Ransom note, as viewed by a foreigner!

[KATKAT19691]

Try me, I'll grab "whatever little" I can.

He wont answer you. Anytime anyone questions his theory or asks him to explain his reasoning, he just flames them.

Kat
IMO

 

[Nehemiah]

Why was Santa so attracted to someone elses child ? It was 1994. She was 4. JonBenet was a name known to only her family and her friends. It was still unknown to the tabloid press.
"She just had that inner glow,'' said McReynolds, who was working at the mall as Santa Claus for local business owners. "I went home and said to my wife, 'I think I've seen an angel.'''
"The truth of the little girl is not in the facts,'' he said. "There really is no way I can define her spirit. She was a very precious child.''
He recalled his final conversation with her.
"I told her, 'When you get to the Miss America contest, you have to save a seat for ol' Santa,''' he said. "She just smiled at me.''
McReynolds saw two visitors to his front porch, and bid them good luck as they prepared to negotiate the blanket of fresh snow masking his long driveway.
"I'm going back inside to watch Miracle on 34th Street,'' he said. "That's my dream.''
from RMN

Now let's talk about slipping into psychosis!!
IMO

I think that Santa was one weird agent. He was high on my suspect list at one time. With the "new investigation" by Keenan & Co., I believe that anyone formerly investigated would have had their DNA compared to the "DNA sample" that they currently have in their possession. I think that if there were any real suspects now, Wood would have been on every TV station proclaiming such. The fact that they claim to have the DNA, and no matches, speaks volumes to me. IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

The fact that they claim to have the DNA, and no matches, speaks volumes to me.

Nehemiah,

Boulder authorities say there is no DNA match, but that's just more talk. Keenan and Co. continue to talk the talk, but they won't walk the walk, because they CAN'T.

During Michael Tracey's latest infomercial shown in England they flashed on the screen a list of names of people whose DNA did not match the DNA in JonBenet's underwear. Doug Stine's name wasn't on the list, even though his DNA sample had been taken by the BPD. Why? By its absense on the list and by the process of elimination, would that not make Doug's DNA a possible match to the DNA in JonBenet's underwear?

Is it because of the Colorado Children's Code that prohibits the disclosure of a child's name, either directly or indirectly, and who has been involved in a serious crime, that Doug Stine is not identified as the contributor of the DNA in JonBenet's underwear? Burke Ramsey's name was on the list because his DNA didn't match. So why wasn't Doug Stine's name also on the list?

IMO the authorities do indeed have a DNA match, but by law they can't admit it because it involves children whose identities are shielded by Colorado law and by a court protective order that was imposed immediately after the Ramsey grand jury disbanded in October of 1999 (I'm convinced the GJ solved the crime, it involves children, and by law all names must be suppressed).

JMO

 

[twizzler333]

I thought this "wasn't a DNA case" because the source of DNA could have come from the person who made the garment or many, many other possibilities exhisted, therefore they stated that the DNA wasn't necessarily admissible anyway. I have seen several post this very tidbit of information that the DNA didn't matter, it was the ransom note that mattered....?????

 

[sissi]

To Brothermoon,
I am the smartest person! I am the dumbest one!
I am the prettiest woman, or the least attractive!
I am the most creative or the least.
I am the best mother,wife,or the worst!
It's all relative BM, put us in an arena and we are placed,and the arenas change daily!

Twiz...Yep, that is what LE has told us, the ransom note is the key to the solving of this crime. Then they threw in the wrench and sent the dna out.
IMO I believe the dna will one day match the killer, the same as I believe the printed letters in the ransom note will one day be 100% match to him.

 

[BlueCrab]

I thought this "wasn't a DNA case" because the source of DNA could have come from the person who made the garment or many, many other possibilities exhisted, therefore they stated that the DNA wasn't necessarily admissible anyway. I have seen several post this very tidbit of information that the DNA didn't matter, it was the ransom note that mattered....?????

Twizzler,

It's always been a DNA case. The problem stems around the fact that the DNA eliminates John and Patsy, and probably Burke, as the contributor. That fact doesn't dovetail with the murder theory of many on this and other forums, so they trash it.

The DNA reportedly has 10 markers. That's enough to positively identify the contributor within one in several million, if his DNA sample has been obtained.

JMO

 

[Nehemiah]

The DNA reportedly has 10 markers. That's enough to positively identify the contributor within one in several million, if his DNA sample has been obtained.JMO

Exactly. And I say we can discount any "suspect" ever named in any book we've read if they are over ten years old because otherwise Wood would have been on every TV station touting that they have found the perp. Santa, White, Wolfe, Oliva, and all the others are officially laid to rest. IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Exactly. And I say we can discount any "suspect" ever named in any book we've read if they are over ten years old because otherwise Wood would have been on every TV station touting that they have found the perp. Santa, White, Wolfe, Oliva, and all the others are officially laid to rest. IMO

Nehemiah,

What I think you are saying, and what I would agree with, is that the DNA likely belongs to a male under 10 years old because all of the older suspect males (probably about 200 of them) have had their DNA profiles compared to the DNA in the panties and there are no matches.

If a male under 10 years old matches the DNA in the panties then we'll never hear about it because it's against the Colorado Children's Code and the court's protective order to reveal that kind of information on anyone under the age of 10.

My guess is that is what happened. I think the grand jury solved the crime in 1999, there were children under the age of 10 involved, and the Colorado statutes and the court brought everything to a screeching halt. I also believe there were two underage boys involved -- Burke Ramsey and Doug Stine -- and the DNA in JonBenet's panties likely belongs to Doug Stine. However, IMO, there's a possibility of a third boy, 14 years of age or older, also involved and the DNA could belong to him.

JMO