Simple question...

[BBB167893]

With anything besides hearsay? Sorry, but I pay no attention to hearsay.

What are you talking about? Here's the exact quote from Linda Wilcox, who was an employee of the Rs':

The essence of her is there, like the percentages: "99% chance" and "100% chance." That is how she talked because of her cancer or how you talk when you are around someone with cancer. (I can attest to that PERSONALLY) And the phrase "that good southern common sense of yours." John wasn't from the south, but Patsy and Nedra always teased him about being from the south.

Its a feeble attempt to link PR to the RN,

JR did that HIMSELF, when he said it was an inside job and looked to have been written by a woman.

similar to choosing one small lower-case 'e' out of 1500 characters. For PR to be the author, she had to have written the ENTIRE note, not just one letter.

Exactly! You may wish you hadn't said that, because it's NOT just one "e," oh, no...not on your life. The charts only show a fraction of the similarities. Oh, my kingdom for a scanner!!!

Apparently PR was incapable of writing the note because she doesn't know how to spell 'advise' whereas the RN author does. She always spelled it with a 'z', and the RN author spelled it with an 's'. RDI is forced to then explain this discrepancy in the RDI theory. The RDI explanation that she forgot it had an 's', or she deliberately misspelled it using a 'z' in her exemplars, while theoretically possible, obviously circumvents both prima facie and Occam's Razor. That is, the whole RDI theory circumvents what is obvious, and the simplest explanation that introduces the fewest assumptions.

Nice try, HOTYH, but it doesn't work. Occam's Razor only applies between two opposing hypotheses when no other evidence exists. That's not true here. As with so many things in this case (and I really don't know why I'm saying this AGAIN; it hasn't made a dent so far), it's not this thing or that thing that makes or breaks it; it's the combination of everything. You can argue the similar "e" or the occasional misspelled word individually. But when taken collectively, the conclusion is pretty inescapable.

Its the little things.

Isn't it, though?

 

[ella971]

Off topic. Does anyone know if Walmart sold night vision goggles in 1996? TIA

 

[BBB167893]

Because my suspects are better than his suspects. He is essentially suspecting Ozzie and Harriet of a brutal child murder with special circumstances. Why not blame it on the housecat?

Are you KIDDING me?

 

[BBB167893]

Even SD knows thats wrong. I was IDI (FFDI) even before the DNA/JMK fiasco.

It's nice to know that you realize how I do occasionally defend you.

Change that to "did."

 

[cynic]

Even SD knows thats wrong. I was IDI (FFDI) even before the DNA/JMK fiasco.

What relevance does JMK (2006) have to the DNA in the JBR case???
There were indications of "unidentified" DNA since 1997. The marginal CODIS profile was uploaded in 2003.
BTW, can you honestly tell me that the "unidentified" DNA is not vitally important to the IDI camp?
You have raised the point of "unidentified DNA" in an innumerable amount of your posts.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Are you KIDDING me?

You are suspecting people with less criminality than most teenagers, and doing so with something less than indictable evidence.

Its your life, your time.

 

[cynic]

According to the Boulder County District Attorney's office, it very likely came from JBR's attacker.

What were you saying about de Nile? It seems to me that you would know also.

Why do you now need to change the subject?

You brought up the subject of DNA; I just took you up on it.
You, on the other hand, are not answering my question. (What is your explanation for the presence of two unidentified DNA profiles pointing away from the guilty party in the Janelle Patton homicide?)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1
There is a direct correlation between the Janelle Patton and JonBenet cases in terms of the relevance of DNA evidence. It underscores my point that there can be an innocent explanation for skin cell based DNA. (Despite what Mary Lacy would have you believe.)

 

[BBB167893]

You are suspecting people with less criminality than most teenagers,

I used to believe that. "Ozzie and Harriet," my fat Irish patoot.

and doing so with something less than indictable evidence.

You haven't changed my mind, HOTYH. I still hold firm that a GOOD prosecutor could have made a winnable case.

It's your life, your time.

