Paint tote

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,
Of course it can be refuted.

1. There is no forensic evidence linking directly to any intruder.

2. The available forensic evidence suggests JonBenet was garroted just outside the wine-cellar door.

Try another theory, since that one is incoherent!

1. No forensic evidence of an intruder is a claim, casually presented as fact. CODIS DNA can't be ruled out as intruder forensic evidence. LE uses this potential intruder forensic evidence to test new suspects. Neither can RN handwriting be ruled out.
2.The available forensic evidence puts ligature cord fibers in JBR's bed. Where you get 'just outside the wine-cellar door' is where somebody broke the paintbrush originally? The cord may have met JBR in her bedroom, and the paintbrush incorporated later. The 'evidence' of ligature cord in JBR's bed contradicts your 'opinion' completely.

 

[UKGuy]

1. No forensic evidence of an intruder is a claim, not evidentiary fact. CODIS DNA can't be ruled out as intruder forensic evidence, neither can RN handwriting. These are a couple of biggies.
2.The available forensic evidence puts ligature cord fibers in JBR's bed. Where you get 'just outside the wine-cellar door' is where somebody broke the paintbrush originally? The cord may have met JBR in her bedroom, and the paintbrush incorporated later. The 'evidence' of ligature cord in JBR's bed contradicts your 'opinion' completely.

Holdontoyourhat,

1. No forensic evidence of an intruder is a claim, not evidentiary fact.

mmm, well it is actually, since the dna may have an innocent explanation as well as your sinister one, therefore until it is identified it cannot be used to suggest the existence of an intruder. Similar reasoning applies to any handwriting. The ligature cord was made from nylon.

So it seems it is you that is employing ambiguous evidence as material fact.

Possibly you are a post-modernist who thinks logic is relative to the person using it.

Your reasoning and arguments are seriously flawed, you do not advance your reputation by promoting a theory that lacks forensic evidence!


.

 

[DeeDee249]

Actually, some UFO sightings and alien abdictions have more credibility than any "IDI" theory.

A person's NATIONALITY has nothing to do with their being a "foreigner". We are all (mostly) from somewhere else originally (except people of Native American ancestry-myself included)- people do not describe themselves as "foreign" just because they are of particular ancestry. A true foreigner (someone who was born in a foreign country or lives in a foreign country) would not see themselves as "foreign". Americans see them as "foreign". But they would not describe themselves as a "foreign faction".

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

mmm, well it is actually, since the dna may have an innocent explanation as well as your sinister one, therefore until it is identified it cannot be used to suggest the existence of an intruder. Similar reasoning applies to any handwriting. The ligature cord was made from nylon.

So it seems it is you that is employing ambiguous evidence as material fact.

Possibly you are a post-modernist who thinks logic is relative to the person using it.

Your reasoning and arguments are seriously flawed, you do not advance your reputation by promoting a theory that lacks forensic evidence!


.

So you admit then that you don't know if you've got intruder forensic evidence or not. At least thats a start for you. But what does ligature cord being made of nylon have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[Ames]

Using the available evidence, there's no way to refute that intruders of foreign origin came during the afternoon, brought cord and tape with them, improvised the paintbrush, garroted JBR in her bed, brought her to the basement, wrote the ransom note, somehow managed to feed her pineapple, sexually assaulted or whatever, and murdered her after deciding she was not suitable for kidnapping via tape and blanket.

Holdon, my question to you is WHY? Why come that far, go through all of that trouble...to kill her?? Because she wasn't "suitable kidnapping"? What is that supposed to mean? John himself, said that he thought that it was an "inside job". Even HE didn't believe the foreign faction bull----. It is just way too far fetched. Even though I am RDI...if I EVER were to lean toward IDI...(and just so you know...hell would freeze over first)...I would believe that it was someone that he worked with, before I would believe that it was a small foreign faction...a group of dudes from a Foreign country, that knew that John had alot of money...and they came to the US for the sole purpose of kidnapping JB, but at the last minute decided that she wasn't "suitable", so they just killed her. They sure came a long way for nothing, didn't they?? I am sure that John was well known in his community....but not world wide, its not like he was some sort of celebrity.

 

[Ames]

Actually, some UFO sightings and alien abdictions have more credibility than any "IDI" theory.

A person's NATIONALITY has nothing to do with their being a "foreigner". We are all (mostly) from somewhere else originally (except people of Native American ancestry-myself included)- people do not describe themselves as "foreign" just because they are of particular ancestry. A true foreigner (someone who was born in a foreign country or lives in a foreign country) would not see themselves as "foreign". Americans see them as "foreign". But they would not describe themselves as a "foreign faction".

Right, that would be like Holdon, and some buddies... traveling to say...Iraq for example, after plotting to kidnap the daughter of a weathy Iraqi, and in his three page ransom note...he states that he is a member of a small foreign faction. That's like walking up to someone in another country...and saying..."Hey, how ya doing...I am a foreigner".

 

[UKGuy]

So you admit then that you don't know if you've got intruder forensic evidence or not. At least thats a start for you. But what does ligature cord being made of nylon have to do with the price of tea in China?

Holdontoyourhat,
Its not a personal issue, the evidence is not relative to me as an individual.

As I suspected Holdontoyourhat you patently think that all opinions are relative to the posters offering them, and that yours is as good as the next persons?

As an example:

But what does ligature cord being made of nylon have to do with the price of tea in China?

Even your questions are reletive, referencing a foreign community.


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,
Its not a personal issue, the evidence is not relative to me as an individual.

