Questions you'd like answers to...

[Userid]

Not exactly. The pink barbie nightgown is damning evidence against BR. Not only is is spattered with JBR blood, it has his tDNA all over it, including the front and back of the bottom hem area. I can see if it was perhaps in one or two of the spots tested, but it was on all four samples tested. JR and JAR tDNA is not on it.

tDNA is anything but "damning." Why is tDNA so important on the barbie night gown, but no at all important on the waistband? I know: because one supports BDI and the other supports IDI, which is a double standard.

Of course the night gown had his tDNA on it: it was an item kept in the same house that he was in, in the same play area that he frequented to boot. It means zero.

 

[Cottonstar]

tDNA is anything but "damning." Why is tDNA so important on the barbie night gown, but no at all important on the waistband? I know: because one supports BDI and the other supports IDI, which is a double standard.

Of course the night gown had his tDNA on it: it was an item kept in the same house that he was in, in the same play area that he frequented to boot. It means zero.

I’m sorry that is not correct. In any other crime scene if you had a victims clothing with blood on it and it was found to be riddled with someone’s skin cells all over it, it would be damning evidence. I argue, that not only isn’t JAR or JRs tDNA not on it, but it also has Patsy’s tDNA on 3 of 4 spots tested. One could see how Patsy’s tDNA would perhaps normally be on it because of handling and maybe dressing JBR at times. However, since JAR and JR are not present and haven’t been in contact with the nightgown, it is an issue that BR is on ALL four of the spots tested, including the bottom hem area front and back. It’s damning.

Burke and Patsy’s tDNA is also present on the left-side of the waistband. However, it is much weaker than the tDNA on the pink barbie nightgown.

Another argument may be that JBR slept in BR room often so it may been transferred there. And I would say to you look what you just said. That makes BR the person who had the most time, opportunity, and closeness to JBR away from the parents.

 

[UKGuy]

tDNA is anything but "damning." Why is tDNA so important on the barbie night gown, but no at all important on the waistband? I know: because one supports BDI and the other supports IDI, which is a double standard.

Of course the night gown had his tDNA on it: it was an item kept in the same house that he was in, in the same play area that he frequented to boot. It means zero.

Userid,

Of course the night gown had his tDNA on it: it was an item kept in the same house that he was in, in the same play area that he frequented to boot. It means zero.

So you wish to promote accidental transfer as reason for the nightgown acquiring Burke's touch-dna.

Now you may be right and you could be wrong, so how do you decide?


The most important factor here is the location of the forensic evidence. Touch-dna discovered on items in JonBenet's bedroom can easily be explained away by accidental or casual transfer.

But touch-dna found on items located in the wine-cellar appear more informative precisely because they are in the wine-cellar.

Its helpful to speculate: was JonBenet wearing the nightgown when assaulted, does any of the blood staining result from this assault or the cleanup?

Would the person who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's and longjohns be the same person who removed the nightgown?

Would that person leave their touch-dna on JonBenet's nightgown?

.

 

[k-mac]

appreciate the effort in your bdi argument to validate the tDNA and long johns and bloomies as smoking guns but they simply are not.
lots of conjecture and and assumptions.
it is grey enough to keep the waters muddy unfortunately.
and that's just how the ramsey train like it!

 

[UKGuy]

appreciate the effort in your bdi argument to validate the tDNA and long johns and bloomies as smoking guns but they simply are not.
lots of conjecture and and assumptions.
it is grey enough to keep the waters muddy unfortunately.
and that's just how the ramsey train like it!

k-mac,
Similar to BDI, JDI and PDI do not have any smoking gun.

IMO the case is not PDI since Patsy left so much forensic evidence in the wine-cellar, i.e. JonBenet's bedroom would have covered a lot of Patsy's sins.

If the case is not BDI as he was too young and inexperienced to even attempt staging etc, then that leaves JDI.

JR fits the profile way much better than Patsy going ballistic over a bedwetting. JR continues to change his version of events, and of course he found JonBenet, which validates that statistic about 99% of killers finding their victim !

