, that it is all RDI has (their 'totallity of evidence'), so they take on a life of their own and eventually, you just get frustrated reading about oversized panties, prior sexual assault, jabbing with a paintbrush, yarda yarda and despite yourself, get embroiled in these frustrating and fruitless arguments.

 

[Ames]

Why not be helpful and tell us how you know it to be fact? The interviews of what interrogators TOLD PR isn't valid because I can show they typically lie to garner desired testimony from a suspect. SD claims they're special and cant lie, which would be a first.

I think its very unlikely JBR was wearing size 12's. I doubt you can source it effectively and I noticed you didint source it at all! The idea of yours that the coroner went into detail on KOREA printed on the handle while omitting the bizarre size 12 detail is highly absurd.

PLEASSEEE...give me a break holdon. So, now the inerrogators are lying about the size panties that JB was wearing. Why the h*ll would they do that?? Okay...according to some IDI's...the "interrogators" lied about Patsy's jacket fibers being anywhere near the crime scene...and now some IDI's believe that they were lying about the size 12 panties. So, anything that even remotely points the finger at the Ramsey's...is all just a lie, huh? I don't THINK so. As far as my source goes...I was in a hurry and had to leave for work...as my post stated. I will be more than happy to source it for you, even though more than one poster has sourced it for me. Let me know if THAT isn't good enough...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Umm...no.
Evidence is evidence irrespective of which side of the "whodunnit" fence you sit on.

Whilst I agree that supporting quotes/citations are important to sort fact from fiction, your suggestion that it is up to those of us who happen to believe the RDI side of things to account for everything is just absurd.

The evidence is there. What people MAKE of that evidence should be independent of the evidence gathering/quoting itself.

For those here who lean towards the IDI side of things, the evidence and quoting/citations are just the same.

Getting lost in the minutia of details and then requesting a quote for it is in my opinion wasting our time on non-essentials which don't further the investigation.

eg: socks, Korea, blah blah.

I think you missed the point, maybe deliberately for obfuscation.

IDI doesn't necessarily single out one person. This means IDI is free to assign a violent personality, handwriting, linguistics, and now DNA to an unknown person. IOW there could be an actual person who fits all of this exactly. A dead ringer.

RDI, on the other hand, has to make everything work within either PR or JR. Every small detail. The ownership of the cord, tape, blunt instrument, handwriting, violent capability, and motive. I haven't seen RDI provide a convincing or even a strong argument on EVEN ONE of these. Certainly not using evidence aquired from before the murder e.g. prior handwriting exemplars that contain the infamous a-z list that was debunked on the other thread.

Even the unknown male skin cells has to be accounted for. Its like a fingerprint on the long johns. Its JUST LIKE a fingerprint because its not static. It comes out in the wash, and enough skin cells have to be present to produce a profile, not just one or two cells.

From a purely rational standpoint, RDI is essentially lost with this DNA because it matched the underwear DNA and has the properties of smoking gun evidence of an intruder. Its not my fault if RDI refuses to accept this fact.

 

[BBB167893]

RDI asserts that PR and/or JR did it. Therefore, RDI has the unenviable role of accounting, in a plausible way, for ALL the evidence.

You're right about the unenviable part! Boy, are you right about that. But I balk at the idea that we need to account for literally every single thing. Regardless of what case it is, that's never going to happen. That only happens in TV shows.

Many times things stated as fact are really unknown. Stated as fact is that JBR was wearing oversize underwear. The closest thing to a source is SuperDave quoting ST's book that noted urine stained oversize underwear, but STILL doesn't say if those were collected FROM JBR's body.

Oh, I'm sorry. Didn't I mention that this was from the autopsy? Even if it weren't, where ELSE would they be collected from?

 

[Toltec]

That explains why LA and the coroner didn't make a huge deal out of the oversize underwear. And this graphic siggy used by a poster to illustrate the size difference is some kind of sick joke?

Give me a break...they were humongous panties. Patsy claimed she bought size 8-10 underwear for JonBenet but no size 8-10 underwear were found in her panty drawer!

The only size underwears in JonBenet's panty drawer were sizes 4 and 6!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

eg: socks, Korea, blah blah.

An obfuscator puts KOREA in the same class as socks and blah blah.

Korea: Did I make up KOREA on my own? No. Its part of the hard evidence and it will be there forever, longer than me.

Socks: I'd like to know if she was wearing any but all the RDIologists seem to think she wasn't.

blah blah: sarcasm? Nah...an attempt to obfuscate. Why is that necessary? I'll have to look into this Korea thing some more. After all I know many have strong feelings and dont respect this country. Especially the northern half more than the southern half. Did I say southern?

 

[BBB167893]

Just point out to me in the autopsy where it says she was jabbed with a paintbrush handle. There was some 'befringent material' which has been suggested on this forum to have been wood fragments, but as far as I know hasn't been identified as being from the paintbrush.

I don't know about the autopsy report, but there are several sources, including PMPT and ST's book, that describe it as a splinter of wood matching the cellulose composition.

Even if so, the brush was broken, so there may have been something on the finger that was inserted.

I've often heard that argument, Murri. And even though I can't rule that out 100%, aside from the other things I've mentioned, Dr. McCann said that the assault injury had clear edges, which suggested something much firmer and unyielding than a finger.

Probably he just pulled them down to the hips.

I don't know. Even if you don't agree with the paintbrush assault hypothesis, the only way I can see JB receiving such a "clean" injury is if she were in a position of easy access; as in, lying on her back with her pants pulled down to give the person a wide-open shot.

The point is you said she would have HAD to have her panties and longjohns removed before a sexual assault could have been achieved.