As I suspected Holdontoyourhat you patently think that all opinions are relative to the posters offering them, and that yours is as good as the next persons?

As an example:

Even your questions are reletive, referencing a foreign community.


.

Don't be jealous, UK, just because I thought of a new kidnap for slave/human traffiking theory, while you're stuck on a somewhat dated RDI theory. That you need so much to refer to my theories as incoherent is rather telling. Ir makes you seem overly defensive.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon, my question to you is WHY? Why come that far, go through all of that trouble...to kill her?? Because she wasn't "suitable kidnapping"? What is that supposed to mean? John himself, said that he thought that it was an "inside job". Even HE didn't believe the foreign faction bull----. It is just way too far fetched. Even though I am RDI...if I EVER were to lean toward IDI...(and just so you know...hell would freeze over first)...I would believe that it was someone that he worked with, before I would believe that it was a small foreign faction...a group of dudes from a Foreign country, that knew that John had alot of money...and they came to the US for the sole purpose of kidnapping JB, but at the last minute decided that she wasn't "suitable", so they just killed her. They sure came a long way for nothing, didn't they?? I am sure that John was well known in his community....but not world wide, its not like he was some sort of celebrity.

I dont think you really read my post. I said it wasn't for money. Please remember that 'someone JR worked with' would include coworkers, suppliers, and customers, which we already know includes foreigners. There's no either/or requirement, as you are presenting here. Why not a 'group of dudes from a foreign country' that 'he worked with'? Thanks I like it!

 

[JMO8778]

The major point w. that theory is that there is no way in heck foreigners would commit a murder and NOT COME BACK AND CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT. Just no way.There would be absolutely no point if they didn't do that.

I'm making up a check-list for IDI's w. that theory to do:

-find an expert to say a foreigner wrote the RN.
- get Islamic Jihad (or any other foreign terrorist group <insert here> ) to claim responsibility for JB's death.

there.that should do it.

 

[Littledeer]

holdontoyourhat:

Did you believe from the second that you read about JonBonet Ramsey being murdered from reading the newspaper, listening to the radio, or whatever your source came from on December 26th:

That is was done by Intruders??

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

holdontoyourhat:

Did you believe from the second that you read about JonBonet Ramsey being murdered from reading the newspaper, listening to the radio, or whatever your source came from on December 26th:

That is was done by Intruders??

.

I didn't even hear about it on Dec 26. It wasn't until the summer of 1997 that I heard about developments on the radio and read a Newsweek article. The article where an FBI expert said the RN 'harked back to foreign powers"

 

[Littledeer]

Holdon:

Thanks for your response. It gives me some insight on where you are coming from in all of your responses.

Have you ever gone back and read any newspaper articles before that time with an OPEN MIND??

Or were already prejudiced from the Newsweek article in 1997?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon:

Thanks for your response. It gives me some insight on where you are coming from in all of your responses.

Have you ever gone back and read any newspaper articles before that time with an OPEN MIND??

Or were already prejudiced from the Newsweek article in 1997?

I am fully prejudiced from the Newsweek article, and have no open mind for RDI whatsoever. Its a no-brainer.

 

[Littledeer]

holdontoyourhat:

Again, thanks for responding. So you are saying you are "prejudiced from the Newsweek article".

So you are also saying the first time you ever read anything was from the Newsweek article in 1997?

Not trying to put you on the spot.................in fact I'm quite getting used to you.................LOL

Along with ALL the others that post..............

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

holdontoyourhat:

Again, thanks for responding. So you are saying you are "prejudiced from the Newsweek article".

So you are also saying the first time you ever read anything was from the Newsweek article in 1997?

Not trying to put you on the spot.................in fact I'm quite getting used to you.................LOL

Along with ALL the others that post..............

I think so. What about you? When did you commit yourself to RDI?

 

[Littledeer]

Good question!

I'm sitting here wracking my brain for that "moment" that I said RDI.....

I do know it was before 1997............

DUH, so based on what I just wrote above, that would mean between December 26th and December 31st.

Thanks for asking!! I love seeing what you and JMO9778, deedee, Ames, UKguy, etc. debate every time I come here.

You are the loner with your theory...............

But I am open to your thoughts............even if sometimes YOU aggravate me!!

 

[UKGuy]

Don't be jealous, UK, just because I thought of a new kidnap for slave/human traffiking theory, while you're stuck on a somewhat dated RDI theory. That you need so much to refer to my theories as incoherent is rather telling. Ir makes you seem overly defensive.

Holdontoyourhat,

So you are on the Long March, and reckon the Chinese wanted JonBenet as a capitalist slave? Chairman Mao did have a penchant for attractive teenagers, alike Ghandi, who similarly it is alleged, tested his will power to abstain, by sharing his bed with nubile females, that is the spin, that power corrupts suggest an alternate interpretation?

Coherence is a property that credible theories are assumed to possess, facts are facts, but any bundle of facts, flung to together, do not a theory make?

I have no position to defend so why should I appear defensive, I simply refer you to the evidence.

.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,


Coherence is a property that credible theories are assumed to possess, facts are facts, but any bundle of facts, flung to together, do not a theory make?


.

Uh, please spare me your attention, as I find your sentences to be...

...incoherent.

Although, you could be more right than you know.

 

[UKGuy]

Uh, please spare me your attention, as I find your sentences to be...

...incoherent.

Although, you could be more right than you know.

Holdontoyourhat,
Certainly, you have a gay day now, don't allow me to distract your admirers.


.