.

 

[Cottonstar]

k-mac,
Similar to BDI, JDI and PDI do not have any smoking gun.

IMO the case is not PDI since Patsy left so much forensic evidence in the wine-cellar, i.e. JonBenet's bedroom would have covered a lot of Patsy's sins.

If the case is not BDI as he was too young and inexperienced to even attempt staging etc, then that leaves JDI.

JR fits the profile way much better than Patsy going ballistic over a bedwetting. JR continues to change his version of events, and of course he found JonBenet, which validates that statistic about 99% of killers finding their victim !

.

What would be JR motive?

 

[Userid]

I’m sorry that is not correct. In any other crime scene if you had a victims clothing with blood on it and it was found to be riddled with someone’s skin cells all over it, it would be damning evidence. I argue, that not only isn’t JAR or JRs tDNA not on it, but it also has Patsy’s tDNA on 3 of 4 spots tested. One could see how Patsy’s tDNA would perhaps normally be on it because of handling and maybe dressing JBR at times. However, since JAR and JR are not present and haven’t been in contact with the nightgown, it is an issue that BR is on ALL four of the spots tested, including the bottom hem area front and back. It’s damning.

Burke and Patsy’s tDNA is also present on the left-side of the waistband. However, it is much weaker than the tDNA on the pink barbie nightgown.

Another argument may be that JBR slept in BR room often so it may been transferred there. And I would say to you look what you just said. That makes BR the person who had the most time, opportunity, and closeness to JBR away from the parents.

No, it really wouldn't, if that "someone" lived in the house and came into contact with that garment, which BR did. Now, if that "someone" was a stranger who never stepped foot in the house, then maybe (but even then, it wouldn't be "strong") -- but that's not the case.

You didn't answer my question: why is this tDNA so damning, but the tDNA on the waistband not at all? You're being hypocritical in focusing on this particular garment, while ignoring the waistband, simply because you think it fits your theory. tDNA isn't strong evidence. We've heard arguments dismissing such evidence of having been from a factory worker for goodness sakes.

 

[Userid]

Userid,

So you wish to promote accidental transfer as reason for the nightgown acquiring Burke's touch-dna.

Now you may be right and you could be wrong, so how do you decide?


The most important factor here is the location of the forensic evidence. Touch-dna discovered on items in JonBenet's bedroom can easily be explained away by accidental or casual transfer.

But touch-dna found on items located in the wine-cellar appear more informative precisely because they are in the wine-cellar.

Its helpful to speculate: was JonBenet wearing the nightgown when assaulted, does any of the blood staining result from this assault or the cleanup?

Would the person who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's and longjohns be the same person who removed the nightgown?

Would that person leave their touch-dna on JonBenet's nightgown?

.

The items in the wine cellar, were not always in the wine cellar. The blanket she was wrapped in and the barbie night gown weren't always in the wine cellar, and were moved there from another location just prior to being placed -- this is obvious.

Your questions are impossible to answer, so I'll just say this: it's already a stretch to assume a nine year old can carry out this crime in general, let alone assume that he'd only leave tDNA behind, and zero blood trails anywhere or other evidence on the ground, etc., in the process of removing and re-dressing a limp corpse.

 

[Userid]

Switching gears, I'm watching this series on Netflix called "The Staircase." Basically, it's about a woman who dies by falling down this staircase, and whether or not her death was an accident or perpetrated by her husband, who was home at the time. I'm only an episode in, but I already think he's guilty.

Anyways, when I heard his phone call to police, I was literally stunned with how similar it sounds to PR in almost every way imaginable. Honestly, they're carbon copies:

 

[Tadpole12]

"So where did the longjohns originate" - UK

Maybe within the reality of the GJ's process of indictment that question was answered by LHP?

 

[UKGuy]

The items in the wine cellar, were not always in the wine cellar. The blanket she was wrapped in and the barbie night gown weren't always in the wine cellar, and were moved there from another location just prior to being placed -- this is obvious.

