No intruder?

[Holdontoyourhat]

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?

What makes you believe Dr. Meyer would lie?

 

[joeskidbeck]

The autopsy report is a better source than the interrogations because there's no motive to lie. Interrogators are commonly known to lie to garner desired testimony.

I haven't seen photos of the paintbrush but the fact that it says KOREA on it could be easily rechecked. The coroner could be readily questioned as to why he included or failed to include the right information.

You give this coroner a lot more credit than I do. A halfway decent coroner would have known the time of death because he would have checked her livor temperature while she was still at the scene. He also would not have used nail clips that had already been used on other corpses. Actually, I think protocal calls for new clips to be used on each fingernail, but this coroner couldn't be bothered with these things. A detail like the paintbrush saying Korea really boggles the mind when one knows the mistakes he made. I'm sure he thought noting the panties said "Wednesday" was enough detail. If we can fault LE for all their mistakes, it's only reasonable to fault this coroner with his.

 

[joeskidbeck]

What makes you believe Dr. Meyer would lie?

I don't believe he would lie, but I do believe he was very capable of not doing his job the way it should have been done. I refuse to give this man a pass here when everyone else in Boulder is accused of being outright liars and inept as well.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You give this coroner a lot more credit than I do. A halfway decent coroner would have known the time of death because he would have checked her livor temperature while she was still at the scene. He also would not have used nail clips that had already been used on other corpses. Actually, I think protocal calls for new clips to be used on each fingernail, but this coroner couldn't be bothered with these things. A detail like the paintbrush saying Korea really boggles the mind when one knows the mistakes he made. I'm sure he thought noting the panties said "Wednesday" was enough detail. If we can fault LE for all their mistakes, it's only reasonable to fault this coroner with his.

What makes you believe Dr. Meyer would lie?

I agree 10 sterile nail clippers for every sexually assaulted and murdered child. But we're not really arguing about the fingernail DNA are we? I mean, if that matched the longjohn DNA doesn't that give IDI smoking gun status? Doesn't that send RDI out to pasture?

 

[joeskidbeck]

Actually, it wouldn't. If she had picked up touch dna anywhere that day, under her fingernails, she could have easily transferred that dna to her own clothing. I don't see the dna as a smoking gun until it has been matched to it's owner.

 

[joeskidbeck]

HOTYH, I'm not calling the coroner a liar. I'm just wondering why you would believe everything he said in light of the mistakes he made. Also, you don't seem to believe anything that LE said, so it could look like you are just as determined to make the evidence fit your theory of an intruder as the RDIs are of making the evidence fit our (differing) theories.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Actually, it wouldn't. If she had picked up touch dna anywhere that day, under her fingernails, she could have easily transferred that dna to her own clothing. I don't see the dna as a smoking gun until it has been matched to it's owner.

This is a logical flaw because it omits probability and plausibility.

What is the likelihood of JBR acquiring, underneath her fingernails, subtantial quanitity of unknown male skin cells, transferring those to her longjohns twice, and to a blood stain inside crotch of her underwear, without also transferring her own, on the same day she is sexually assaulted and murdered by an unknown assailant who we know handled these very same items, and who may have fended off JBR's defensive swipes, while depositing no skin cells?

You'll need quite a calculator for that one.

 

[DeeDee249]

This is a logical flaw because it omits probability and plausibility.

What is the likelihood of JBR acquiring, underneath her fingernails, subtantial quanitity of unknown male skin cells, transferring those to her longjohns twice, and to a blood stain inside crotch of her underwear, without also transferring her own, on the same day she is sexually assaulted and murdered by an unknown assailant who we know handled these very same items, and who may have fended off JBR's defensive swipes, while depositing no skin cells?

You'll need quite a calculator for that one.

There was not a substantial quantity (or quality) of ANY DNA found under her fingernails. AND the person who assaulted her (maybe the same person who killed her) did not leave those skin cells anywhere else, including the items used in the crime (tape and paintbrush and cord).
There IS a photo of the paintbrush handle that shows the word "Korea" printed on it.