That's right; it matches up with everything else. You know, that totality thing you hate so much? (Not that I blame you)

The suggestion that she was 'redressed' as a fact is not established. It merely adds to your RDI theory, but of course there is no reason why an IDI could not pull up pants/longjohns

Maybe no reason why an IDI COULD not do it. My question is WHY would they do it? And when you answer that, take a few other things into account, not just that.

and in fact according to the DNA this is exactly what happened.

Give me a break.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't know about the autopsy report, but there are several sources, including PMPT and ST's book, that describe it as a splinter of wood matching the cellulose composition.



I've often heard that argument, Murri. And even though I can't rule that out 100%, aside from the other things I've mentioned, Dr. McCann said that the assault injury had clear edges, which suggested something much firmer and unyielding than a finger.



I don't know. Even if you don't agree with the paintbrush assault hypothesis, the only way I can see JB receiving such a "clean" injury is if she were in a position of easy access; as in, lying on her back with her pants pulled down to give the person a wide-open shot.



That's right; it matches up with everything else. You know, that totality thing you hate so much? (Not that I blame you)



Maybe no reason why an IDI COULD not do it. My question is WHY would they do it? And when you answer that, take a few other things into account, not just that.



Give me a break.

something much firmer and unyielding than a finger.

in a position of easy access; as in, lying on her back with her pants pulled down to give the person a wide-open shot.

Speculation, pure and simple.

 

[BBB167893]

I agree, these trivial details bog us down and prevent proper investigation of the crime. I get the impression though, that it is all RDI has (their 'totallity of evidence'), so they take on a life of their own and eventually, you just get frustrated reading about oversized panties, prior sexual assault, jabbing with a paintbrush, yarda yarda and despite yourself, get embroiled in these frustrating and fruitless arguments.

I know all about frustrating and fruitless argument, Murri. I put up with them every time I come here.

But I do it anyway, because the totality of evidence is exactly that. It's not ALL I have; it's WHAT I have.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I know all about frustrating and fruitless argument, Murri. I put up with them every time I come here.

But I do it anyway, because the totality of evidence is exactly that. It's not ALL I have; it's WHAT I have.

Totality of evidence is abstract. It has no meaning. Sort of like 'common sense'.

You either got it or you dont, brother.

 

[BBB167893]

IDI doesn't necessarily single out one person. This means IDI is free to assign a violent personality, handwriting, linguistics, and now DNA to an unknown person. IOW there could be an actual person who fits all of this exactly. A dead ringer.

Aren't you lucky? The whole world is your sandbox.

The reverse of that is, we have something you don't. A very BIG something, in fact: we can place the Rs in the house that night. IDI has never been able to do that.

RDI, on the other hand, has to make everything work within either PR or JR. Every small detail.

Um, no we don't. I've never heard of a case where every small detail was accounted for. That just doesn't happen.

The ownership of the cord, tape, blunt instrument, handwriting, violent capability, and motive. I haven't seen RDI provide a convincing or even a strong argument on EVEN ONE of these.

I'm sure you haven't seen them, HOTYH. That's kind of the problem.

Certainly not using evidence aquired from before the murder e.g. prior handwriting exemplars that contain the infamous a-z list that was debunked on the other thread.

"Debunked," my a**. If you only knew! Ain't that right, Beck??

From a purely rational standpoint, RDI is essentially lost with this DNA because it matched the underwear DNA and has the properties of smoking gun evidence of an intruder.

Since when is IDI based on rationalism?

Its not my fault if RDI refuses to accept this fact.

Like I said, HOTYH: it has nothing to do with you.

 

[BBB167893]

something much firmer and unyielding than a finger.

in a position of easy access; as in, lying on her back with her pants pulled down to give the person a wide-open shot.

Speculation, pure and simple.

Oh, is it? Considering that Dr. McCann was using the autopsy report and photos, I'd say it was more than just speculation!

As for the second point, it may be speculation, but it makes sense.

 

[BBB167893]

Totality of evidence is abstract. It has no meaning.

Wrong on BOTH counts, HOTYH. It's not abstract and it has a very specific meaning: the ability to put together a case without a so-called smoking gun; more specifically, the ability to take the small pieces of a puzzle and assemble them into a coherent picture, the way 90% of all cases are prosecuted.

I hope that helps.

Sort of like 'common sense'.

That explains an awful lot!

You either got it or you dont, brother.

My sentiments exactly!

 

[Toltec]

TRIP DEMUTH: Take this out.

14 PATSY RAMSEY: Junk drawer. (Inaudible).

15 Golf ball it looks like to me. Tape. (Inaudible),

16 maybe. Junk.

17 TOM HANEY: Another --

18 PATSY RAMSEY: Pen in the junk drawer. Can't

19 tell where it is, either in the kitchen or in the bar

20 area.

21 TRIP DEMUTH: Do you know who that tape would

22 belong to?

23 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't. (Inaudible).

24 John would know better than me. I never used it. I

25 always used the clear stuff.

Duct tape was found in the Ramsey home...does anyone know what color it was?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Wrong on BOTH counts, HOTYH. It's not abstract and it has a very specific meaning: the ability to put together a case without a so-called smoking gun; more specifically, the ability to take the small pieces of a puzzle and assemble them into a coherent picture, the way 90% of all cases are prosecuted.

I hope that helps.



That explains an awful lot!



My sentiments exactly!

The actual killer can be convicted on evidence held in the palm of your hand. Would that be a totality of evidence? Or would it be a preponderance of evidence? Who gives a rats A$$?

If a match to the DNA is found to belong to someone who owns the piece of paintbrush or has an attitude, your totality is in the toilet.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Aside from the autopsy report, do we know the paintbrush said "Korea" or is that just another thing that LE threw out there to make Patsy, sorry, the intruder look guilty? If nobody else in Boulder has enough sense to conduct a murder investigation, then what on earth could make us believe the coroner did?