Your questions are impossible to answer, so I'll just say this: it's already a stretch to assume a nine year old can carry out this crime in general, let alone assume that he'd only leave tDNA behind, and zero blood trails anywhere or other evidence on the ground, etc., in the process of removing and re-dressing a limp corpse.

Userid,
Like it or not BR is directly linked to JonBenet in the wine-cellar by his touch-dna on the nightgown and longjohns.

The innocent explanation is casual or environmental transfer, yet there is another one which implicates BR in his sisters death.

I agree its a stretch to say BR did much of the staging, particularly the wine-cellar scenario, cognitively it was beyond his abilities.

So some say the parents staged the wine-cellar crime-scene to remove BR from investigative focus?

We do have the GJ saying JR and PR assisted the killer, and with neither parent charged with Murder in the First Degree, so go figure?

If the case is not BDI, you ever wondered how the conversation goes between Burke and John?

BR must know who killed JonBenet, he knows all the stuff we do not !

.

 

[UKGuy]

"So where did the longjohns originate" - UK

Maybe within the reality of the GJ's process of indictment that question was answered by LHP?

Tadpole12,
The thing is I reckon JonBenet is wearing those longjohns because her pink pajama bottoms were bloodstained or/and stained with semen?

The pink pajama bottoms are missing and BPD have never itemized JonBenet's underwear by Day Of the Week, suggesting a Wednesday pair is missing also?

I doubt anything LHP could say would impact on the consideration that the longjohns represent staging and not simply to hand bedwear.

Its alleged JR's shirt fibers are on the inside of the size-12's, so maybe it was him who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's and longjohns with Patsy taking a bullet for JR?

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
Like it or not BR is directly linked to JonBenet in the wine-cellar by his touch-dna on the nightgown and longjohns.

The innocent explanation is casual or environmental transfer, yet there is another one which implicates BR in his sisters death.

I agree its a stretch to say BR did much of the staging, particularly the wine-cellar scenario, cognitively it was beyond his abilities.

So some say the parents staged the wine-cellar crime-scene to remove BR from investigative focus?

We do have the GJ saying JR and PR assisted the killer, and with neither parent charged with Murder in the First Degree, so go figure?

If the case is not BDI, you ever wondered how the conversation goes between Burke and John?

BR must know who killed JonBenet, he knows all the stuff we do not !

.

I know I've been away a while, but we've been over all of this before. BDI'ers love to point to the GJ's finding that one "assisted" the other, but this is only because they couldn't definitively pin down who exactly was the killer between the two of them; and also supports the notion that both parents were in on at least the staging; but only one was involved in the murder (this is what the GJ could never determine, which one of the two).

The parents would have staged the wine cellar scene, no matter who was involved (not just BR). Period.

I'm sure BR believes his mom or dad didn't do it. He either doesn't know at all, or doesn't know directly. He would have heard the chaos going on outside of his bedroom, but he would have been kept away from the murder scene. He either knows there was a "fight" going on between his parents, or he blocked that out of his memory. It's quite possible he heard the commotion, but simply stayed in his room out of fear, so I disagree that he "must know" who was responsible. The pineapple and tea could have come earlier (before the blow-up/crime occurred) or after (while JBR was already in the process of being staged in the wine cellar).

 

[Userid]

One thing I will say: now that I think about it, I wonder if BR admitted to Dr. Phil he was "up in the middle of the night" in order to explain away the pineapple and tea. If he were involved in this crime, he would never admit he was up, by himself, in the middle of the night. So why would he say that? I think, the key word here, is he said "by himself." He wants to present the illusion that PR and JR weren't up at all (and/or fighting, frantic, etc.) that night, but he knows they were. However, that is the extent to which he knows and that he is keeping secret. Just thinking out loud.

Was BR "trying to take the rap" for the pineapple and tea solely, while covering for his mom, who was also up that night? Seems like the only other logical explanation, because again, if he were responsible for the actual murder, he would never implicate himself so obviously like that in the Dr. Phil interview.