 

[Toltec]

Toltec,
Yes Burke cannot be entirely excluded, I have an ancilliary theory that includes Burke, since in general I find Patsy less credible as a suspect than either John or Burke.

These pink bottoms interest me, alike in a Holmes book when the hound never barked.

A few questions follow: if the pink top was under the pillow why were the bottoms not there?

Was the pink top placed there after JonBenet's death?

Are the pink bottoms missing in the same sense that the size-6 underwear is missing?

Patsy clearly states that she could not find the bottoms so went hunting for a replacement e.g. the longjohns, so if we think it is all staged then she must have knowledge that the bottoms are missing? Or are the bottoms missing simply to make the story about the longjohns consistent? Seems to me if the bottoms were available and you want to portray a bedtime abduction then pink pajamas seem to fill the bill?

Something does not quite add up here?


.

The pink pajama bottoms were about to be discussed with Patsy but her attorney intervened...

20 TOM HANEY: Okay. And just real briefly,

21 this was, is 91KKY23, and this would have been

22 taken Christmas morning and that's where the

23 children would have been dressed that morning

24 and had slept Christmas Eve.

25 TRIP DeMUTH: And the main reason we wanted

0533

1 to show you that, actually you've already

2 answered the question, early on we saw the pink

3 top in the bed, right?

4 PATSY RAMSEY: (Nods head in the

5 affirmative.)

6 TRIP DeMUTH: And you had remembered her

7 wearing that.

8 PATSY RAMSEY: I would like to have a copy

9 of that sometime.

10 TOM HANEY: Your call.

11 MR. BURKE: I think we should break.

12 TRIP DeMUTH: I'll get you a copy of that.

13 TOM HANEY: It's 12:01 and we'll go off the

14 tape.

15 (Recess was taken.)

 

[BBB167893]

The actual killer can be convicted on evidence held in the palm of your hand.

I don't know about that. I DO know that people have been convicted with LESS than the Rs had against them.

Would that be a totality of evidence? Or would it be a preponderance of evidence?

I STILL don't think you understand. You seem to be proceeding from the idea that every case has a smoking gun and all you have to do is find it. Well, the great majority of them DON'T have one, and at that point, if you can't put the pieces together, you're dead in the water.

Who gives a rats A$$?

What is THAT supposed to mean?

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.

Maybe so. But it comes down to that whole "old school vs. new school" deal I was talking about.

 

[BBB167893]

Actually, it wouldn't. If she had picked up touch dna anywhere that day, under her fingernails, she could have easily transferred that dna to her own clothing.

Aw, you beat me to it, Beck!

 

[BBB167893]

This is a logical flaw because it omits probability and plausibility.

What is the likelihood of JBR acquiring, underneath her fingernails, subtantial quanitity of unknown male skin cells, transferring those to her longjohns twice, and to a blood stain inside crotch of her underwear, without also transferring her own, on the same day she is sexually assaulted and murdered by an unknown assailant who we know handled these very same items, and who may have fended off JBR's defensive swipes, while depositing no skin cells?

You'll need quite a calculator for that one.

Not as big as the one you'll need to calculate the odds of all of those assumptions being true!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

There IS a photo of the paintbrush handle that shows the word "Korea" printed on it.

You're my hero. Do you have a link?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Not as big as the one you'll need to calculate the odds of all of those assumptions being true!

What assumptions? That the skin cells on the longjohns were from primary contact that night? Because matching DNA was found mixed with assault blood? How it all becomes one big huge fingerprint right on the middle of the crime scene?

Case closed, SD. Cant help you now.

 

[joeskidbeck]

This is a logical flaw because it omits probability and plausibility.

What is the likelihood of JBR acquiring, underneath her fingernails, subtantial quanitity of unknown male skin cells, transferring those to her longjohns twice, and to a blood stain inside crotch of her underwear, without also transferring her own, on the same day she is sexually assaulted and murdered by an unknown assailant who we know handled these very same items, and who may have fended off JBR's defensive swipes, while depositing no skin cells?

You'll need quite a calculator for that one.

