No intruder?

[madeleine]

Re blunt instrument

if someone can help me out with facts and not rumours

the baseball bat found outside the home with fibers from the basement carpet on it,
did it belong to BR or not?! :banghead:

I've heard soooo many stories about it but I can't find a serious source(official) for it
TIA

 

[MurriFlower]

Well, they had to have went SOMEWHERE, considering the Ramsey's turned them in a year later, saying that they "found" them (the remaining pairs) in a crate when they moved. So...they were "lost"...and then bam, they show up. They left out of that house some way or another, because they were no where to be found the morning after the murder. They were not in her panty panty drawer....and an intruder would have just left the package on the floor...IMO...why hide it?? So where WERE they???? If not taken out of that house by PP??

The cops had a 'boys look'.

 

[SunnieRN]

MF, the panties JonBenet owned were taken in to evidence. There really is not any argument that disputes that. This is especially true since the R's themselves turned the rest of the bloomies in later. Why? I have NO idea. But the rest of your post is irrelevant to the statements and evidence supplied by the R's.

Let's just assume I'm right and JBR opened the size 12 panties (which were large but not humongous) and put on a clean, new, Wednesday pair, in honour of Christmas. What would she have done with the remaining pairs? Take a look at the bedroom and try to imagine her replacing them in the drawer. Likely? Not really. So, I'd guess the remaining panties were probably left where ever she was when she opened them. Perhaps in the bathroom or on the bed, or in some other room that she found scissors to cut the tie. They would not be back in the drawer where PR said she left them. Do you understand and agree with this likelihood? So BPD said they searched the drawers and didn't find the rest. Probably true. They also said they found soiled underwear, small underwear, but no size 12 underwear. Again possibly true. So, who do you think was putting soiled underwear in JBR's drawers? This is a far more important question.

Now we go to the panties in the wc theory. PR killed her daughter then took off her size 6 panties and opened a box of size 12's that were to hand and put one pair on. What did she do with the soiled panties? She was right next to the laundry, so the normal thing to do would be to put them in the machine or with the other dirty clothes - no? Then there is the problem of (not disposing of, but just removing) the remaining size 12 panties, including the plastic container they came in. Several years later, they produced the remaining panties in order to, um, um, can't think of a reason.

Your empathy with PR is touching.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Nobody knows.
We can't trace them back to the Dna owner either though.

Why not?

 

[SunnieRN]

Why not?

For the same reason. There is no proof.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

For the same reason. There is no proof.

OK then who is proven to own the male DNA, the handwriting, the linguistics, the cord, the tape, the object which struck JBR in the head, the thought that would write such words toward a child and the motive that would do such things to a child?

Wow thats a boatload of stuff to not know and then go ahead and profess something anyway!

 

[SunnieRN]

OK then who is proven to own the male DNA, the handwriting, the linguistics, the cord, the tape, the object which struck JBR in the head, the thought that would write such words toward a child and the motive that would do such things to a child?

Wow thats a boatload of stuff to not know and then go ahead and profess something anyway!

You're right, it is a boatload of stuff. In fact it is a boatload of stuff you have never given proof of an intruder having. If you could present an intruder, that had the evidence in hand, I would be happy to agree with you. A suspect, a person, not a theory of words. All I 'professed' is that there is no proof. There is no suspect that has been found with any of the items you have listed. Oh, except for the R's that submitted one piece you didn't list. The size 12 bloomies.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

OK then who is proven to own the male DNA, the handwriting, the linguistics, the cord, the tape, the object which struck JBR in the head, the thought that would write such words toward a child and the motive that would do such things to a child?

Wow thats a boatload of stuff to not know and then go ahead and profess something anyway!

You're right, it is a boatload of stuff. In fact it is a boatload of stuff you have never given proof of an intruder having. If you could present an intruder, that had the evidence in hand, I would be happy to agree with you. A suspect, a person, not a theory of words. All I 'professed' is that there is no proof. There is no suspect that has been found with any of the items you have listed. Oh, except for the R's that submitted one piece you didn't list. The size 12 bloomies.

SunnieRN,

The things I listed are well within the inarguable. Multi-sourced core evidence. The size 12 underwear is outside this core evidence. Thats why I dont discuss them much because I just dont know if it isn't a red herring. Reread the stuff I listed, no red herrings possible.

I'm aghast that anyone would profess to know an answer, point guilt, without proof of these things. Things that are so very important to solving the murder of this child.

 

[SunnieRN]

Re blunt instrument

if someone can help me out with facts and not rumours

the baseball bat found outside the home with fibers from the basement carpet on it,
did it belong to BR or not?! :banghead:

I've heard soooo many stories about it but I can't find a serious source(official) for it
TIA

Here you go, in the words of Lou Smit no less.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon031300.htm

And which I truly believe was the weapon used, with the wiped down flashlight being a decoy. A red herring if you will.

 

[SunnieRN]

Here is another source. What is funny to me though, is that this points MORE strongly toward the family to me, less toward a stranger as LS professed.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/theory_8.html

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Here is another source. What is funny to me though, is that this points MORE strongly toward the family to me, less toward a stranger as LS professed.

Oh no way. Really? Because JR or PR can pick up a bat and swing it better than an intruder? When we already know an intruder had free run of the house, using pen, paper, JBR, etc.?

I disagree anyway because forensics would probably know if this bat struck JBR's head. Besides, the displaced fragment contradicts a bat or flashlight impact. Needs to be an object with similar cross-section to produce this displaced fragment.

We've been over that.

 

[SunnieRN]

SunnieRN,

The things I listed are well within the inarguable. Multi-sourced core evidence. The size 12 underwear is outside this core evidence. Thats why I dont discuss them much because I just dont know if it isn't a red herring. Reread the stuff I listed, no red herrings possible.

