Paint tote

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee...WHY do you waste your precious time, trying to convince a WALL that an intruder did NOT kill JB.

:banghead: Glutton for punishment, I guess. And because it feels so good when I stop...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yes. Not only that, but there was evidence that LE wasn't even allowed to gather (like the phone records and JBR's medical and school records.)

What kind of forensic evidence do you think LE has that proves a household member was present for one of the crimes events?

 

[DeeDee249]

What kind of forensic evidence do you think LE has that proves a household member was present for one of the crimes events?

Fibers from the parents' clothing entwined in the garrote, also on the pubic area, parent's fingerprints on the ransom note, pineapple bowl.
Let me stop you before you start by saying that it is not unusual for fibers from a parents' clothing to be on a child or for prints from a mother to be on a bowl of pineapple when she owned the bowl and always bought pineapple for the child.
HOWEVER, it IS unusual for these fibers to be on the pubic area of a dead child where forensic tests indicated BLOOD had been wiped, and entwined in a garrote implicated in the death of the child. Fibers found in those 2 situations indicate involvement in the crime.
And it IS unusual for ONLY parent's prints to be found on a bowl of pineapple when the same pineapple is found in the digestive tract of a dead child whose parents deny giving it to her.
Aside from that, ALL household members were at home for ALL of the crime events. I don't think even IDI disputes that. The difference is that IDI believes the crime took place in the home without the household members knowing about it (leaving NO forensic evidence- a paranormal event in itself)
And RDI believes at least some of the household members are involved in the crime events and their cover-up.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Fibers from the parents' clothing entwined in the garrote, also on the pubic area, parent's fingerprints on the ransom note, pineapple bowl.
Let me stop you before you start by saying that it is not unusual for fibers from a parents' clothing to be on a child or for prints from a mother to be on a bowl of pineapple when she owned the bowl and always bought pineapple for the child.
HOWEVER, it IS unusual for these fibers to be on the pubic area of a dead child where forensic tests indicated BLOOD had been wiped, and entwined in a garrote implicated in the death of the child. Fibers found in those 2 situations indicate involvement in the crime.
And it IS unusual for ONLY parent's prints to be found on a bowl of pineapple when the same pineapple is found in the digestive tract of a dead child whose parents deny giving it to her.
Aside from that, ALL household members were at home for ALL of the crime events. I don't think even IDI disputes that. The difference is that IDI believes the crime took place in the home without the household members knowing about it (leaving NO forensic evidence- a paranormal event in itself)
And RDI believes at least some of the household members are involved in the crime events and their cover-up.

So you believe that LE has proof that household members were present at crime events, in the form of clothing fibers found in conspicuous places, and their fingerprints found on the bowl and on the ransom note, is this right?

Obviously, they handled the RN so their prints would be on it, even if IDI. I don't know how a bowl would make it from the dishwasher to the shelf to the gloved hands of an intruder without a household member's prints being on it also. I find it shocking that LE would think these fingerprints provide proof of anything, because they prove nothing.

The fibers aren't so easily explained, but I'd dump the fingerprints as proof claim.

 

[Solace]

So you believe that LE has proof that household members were present at crime events, in the form of clothing fibers found in conspicuous places, and their fingerprints found on the bowl and on the ransom note, is this right?

Obviously, they handled the RN so their prints would be on it, even if IDI. I don't know how a bowl would make it from the dishwasher to the shelf to the gloved hands of an intruder without a household member's prints being on it also. I find it shocking that LE would think these fingerprints provide proof of anything, because they prove nothing.

The fibers aren't so easily explained, but I'd dump the fingerprints as proof claim.

The above is a first. Do you want to go with that Holdon?

 

[DeeDee249]