JonBenet did not make any "defensive swipes' on whoever killed her. This would even go against most IDI theories of the intruder using a stun gun. How in the world do you think she could have defended herself? If you are a woman, you will be very familiar with how women use the restroom. You take both hands and pull down your pants and then you need to pull down your panties. I believe IF she deposited the dna to her own clothes, that's how it would have been done. But, I don't actually believe she did that, I only say that because it is another possibility. I wonder how you know that her own dna wasn't on the longjohns and panties? I've never seen that evidence and if it is out there, I would love to see it. That's kinda like Patsy's dna not being on the longjohns, isn't it? I've heard that said here before but I do not believe it. How could it not be there? She admits to putting them on her, so if her dna is not there, it could make one believe she put them on her while wearing gloves. Why would she do that? You know, we could argue this back and forth for days. It's pretty obvious we are not going to agree, so I think we should just agree to disagree. Right?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

JonBenet did not make any "defensive swipes' on whoever killed her. This would even go against most IDI theories of the intruder using a stun gun. How in the world do you think she could have defended herself? If you are a woman, you will be very familiar with how women use the restroom. You take both hands and pull down your pants and then you need to pull down your panties. I believe IF she deposited the dna to her own clothes, that's how it would have been done. But, I don't actually believe she did that, I only say that because it is another possibility. I wonder how you know that her own dna wasn't on the longjohns and panties? I've never seen that evidence and if it is out there, I would love to see it. That's kinda like Patsy's dna not being on the longjohns, isn't it? I've heard that said here before but I do not believe it. How could it not be there? She admits to putting them on her, so if her dna is not there, it could make one believe she put them on her while wearing gloves. Why would she do that? You know, we could argue this back and forth for days. It's pretty obvious we are not going to agree, so I think we should just agree to disagree. Right?

my bold

I suggest bringing that up with SD and all the other devout RDI who argue the wrist ligature was staging and use the absense of marks of resistance as their main support argument.

How long does the stun gun effect last (question is for SD):laugh:

 

[joeskidbeck]

You're my hero. Do you have a link?

HOTYH, please know that I do not doubt that the paintbrush said Korea. I do believe I have seen it as well. My point was that you seem to believe anything this coroner said and nothing LE said. They were not lying about everything and it has been proven on at least one thing. The panties were very big on JonBenet and they could not have known that unless she was wearing them. Patsy admits it, don't you believe her? You will need a calculator to calculate the odds of LE making that up and lucking up with it being true. I believe the odds would be astronomical, you probably can't find one with that many digits.

 

[joeskidbeck]

my bold

I suggest bringing that up with SD and all the other devout RDI who argue the wrist ligature was staging and use the absense of marks of resistance as their main support argument.

How long does the stun gun effect last (question is for SD):laugh:

I guess my question to you would be how do you explain wrist ligatures and no marks of resistance? Do you believe she fought off her attacker?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, please know that I do not doubt that the paintbrush said Korea. I do believe I have seen it as well. My point was that you seem to believe anything this coroner said and nothing LE said. They were not lying about everything and it has been proven on at least one thing. The panties were very big on JonBenet and they could not have known that unless she was wearing them. Patsy admits it, don't you believe her? You will need a calculator to calculate the odds of LE making that up and lucking up with it being true. I believe the odds would be astronomical, you probably can't find one with that many digits.

I have no doubt it said Korea either, believe me.

I haven't seen a picture and it would be great, but not because I'm proving it to you.

Pardon me but I tend to rank the evidence as to their proximity, relevance, and source.

If I include the tabloids, sensationalists, someone with a degree and an axe, and their minions then there would be a totality of evidence for Elvis on Mars.

I look at things differently than you. I know that only 20% of the evidence is truly significant and important while the other 80% is trivial. The autopsy report is well within that 20%.

 

[wonderllama]

I look at things differently than you. I know that only 20% of the evidence is truly significant and important while the other 80% is trivial. The autopsy report is well within that 20%.

Like socks, Korea and blah blah blah.
Thanks for coming round to my way of thinking.