You're darn right it is.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I used to believe that. "Ozzie and Harriet," my fat Irish patoot.



You haven't changed my mind, HOTYH. I still hold firm that a GOOD prosecutor could have made a winnable case.



You're darn right it is.

I'm able to characterize the crime. It was brutal, and the experts say it was atypical of filicide.

I'd therefore be embarrassed to suspect the little old lady across the street, or a child...

..and, I'm surprised you don't get a toothache thinking about the R's more than a few minutes.

 

[cynic]

I'm able to characterize the crime. It was brutal, and the experts say it was atypical of filicide.

I'd therefore be embarrassed to suspect the little old lady across the street, or a child...

..and, I'm surprised you don't get a toothache thinking about the R's more than a few minutes.

Petrosky and her family lived in Roanoke for several years before moving to Bristol in 2004. Her husband was a pharmacist at Brambleton Drug. Her daughter attended Patrick Henry High School. Garrett went to Salem Montessori School.

She had a reputation as a "supermom," involved in all her children's school activities, working toward a degree at Radford University while managing the clothing and accessory store Present Thyme.

Then on April 15, 2005, she kept her 6-year-old son home from school. As they watched a cartoon together, she grabbed him by the neck and choked him until he stopped struggling. Then she took him to the bathtub, which she had already filled, and put him under the water.

She called 911 and said over and over, "I've just gone crazy."
(This is the 911 call that Patsy Ramsey should have made in 1996)

Had her case gone to trial, a jury would have heard opposing testimony from two psychologists. Defense expert Dewey Cornell had diagnosed Petrosky with a form of bipolar disorder and concluded she had hallucinations in which she heard voices. The prosecution's expert, while conceding Petrosky had a history of mental illness, would have testified she was legally sane when she killed her son.

"I do not know why I did this," she said in her confession to police, presented in court the day of her plea. "My thoughts are out of control, bad thoughts. I'm just crazy I guess. I should have called someone and asked for help, but I didn't."

The murder of Petrosky's son stunned many who knew her in Bristol and Roanoke.

"She was broadly liked," Stancil said. In the weeks following her crime, some young mothers in the community found themselves asking troubling questions, he said: "Gosh, if Andrea could do that, could I do that? Could that kind of darkness be in my life, too?"
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/133236

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'd never draw parallels to other filicides in this case, because there are none.

Don't take my word for it:

"I mean, the whole thing is totally bizarre. I've never, in my 35-year career, seen anything like this." --Robert Ressler, 1997

"In turn, CASKU agents reported that of the more than 1,700 murdered children they had studied since the 1960s, there was only one case in which the victim was a female under the age of 12, who had been murdered in her home by strangulation, with sexual assault and a ransom note present: JonBenet Ramsey. "


-----------------------------

I suggest re-reading RDI theories, where the brutality that JBR experienced and the coroner actually confirmed, plus the brutality of the RN, is sugar-coated and glossed over as mere 'staging'. The idea that JBR's skull fracture was accidental, or that the deep furrow in her neck was applied when she was nearly dead, are both examples of dumbing-down the brutality. This in fact mischaracterizes the murder because it relies on unknowns--things you don't really know happened.

RDI might be better off to incorporate the actual brutality and intent to kill that is clearly evident to all.

Except of course those in De Nile...

 

[BOESP]

I'd never draw parallels to other filicides in this case, because there are none.

Don't take my word for it:

"I mean, the whole thing is totally bizarre. I've never, in my 35-year career, seen anything like this." --Robert Ressler, 1997

"In turn, CASKU agents reported that of the more than 1,700 murdered children they had studied since the 1960s, ...

The idea that JBR's skull fracture was accidental, or that the deep furrow in her neck was applied when she was nearly dead, are both examples of dumbing-down the brutality. This mischaracterizes the murder because it relies on unknowns--things you don't really know happened.

Wasn't it just last week you were downplaying the usefulness of CASKU findings, saying they no longer existed, etc. etc. etc. Now you seem to be using their findings to support your opinion.