Holdon- it isn't the fingerprints themselves that are incriminating. Of course, PR's prints would be expected to be on a bowl that she owned.
THE FOLLOWING is what makes it incriminating and points to PR as complicit in the events if the murder.
1. Her prints on a bowl containing pineapple that was SHOWN TO BE IDENTICAL to the pineapple in JBR's digestive tract in forensic tests.
2. She at first DENIED owning the bowl! It was then shown that the same bowl was on her table for the Christmas Party on Dec. 23. JR said the bowl was theirs when shown the picture.
Her denial of feeding JBR pineapple and even owning the bowl is a big part of the problem because an innocent person wouldn't lie about it.
She also denied owning the box of tissues on the table. To suggest that an intruder brought their own KLEENEX box and then left it at the scene defies logic. I'd love to know of that tissue box was tested for prints. Because if hers were on it- that was HER box of tissues.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon- it isn't the fingerprints themselves that are incriminating. Of course, PR's prints would be expected to be on a bowl that she owned.
THE FOLLOWING is what makes it incriminating and points to PR as complicit in the events if the murder.
1. Her prints on a bowl containing pineapple that was SHOWN TO BE IDENTICAL to the pineapple in JBR's digestive tract in forensic tests.
2. She at first DENIED owning the bowl! It was then shown that the same bowl was on her table for the Christmas Party on Dec. 23. JR said the bowl was theirs when shown the picture.
Her denial of feeding JBR pineapple and even owning the bowl is a big part of the problem because an innocent person wouldn't lie about it.
She also denied owning the box of tissues on the table. To suggest that an intruder brought their own KLEENEX box and then left it at the scene defies logic. I'd love to know of that tissue box was tested for prints. Because if hers were on it- that was HER box of tissues.

This seems more like your opinion, and less like LE proof, of PR being present at a crime scene event.

For example, its your opinion PR lied about the bowl and feeding JBR pineapple. PR may have honestly thought the bowl did not belong to her at the time she saw the picture, and you don't know any differently today. You're supposing that she lied. Its not like PR was caught in a lie by LE and that is somehow now accepted fact.

By proof, I was thinking of a DNA transfer from JBR to PR or JR, or vice versa. That is, violence-related DNA left in conspicuous places. Or an injury to JR or PR consistent with domestic violence. Or consistent fingerprint trail on all crime event items and locations.

No suspicious DNA transfers? No fingerprint trail? OK I guess that leaves fibers?

 

[DeeDee249]

It isn't my opinion. She DID lie about the bowl and pineapple. How could she not remember a bowl she used just a few days previous?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It isn't my opinion. She DID lie about the bowl and pineapple. How could she not remember a bowl she used just a few days previous?

Of course its your opinion. You don't have any proof she lied. Your judgement that she should've been able to remember it isn't proof she lied. Maybe if she had the real bowl and not a photo she would've recognized it, who knows?

Anyway it seems RDI has no suspicious DNA transfer, even slight injuries to anyone besides JBR, fingerprint trails or anything else that overwhelmingly proves a household member was present at any of the crime events. Thats why nobody got arrested, not because the DA was squelching the truth.

 

[BBB167893]

Hey! Holdon! Nothing to say about the tape?

That's good! 'Cause I got more than that!

PMPT, page 307 pb: "Its [the noose's] elevation at every point around the neck was equal in distance from the shoulders, indicating that it had not been tied during a struggle."

Nothing was an example of an independently reported PR behavior from before JBR's murder, that would support your 'dysfunct argument.'

holdon, if every crime needed something prior to be solved, there would be a LOT of guilty people walking around out there. After-the-fact behavior IS in fact not only viable evidence, but admissable as well, and you can ask a law professor if you don't believe me. Does the "slow speed bronco chase" mean anything to you?

Thats way out there, SD.

I guess you'd be the expert on that subject.

Is THE GUY someone who had attended JBR personally, or a 'paid' tabloid hire 3rd party who never even had access to JBR? Can't wait to hear which it is.

The Guy is Dr. John McCann from U of Cal, Davis. And he was not hired by any tabloid. he was consulted by the police and the DA's office. I'd be more than happy to tell you what he said.

As for having access to JB, Dr. Andrew Sirotnak did, and he has since written a treatise on long-term sexual abuse along with Dr. Richard Krugman, using JB as their jumping-off point. That tell you anything?

It would've been a lot better for RDI to have someone, anyone at all, stating at some time before JBR was murdered, that they thought JBR was being sexually or physically abused.

Agreed. But I learned a long time ago that's just not how it works out. A lot of times, someone has to be dead before anyone realizes. Or haven't you heard that line about "he was always very quiet?"

Personally, I think JBR would've spoken up at school. But thats just my opinion.

You're right, it is just your opinion, Holdon. I hear that a lot, from people who ought to know better. So let me lay it out plainly: it's hard enough to get ADULT women who've been violated to admit it. Imagine what it must be like for a sheltered six-year-old.

