The actual vs. desired outcome

[JMO8778]

I agree. I think that it was insane that night. And as much as Patsy thought she was being quiet, Burke heard "noises" and "creaking". Creaking is one thing. Noises, now that is a different story. What kind of noises. Probably Patsy losing her mind.

Burke has to know something. He has to. I have seen people deny things that happened right in front of their face because they just don't want to admit what they saw. He knows something, I am convinced of it.

I wonder if he blocked it out,and that's why he wasn't afraid ..in his subconcious,he knew there was no chance of an intruder coming to get him,too.That's the only reason I can think of that he wouldn't have been scared.

HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND EVERYONE!

you too !

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

a false story.
who's waiting in the getaway car,btw?
I also have a hard time believing anyone would sexually assault her in front of 2 others.

Maybe its a false story. Why does someone necessarily need to be waiting in the getaway car? What makes you think JBR had to be sexually assaulted necessarily in front of 2 others?

 

[JMO8778]

Maybe its a false story.

you're the one who said 3 ppl carried her down the stairs.so you are saying this is a false story?

Why does someone necessarily need to be waiting in the getaway car?

I would think it would make for a faster getaway;however,I think the whole point is moot anyway,b/c obviously,she wasn't abducted.

What makes you think JBR had to be sexually assaulted necessarily in front of 2 others?

YOU said 3 carried her down the stairs (which,btw,I would think BR would have heard more than creaking and noises...it would have been a whole commotion!) So if they decided to take her to the basement (not likely...they'd all get out of there,asap!),then 3 would be in the basement.(b/c,as you said,no one would necessarily have to be in the getaway car )

You have to make the pieces fit,and you see,this story doesn't fit w. the facts.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You have to make the pieces fit,and you see,this story doesn't fit w. the facts.

Three people carried JBR while garrotted, to the basement. Two left while one stayed with JBR. Nobody was waiting in the getaway car, and two didn't watch while one sexually assaulted JBR.

Now you tell me how this story doesn't fit with the facts. What facts are you using.

This story had more chance of fitting the facts than RDI accident/coverup story.

 

[JMO8778]

Three people carried JBR while garrotted, to the basement.

what proof do you have of this?and besides,she wasn't garroted (the paintbrush came from the tote in the basement) until she was already *in the basement.
and why on earth would it take 3 ppl to carry a small 45 lb child to the basement???

Two left while one stayed with JBR.

again,why would you say this as fact?there is no proof.

Nobody was waiting in the getaway car,

and yet again..

(why would they leave anyway,if they weren't going to a car...).they gain nothing if she's taken to the basement.why agree to that?

and two didn't watch while one sexually assaulted JBR.

..and again.

Now you tell me how this story doesn't fit with the facts. What facts are you using.

I'd like to know what facts *you are using,this fits nothing I've read about.

This story had more chance of fitting the facts than RDI accident/coverup story.

not quite..Patsy even had a receipt with the same price amt as the cord used,your scenario has nothing.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

So, wait, what are you saying, HOTYH - there was no getaway car waiting, or no one was waiting in the getaway car?

There isn't enough proof of one intruder in the Ramsey house that night, let alone three. Where's the forensic evidence? It isn't that antiquated underwear DNA, so where are the fibers, hairs, prints, and DNA of these three intruders?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So, wait, what are you saying, HOTYH - there was no getaway car waiting, or no one was waiting in the getaway car?

I doubt anyone would be sitting in a car parked on the street in the middle of the night.

There isn't enough proof of one intruder in the Ramsey house that night, let alone three. Where's the forensic evidence? It isn't that antiquated underwear DNA, so where are the fibers, hairs, prints, and DNA of these three intruders?

Forensic evidence includes unmatched handwriting, unmatched hairs and fiber, unmatched shoeprints, unidentified DNA mixed in with blood.

Other evidence includes the RN that RDI has assumed to be a hoax. It is possible the RN author was telling it like it was.

The receipt that has the $2.29 amount on it is adequate evidence for you that PR bought cord. The RN that has the actual perp in this crime claiming that he had 2 accomplices is adequate evidence for me that there could have been three intruders.