Your statement about mischaracterization also applies to the fallacious reasoning used to imply the skull fracture was purposeful rather than accidental.

Doublespeak doesn't inspire confidence when one is trying to persuade another to change their opinion.

 

[cynic]

I'd never draw parallels to other filicides in this case, because there are none.

Don't take my word for it:

"I mean, the whole thing is totally bizarre. I've never, in my 35-year career, seen anything like this." --Robert Ressler, 1997

"In turn, CASKU agents reported that of the more than 1,700 murdered children they had studied since the 1960s, there was only one case in which the victim was a female under the age of 12, who had been murdered in her home by strangulation, with sexual assault and a ransom note present: JonBenet Ramsey. "

The same CASKU that you previously mocked and said doesn’t exist anymore?

"CASKU doesn't even exist anymore." - HOTYH
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95791"]Challenge of the Masters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


There is something to be said about providing the full context for statements.
This is what CASKU said:

FBI Knocks Down Intruder Theory
As part of the Boulder police's investigation, they accepted an invitation from the FBI to put on a full presentation of the case to the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit based at Quantico, Va. As Thomas recounts in his book, over 20 CASKU team members, including hair and fiber experts, attended the August 1997 briefing. Police investigators reviewed the autopsy results, and crime scene photos. In turn, CASKU agents reported that of the more than 1,700 murdered children they had studied since the 1960s, there was only one case in which the victim was a female under the age of 12, who had been murdered in her home by strangulation, with sexual assault and a ransom note present: JonBenet Ramsey. The agents told the Boulder investigators that while it might be possible that someone broke into the house that day, it was not very probable. The staging of the crime, the evidence presented to them by the Boulder police, and the totality of the case pointed in one direction: This was not the act of an intruder.
Thomas wrote that the FBI team said the crime "did not fit an act of sex or revenge or one in which money was the motivation. Taken alone, they said, each piece of evidence might be argued, but together, enough pebbles become a block of evidentiary granite."
Thomas reported that "CASKU observed that they had never seen anything like the Ramsey ransom note. Kidnapping demands are usually terse, such as 'We have your kid. A million dollars. Will call you.' From a kidnapper's point of view, the fewer words, the less police have to go on."
The FBI, according to Thomas, "believed that the note was written in the house, after the murder, and indicated panic. Ransom notes are normally written prior to the crime, usually proofread, and not written by hand, in order to disguise the authorship."
Thomas said the FBI deemed the entire crime "criminally unsophisticated," citing the child being left on the premises, the oddness of the $118,000 demand in relation to the multi-million dollar net worth of the Ramsey, and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be "scanned for electronic devices." Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not wanting to chance a face-to-face meeting.
CASKU profilers also observed that placing JonBenet's body in the basement indicated the involvement of a parent, rather than an intruder. A parent would not want to place the body outside in the frigid night. They also stated, according to Thomas, that the ligatures "indicated staging rather than control, and the garrote was used from behind so the killer could avoid eye contact, typical of someone who cares for the victim." Thomas said the profilers had the gut feeling that "no one intended to kill the child." This would mean that the severe blow to the head was done in a thoughtless rage and that all the subsequent assault on JonBenet and the writing of the ransom note was staged to cover up the unintentional murder.
Whoever killed JonBenet didn't fear getting caught. Thomas said that FBI profilers conjectured that the crime "was committed by someone who had a high degree of comfort inside the home. The murderer spent a good deal of time with the victim, bashing in her head, dragging her down two stories to the basement, wiping down her vaginal area, taping her mouth, tying up her wrists, garroting her, carefully, even lovingly, placing a white blanket over her, calmly writing what the Boulder police called the War And Peace of ransom notes, and then placing that ransom note just where Patsy Ramsey would be most likely to find it when she came down the backstairs in the morning.

 

[cynic]

Wasn't it just last week you were downplaying the usefulness of CASKU findings, saying they no longer existed, etc. etc. etc. Now you seem to be using their findings to support your opinion.