I think RDI is way off on this, but you knew that already.

Yeah, I knew. I also know that the police showed a side-by-side photo comparison to the DA's office. One was of JB's genitals. The other was from another definitely non-abused six-year-old. The visual difference was readily visible.

Do you really think anyone fearing for their life or freedom would leave a handwritten 2 1/2 page ransom note in the first place, when they live in the same house as the victim's body was found?

Yeah, I do. In fifteen+ years of studying true crime, I never cease to be amazed at what people will do to save their own skin.

I'm sorry, SD, but thats simply a ridiculous, laughable idea.

Is it? I just hope you're never in a situation where you have to find out firsthand.

Its never happened before, didn't happen this time, and will never happen.

As I learned long ago, never say never.

I mean, if you bought that, I've got a couple of bridges...

I'm not the least bit interested in your dental work.

Yeah but the discussion was forensic, not political. Are you saying that LE has forensic proof that places a household member at an event, but the DA has squelched it for political reasons?

I haven't ruled that out. A few reasons:

1)Mary Lacy is known for her radical feminist positions. In ST book, he remarks how men were not in any position to know what Patsy was thinking.

2) She tried to prosecute the Univ of Boulder football team for rape when there was no evidence, a la Duke, solely on the "victim's" say-so.

3) Frank Coffman relates a story about how Lacy was so pro-woman that she went after Tom haney for being too rough on Patsy during his questioning of her. Say WHAT?!

4) Every politician knows that live victims mak better campaign commercials than dead ones.

The preceding summation describes the personal views of SuperDave, and does not necessarily reflect the views of anyone else.

of course, Mike Kane himself doubts she reads her own file.

What kind of forensic evidence do you think LE has that proves a household member was present for one of the crimes events?

How much time you got?

The fibers aren't so easily explained,

You're weakening!

Anyway it seems RDI has no suspicious DNA transfer, even slight injuries to anyone besides JBR, fingerprint trails or anything else that overwhelmingly proves a household member was present at any of the crime events.

You're obsessed with a smoking gun, aren't you? Well, I've got some bad news for you: very few cases are "smoking gun" cases. The majority of them are what they call circumstantial cases, where a GOOD prosecutor, underline GOOD, puts all the little things together. Scott Peterson faced a weaker case against him than there is against the Ramseys, and he went away for it? Why? Because the prosecutor there knew what he was doing!

Sadly, Hunter and Mary Lacy seem to agree with you: unless they have a written confession, a tape of the crime, and the proverbial busload of nuns as witnesses, they won't even take a case to trial.

Or doesn't it mean anything to you that the DA didn't take a murder case to trial in ten years before 1996? 'Cause it tells me plenty.

Thats why nobody got arrested, not because the DA was squelching the truth.

You're wrong, of course: the reason is because they could never decide beyond doubt who did what. Even if they charged Patsy, John would look just as good for it. It's against prosecutorial ethics to go to trial without specific charges against specific defendants. Read Wendy Murphy's book; she'll tell you. She'd know.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You're obsessed with a smoking gun, aren't you? Well, I've got some bad news for you: very few cases are "smoking gun" cases. The majority of them are what they call circumstantial cases, where a GOOD prosecutor, underline GOOD, puts all the little things together. Scott Peterson faced a weaker case against him than there is against the Ramseys, and he went away for it? Why? Because the prosecutor there knew what he was doing!

SD, If you really stop and think about it, the JBR murder should be a smoking gun case, if the R's did it. This is because the suspects, victim, and murder weapon would all be in the same location!

Instead, nowhere is there any indisputable smoking gun evidence. In fact, the only real smoking gun class evidence is the DNA, and nobody knows who it belongs to. Please spare me the degraded factory worker schpiel, as LE has tested suspects against it already.

And instead of any consistent fingerprint trail, we have this odd 'now you see it now you don't' fingerprint trail. No prints found on the batteries or flashlight, yet they seem to have been part of the crime. No fresh prints on the pen or pen cap, which should've been a great source. No prints on the tape. No parental DNA or hairs mixed in with all those fibers found in all those conspicuous places either. If RDI, its just about the cleanest spontaneous filicide in history. No smoking gun evidence, even though the victim, weapons, and suspects are all at the same place!

 

[BBB167893]

SD, If you really stop and think about it, the JBR murder should be a smoking gun case, if the R's did it. This is because the suspects, victim, and murder weapon would all be in the same location!