I'm aghast that anyone would profess to know an answer, point guilt, without proof of these things. Things that are so very important to solving the murder of this child.

Believe me hotyh, I am 'aghast' at your refusal to admit that the R's, being in the house that night, no intruder having been PROVEN to be there, allows you to profess repeatedly, that the R's owned none of those items, or used those items.

Instead you insist, without any proof, solid evidence, that it was an intruder. Someone that supposedly packed in these items, killed a child they were supposed to kidnap, molested her, without undressing her, doing all of this, with a tiny amount of touch DNA that you CAN NOT prove is reliable DNA belonging to a person there that very night. Even your suspect can not be proven to be in Boulder that night, per your post.

So yes, you are correct, that I am aghast at your professions of guilt of a MAAM, not proven to be there, while the three family members left alive were indeed there beyond a shadow of a doubt and by their own admissions.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Believe me hotyh, I am 'aghast' at your refusal to admit that the R's, being in the house that night, no intruder having been PROVEN to be there, allows you to profess repeatedly, that the R's owned none of those items, or used those items.

Instead you insist, without any proof, solid evidence, that it was an intruder. Someone that supposedly packed in these items, killed a child they were supposed to kidnap, molested her, without undressing her, doing all of this, with a tiny amount of touch DNA that you CAN NOT prove is reliable DNA belonging to a person there that very night. Even your suspect can not be proven to be in Boulder that night, per your post.

So yes, you are correct, that I am aghast at your professions of guilt of a MAAM, not proven to be there, while the three family members left alive were indeed there beyond a shadow of a doubt and by their own admissions.

I accept that you are aghast at my professions of guilt of a MAAM although I'm curious as to why you care so much about this person. JBR didn't care about him as she did about her own mother and father.

Meanwhile, where were you expecting the three family members to be that night, if not under the same roof with JBR? To me that is not remarkable as they were where they were expected to be. This information on its own doesn't add or subtract from their guilt. When placed alongside the 'totality' it doesnt add anything either.

The three things needed: opportunity, will, and motive. Yes the parents had opportunity (as all parents do) but RDI has not established that either PR or JR had the will or the motive. You'll be needing ALL THREE.

Of course there is solid evidence of intruder. Thats why no arrest, no GJ indictment, and CODIS has an entry that was later corroborated. Huge intruder evidence but only to those who are willing to accept fact.

 

[SunnieRN]

Oh no way. Really? Because JR or PR can pick up a bat and swing it better than an intruder? When we already know an intruder had free run of the house, using pen, paper, JBR, etc.?

I disagree anyway because forensics would probably know if this bat struck JBR's head. Besides, the displaced fragment contradicts a bat or flashlight impact. Needs to be an object with similar cross-section to produce this displaced fragment.

We've been over that.

Show me an intruder that matches your DNA evidence. I will then say my beliefs are wrong. The head of a bat is larger and tapers down in size. Perfectly able to make that type of wound. If you don't believe me, prove it can't. Show me an intruder who matches the touch dna and proof the bat could not make that injury, then we'll talk.

Disagreeing and proof are two different things.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Show me an intruder that matches your DNA evidence. I will then say my beliefs are wrong. The head of a bat is larger and tapers down in size. Perfectly able to make that type of wound. If you don't believe me, prove it can't. Show me an intruder who matches the touch dna and proof the bat could not make that injury, then we'll talk.

Disagreeing and proof are two different things.

I have no intention/ability to show you an intruder who matches the touch DNA, and no cadavers to experiment with bats on.

I guess we'll talk never then.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I accept that you are aghast at my professions of guilt of a MAAM although I'm curious as to why you care so much about this person. JBR didn't care about him as she did about her own mother and father.

Meanwhile, where were you expecting the three family members to be that night, if not under the same roof with JBR? To me that is not remarkable as they were where they were expected to be. This information on its own doesn't add or subtract from their guilt. When placed alongside the 'totality' it doesnt add anything either.

The three things needed: opportunity, will, and motive. Yes the parents had opportunity (as all parents do) but RDI has not established that either PR or JR had the will or the motive. You'll be needing ALL THREE.

Of course there is solid evidence of intruder. Thats why no arrest, no GJ indictment, and CODIS has an entry that was later corroborated. Huge intruder evidence but only to those who are willing to accept fact.

HOTYH, where did you see that "will" was needed in this case or any other? The killer only needed opportunity in this case because motive doesn't apply to an accident that was staged to look like murder. If you insist on a motive, try staying out of prison. That works pretty well.

 

[SunnieRN]

That may also cover the 'will'.

 

[BBB167893]

my bold

So DD, just explain to me again, WHY they would have handed over the remaining panties years later IF THEY WERE THE MURDERERS???

I'm never sure how these cross-cultural exchanges will go. Murri, are you at all familiar with the phrase "to give the finger" and what it means?

 

[Agatha_C]

You're right, it is a boatload of stuff. In fact it is a boatload of stuff you have never given proof of an intruder having. If you could present an intruder, that had the evidence in hand, I would be happy to agree with you. A suspect, a person, not a theory of words. All I 'professed' is that there is no proof. There is no suspect that has been found with any of the items you have listed. Oh, except for the R's that submitted one piece you didn't list. The size 12 bloomies.

What a kawinkidink JR owned a boat too!!! J/K

 

[BBB167893]

The interrogators lied, not PR.

PLEASE. Remember how I told you about not having a "stupid" button?

Why wouldn't they arrest PR if they knew she lied?

Oh, God, do we really have to go over that AGAIN???

The case is now fortunately driven by the evidence, and the evidence is the DNA.

This case hasn't been driven by the evidence in a LONG time, and that's just the way certain people want it!