Your statement about mischaracterization also applies to the fallacious reasoning used to imply the skull fracture was purposeful rather than accidental.

Doublespeak doesn't inspire confidence when one is trying to persuade another to change their opinion.

HOTYH can't hear you, he's underwater in De Nile.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Your statement about mischaracterization also applies to the fallacious reasoning used to imply the skull fracture was purposeful rather than accidental.

The purposeful skull fracture can be reasonably inferred from the evidence:

1. Coroner stated that JBR died from asphyxiation with associated cerebral trauma.
2. There was a garrote found in a deep furrow around JBR's neck,
3. There was petechial hemorrhaging at the cord site, evidence JBR was alive when strangled by the cord.

This shows an intent to kill on the part of whoever was handling the garrote. Given that there was an intent to kill, it can be inferred that the headbash, another fatal injury on JBR, was the result of the same intent to kill that we ALREADY KNOW existed.

It cannot be inferred that the headbash was the result of an accident, whereas it can be inferred that it was the result of intent to kill. Because we already know the intent existed.

Intent to kill JBR is a fact that RDI simply ignores, just like the other fact we know: DNA smeared all over JBR's clothing she was wearing at the time.

 

[cynic]

DNA smeared all over JBR's clothing she was wearing at the time.

I hate repeating myself, but ...
You, on the other hand, are not answering my question. (What is your explanation for the presence of two unidentified DNA profiles pointing away from the guilty party in the Janelle Patton homicide?)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1
There is a direct correlation between the Janelle Patton and JonBenet cases in terms of the relevance of DNA evidence. It underscores my point that there can be an innocent explanation for skin cell based DNA. (Despite what Mary Lacy would have you believe.)

 

[BOESP]

The purposeful skull fracture can be reasonably inferred from the evidence:

1. Coroner stated that JBR died from asphyxiation with associated cerebral trauma.
2. There was a garrote found in a deep furrow around JBR's neck,
3. There was petechial hemorrhaging at the cord site, evidence JBR was alive when strangled by the cord.

This shows an intent to kill on the part of whoever was handling the garrote. Given that there was an intent to kill, it can be inferred that the headbash, another fatal injury on JBR, was the result of the same intent to kill that we ALREADY KNOW existed.

It cannot be inferred that the headbash was the result of an accident, whereas it can be inferred that it was the result of intent to kill. Because we already know the intent existed.

Intent to kill JBR is a fact that RDI simply ignores, just like the other fact we know: DNA smeared all over JBR's clothing she was wearing at the time.

I'm not going to waste my time or readers' time by repeating why most of the above is not valid.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If you've gone so far as to believe that there was no intent to kill JBR, its a long road back.

You're discounting the coroner's findings, case facts, to further an archaic idea that has since been effectively destroyed by the DNA.

 

[cynic]

idea that has since been effectively destroyed by the DNA.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1

 

[DeeDee249]

The headbash can most certainly have been an accident. It could have also been intentional. We don't know which. The strangulation could have been done with intent to kill, but as IDI has suggested, it could have been sex play. If the vagus nerve was compressed, it could have stopped her heart. Death would result whether the cord was pulled tight enough or not.
The DNA was not "smeared all over" her. It was in a few small areas, including areas likely to have been touched by JB herself (or anyone helping her) use a toilet. If she went to the bathroom, touching the doorknob, toilet seat, toilet handle or anything that the previous male user had touched, that is enough to have transferred the skin cells to her own hand or the hand of anyone helping her (like a parent). Since parental fibers have been found on items DIRECTLY related to the crime (tape, garrote knot, inside the panties) I'll go with that. As a matter of fact, since JR's shirt fibers were INSIDE the panties and so was the male DNA, I'd say JR was the source of the unknown male skin cells. Not that it was his skin cells, but that he had the skin cells on his own hands. Again- any male who attended the White's party, no matter their age at the time, should have been tested against that "touch DNA". That DNA could belong to someone who was a child at the time.