Instead, nowhere is there any indisputable smoking gun evidence. In fact, the only real smoking gun class evidence is the DNA, and nobody knows who it belongs to. Please spare me the degraded factory worker schpiel, as LE has tested suspects against it already.

And instead of any consistent fingerprint trail, we have this odd 'now you see it now you don't' fingerprint trail. No prints found on the batteries or flashlight, yet they seem to have been part of the crime. No fresh prints on the pen or pen cap, which should've been a great source. No prints on the tape. No parental DNA or hairs mixed in with all those fibers found in all those conspicuous places either. If RDI, its just about the cleanest spontaneous filicide in history. No smoking gun evidence, even though the victim, weapons, and suspects are all at the same place!

"Should be" and "is" are often very different, Holdon. I learned that a long time ago.

No fingerprints on the batteries of a flashlight doesn't tell you anything? Tells me plenty.

If RDI, its just about the cleanest spontaneous filicide in history. No smoking gun evidence, even though the victim, weapons, and suspects are all at the same place

Well, Holdon, I recall that Larry Schiller said that this was a perfect murder by accident. That seems to sum it up. I disagree that it was a perfect murder. But the idea that fate played its hand here seems to be unavoidable from where I stand. There's a word for that: luck.

In fact, the only real smoking gun class evidence is the DNA, and nobody knows who it belongs to. Please spare me the degraded factory worker schpiel, as LE has tested suspects against it already.

Just because they tested it doesn't mean it's worth anything, Holdon. What else could they do with it?

Lady Justice may be blind, but she shouldn't be handcuffed, too.

 

[Ames]

"Should be" and "is" are often very different, Holdon. I learned that a long time ago.

No fingerprints on the batteries of a flashlight doesn't tell you anything? Tells me plenty.



Well, Holdon, I recall that Larry Schiller said that this was a perfect murder by accident. That seems to sum it up. I disagree that it was a perfect murder. But the idea that fate played its hand here seems to be unavoidable from where I stand. There's a word for that: luck.



Just because they tested it doesn't mean it's worth anything, Holdon. What else could they do with it?

Lady Justice may be blind, but she shouldn't be handcuffed, too.

Exactly, SD!!! It tells me plenty too!! And is just one of many things that have sealed the theory that there was NO intruder, for me. Why would an intruder take out the BATTERIES of a flashlight, when his prints would not have been on THOSE in the first place? Batteries are on the inside of a flashlight, not on the outside. Not only would his prints not have been on the batteries in the first place, but why in the world would he have taken EVEN MORE TIME in the Ramsey household, to bother to wipe them off? An intruder doing this just does NOT add up...IMO

 

[JMO8778]

Exactly, SD!!! It tells me plenty too!! And is just one of many things that have sealed the theory that there was NO intruder, for me. Why would an intruder take out the BATTERIES of a flashlight, when his prints would not have been on THOSE in the first place? Batteries are on the inside of a flashlight, not on the outside. Not only would his prints not have been on the batteries in the first place, but why in the world would he have taken EVEN MORE TIME in the Ramsey household, to bother to wipe them off? An intruder doing this just does NOT add up...IMO

Smit's version is ridiculous.He has an intruder garroting JB after she screams (which would take some time),then hitting her on the head w/ the flashlight.Yet he fails to mention where the flashlight was found.
JR's is just as dumb as well.What intruder would take the time to latch the WC,put a chair in front of the door of the room,then flee out the window,even putting the grate back in place????

 

[IrishMist]

IMO, if there was anything we could consider a smoking gun, it'd be the pineapple.

There's no logical way to explain it with IDI.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If JBR were going to be kidnapped and taken out of the country, she'd have been tied up, blanketed, taped, and put in a car. They would need to feed her, and I doubt a stop for a happy meal was on the itinerary.

Thats probably what the bowl of pineapple was for.

 

[DeeDee249]

Smit's version is ridiculous.He has an intruder garroting JB after she screams (which would take some time),then hitting her on the head w/ the flashlight.Yet he fails to mention where the flashlight was found.
JR's is just as dumb as well.What intruder would take the time to latch the WC,put a chair in front of the door of the room,then flee out the window,even putting the grate back in place????