 

[UKGuy]

One thing I will say: now that I think about it, I wonder if BR admitted to Dr. Phil he was "up in the middle of the night" in order to explain away the pineapple and tea. If he were involved in this crime, he would never admit he was up, by himself, in the middle of the night. So why would he say that? I think, the key word here, is he said "by himself." He wants to present the illusion that PR and JR weren't up at all (and/or fighting, frantic, etc.) that night, but he knows they were. However, that is the extent to which he knows and that he is keeping secret. Just thinking out loud.

Was BR "trying to take the rap" for the pineapple and tea solely, while covering for his mom, who was also up that night? Seems like the only other logical explanation, because again, if he were responsible for the actual murder, he would never implicate himself so obviously like that in the Dr. Phil interview.

Userid,
Is it Burke's voice is in the background of the 911 call.

Dr. Phil: Where were you when that phone call was made? asked.

Burke: In my bed

Burke says who did it

Burke: I kinda always thought it was a paedophile who saw her in one of the pageants and snuck in [to our house], who knows ?

Burke admits to being out of bed late the night his sister died.

Burke: Yeah, I had some toy that I wanted to put together. I remember being downstairs after everyone was in bed … wanting to get this thing out

Dr. Phil: Did you use the flashlight so you wouldn’t be seen?

Burke: I don’t remember. I just remember being downstairs with this toy,

Thats creepy that Dr Phil askes about the flashlight, coincidence, insight or scripted?

I reckon BPD have some forensic evidence directly linking BR to some item or other so he needs to cover that base, just like the Partially Opened Gifts.

Burke at nine years old might not have known who killed JonBenet but now as an adult he surely must have worked stuff out, he knows the truth about all the stuff we constantly speculate about.

Could be he is locked into the Intruder theory and will defend his family to the end?

.

 

[Cottonstar]

I know I've been away a while, but we've been over all of this before. BDI'ers love to point to the GJ's finding that one "assisted" the other, but this is only because they couldn't definitively pin down who exactly was the killer between the two of them; and also supports the notion that both parents were in on at least the staging; but only one was involved in the murder (this is what the GJ could never determine, which one of the two).

Sure, this is what you believe but it don’t make you correct. BR misdirected and lied on Dr.Phil. He is not an innocent in all of this.

 

[Cottonstar]

Switching gears, I'm watching this series on Netflix called "The Staircase." Basically, it's about a woman who dies by falling down this staircase, and whether or not her death was an accident or perpetrated by her husband, who was home at the time. I'm only an episode in, but I already think he's guilty.

Anyways, when I heard his phone call to police, I was literally stunned with how similar it sounds to PR in almost every way imaginable. Honestly, they're carbon copies:

Of course he did it.

 

[Cottonstar]

Was BR "trying to take the rap" for the pineapple and tea solely, while covering for his mom, who was also up that night? Seems like the only other logical explanation, because again, if he were responsible for the actual murder, he would never implicate himself so obviously like that in the Dr. Phil interview.

“Patsy Ramsey couldn’t of wrote the ransom note because she wouldn’t have misspelled possession or business”.

 

[David Rogers]

What would be JR motive?

Something happened on the 23rd. Possible Fleet White or his wife came into the knowledge of JonBenet being assaulted. He called 9-1-1 but was stopped for some reason or by someone. Maybe more came out at the White party Perhaps JonBenet had to be silenced before more came out.

 

[kaykay543]

Switching gears, I'm watching this series on Netflix called "The Staircase." Basically, it's about a woman who dies by falling down this staircase, and whether or not her death was an accident or perpetrated by her husband, who was home at the time. I'm only an episode in, but I already think he's guilty.

Anyways, when I heard his phone call to police, I was literally stunned with how similar it sounds to PR in almost every way imaginable. Honestly, they're carbon copies:

That is a really interesting case. I will stop now since you haven't seen all the episodes