Good points. But I think the chair was pulled in front of the train room, where the window was, not the wineceller. In one of his depositions, JR gives the incredulous explanation of the intruder pulling the chair behind him through a CLOSED DOOR and climbing out the window. When the ridiculousness of this theory is pointed out to him by LE, he claims that the killer was "clever enough not to leave any DNA at the scene, so he'd be clever enough to pull the chair up t a door he had already closed." And as usual, LE lets it drop like a lead balloon.

 

[JMO8778]

Good points. But I think the chair was pulled in front of the train room, where the window was, not the wineceller. In one of his depositions, JR gives the incredulous explanation of the intruder pulling the chair behind him through a CLOSED DOOR and climbing out the window. When the ridiculousness of this theory is pointed out to him by LE, he claims that the killer was "clever enough not to leave any DNA at the scene, so he'd be clever enough to pull the chair up t a door he had already closed." And as usual, LE lets it drop like a lead balloon.

..at least he admits it,lol.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

If JBR were going to be kidnapped and taken out of the country, she'd have been tied up, blanketed, taped, and put in a car. They would need to feed her, and I doubt a stop for a happy meal was on the itinerary.

Thats probably what the bowl of pineapple was for.

First off, JonBenet had just been out for several hours around dinnertime at a social function were food was sure to be served. How could the kidnappers be so sure that JonBenet hadn't been snacking the entire time she was out, leaving her so full it might even cause a tummy ache? How could they be that positive that she'd be hungry that they made sure to work a fruit snack in the comfort of her own home into their plans?

And why feed her there instead of in the car? Why take the time and risk to have her eat in the Ramsey house before leaving? Why stop and dish it up in a bowl belonging to the family at the family's breakfast table, increasing the chances at being heard and caught by god knows how much?

Why wouldn't they just get her in the car and take off down the road and then hand her a container full of pineapple - if she was even hungry enough to want to eat at all? It makes absolutely no sense to take such a crazy unnecessary risk like feeding her at home when there were plenty of other options. I also find it hard to believe that people who would break into a house and get a kid out of bed to ransom and/or molest, bludgeon, and strangle would even care whether she got something to eat before they left or not.

As for the Happy Meal, I was suggesting that the kidnappers pull into the drive-thru *before* they went to the Ramsey house, and then get JonBenet in the car and *then* hand her the chicken nuggets and fries - not stop by a McDonalds after they had her in the car and were heading out in the annals of history. It's called pre-planning for a trip, adults do this for children all the time, and anyone who cares whether she eats or not would realize how much safer it is to feed her after they get her out of the house and are driving away than while they're still in the house with her and her parents could wake up at any moment. Jesus.

You make it so much harder than it has to be. People feed kids in the car as they're heading down the road every single day.

 

[JMO8778]

First off, JonBenet had just been out for several hours around dinnertime at a social function were food was sure to be served. How could the kidnappers be so sure that JonBenet hadn't been snacking the entire time she was out, leaving her so full it might even cause a tummy ache? How could they be that positive that she'd be hungry that they made sure to work a fruit snack in the comfort of her own home into their plans?

And why feed her there instead of in the car? Why take the time and risk to have her eat in the Ramsey house before leaving? Why stop and dish it up in a bowl belonging to the family at the family's breakfast table, increasing the chances at being heard and caught by god knows how much?

Why wouldn't they just get her in the car and take off down the road and then hand her a container full of pineapple - if she was even hungry enough to want to eat at all? It makes absolutely no sense to take such a crazy unnecessary risk like feeding her at home when there were plenty of other options. I also find it hard to believe that people who would break into a house and get a kid out of bed to ransom and/or molest, bludgeon, and strangle would even care whether she got something to eat before they left or not.

As for the Happy Meal, I was suggesting that the kidnappers pull into the drive-thru *before* they went to the Ramsey house, and then get JonBenet in the car and *then* hand her the chicken nuggets and fries - not stop by a McDonalds after they had her in the car and were heading out in the annals of history. It's called pre-planning for a trip, adults do this for children all the time, and anyone who cares whether she eats or not would realize how much safer it is to feed her after they get her out of the house and are driving away than while they're still in the house with her and her parents could wake up at any moment. Jesus.

You make it so much harder than it has to be. People feed kids in the car as they're heading down the road every single day.

right on.all I can say is he's not doing the R's any favors by coming up w. these ridiculous scenarios;if anything,it makes them appear even more guilty!