 

[DeeDee249]

There isn't a forensics specialist in the world who would entertain the thought that THREE intruders were in the house that night, handled JBR, was in her room, the kitchen, basement, stairway, and who knows where else, without leaving ANY evidence behind. No fibers (except the parent's)- NO prints, NOTHING. And how did they get out? Just strolled around the house and went out one of the doors, not worried at all about one of the family members who were at HOME seeing/hearing them.
Couldn't happen. Didn't happen.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

There isn't a forensics specialist in the world who would entertain the thought that THREE intruders were in the house that night, handled JBR, was in her room, the kitchen, basement, stairway, and who knows where else, without leaving ANY evidence behind. No fibers (except the parent's)- NO prints, NOTHING. And how did they get out? Just strolled around the house and went out one of the doors, not worried at all about one of the family members who were at HOME seeing/hearing them.
Couldn't happen. Didn't happen.

As if every forensics specialist in the world had access to the R's house the following day to conduct every search and test they wanted.

Your idea that all forensic evidence that could be gathered was in fact gathered is just another assumption on RDI's part.

Besides, there's plenty of sources that claim there are unsourced fibers, hairs, DNA, shoeprints, and handwriting. Thats not exactly 'zero forensic evidence of an intruder' as RDI continuously claims.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

And how did they get out? Just strolled around the house and went out one of the doors, not worried at all about one of the family members who were at HOME seeing/hearing them.
Couldn't happen. Didn't happen.

Well, gee I wonder how many night time burglars have pulled off this very miracle. Oh yeah, couldn't happen, didn't happen. There's never been a prowler that didn't wake the family member. Right.

 

[BBB167893]

That sounds like a good explanation. But wait, its really not an explanation at all. Its a rationalization. That's where you make up a story about PR buying cord, not yet used it, improvised it as staging to coverup an accident, and got rid of all the leftovers. Its all a baseless fiction.

I'll be happy to fill in the gaps. All you have to do is ask.

It would've helped RDI accident/coverup if we did know for sure what the cord was bought for, and who brought it into the home.

Granted, it would. But there is a crucial mistake being made here. Don't believe what you see in the movies. I've studied true crime for a long time, and I have yet to see a case where it all just "clicked" together all kosher like in a Hollywood flick.

I'm no expert on the underwear or JR's golf bag

Yeah, we know.

I'd sooner believe RDI as premeditated murder

Can I get back to you on that?

I guess you think two out of three is good enough for RDI accident/coverup scenario.

It ain't bad.

Three out of three would've been a lot better, especially since the cord was part of the murder weapon.

Like I said, we can't always have everything.

remember Scott Peterson was convicted on a whole lot LESS evidence

.

You tell 'em!

Yawn. Where's a yawn smiley when I need one?

I sympathize. I often feel that way when I hear these -and-bull intruder stories.

A piece of paper with the amount listed of $2.29 isn't showing the cord to be among household items the night of the murder. It only shows something was bought that cost that much, that's all.

Hell of a coinkydink, isn't it?

Really, I don't care what system McGuckins had. Even if it had cord itemized, I'd still be IDI. That would only cause me to believe the intruder used the cord PR bought.

Then why all this rigamarole?

Wouldn't it be great to have a roundtable on the Ramsey case. I think we would leave the Ramsey Team in the dust.

Anywhere, anytime.

This story had more chance of fitting the facts than RDI accident/coverup story.

A dog's chance, in my view.

Forensic evidence includes unmatched handwriting, unmatched hairs and fiber, unmatched shoeprints, unidentified DNA mixed in with blood.

How much time you got, buddy?

Besides, there's plenty of sources that claim there are unsourced fibers, hairs, DNA, shoeprints, and handwriting.

None that can't be disputed, I'm afraid.

Thats not exactly 'zero forensic evidence of an intruder' as RDI continuously claims.

Close enough.

 

[UKGuy]

As if every forensics specialist in the world had access to the R's house the following day to conduct every search and test they wanted.

Your idea that all forensic evidence that could be gathered was in fact gathered is just another assumption on RDI's part.

Besides, there's plenty of sources that claim there are unsourced fibers, hairs, DNA, shoeprints, and handwriting. Thats not exactly 'zero forensic evidence of an intruder' as RDI continuously claims.

Holdontoyourhat,

Your idea that all forensic evidence that could be gathered was in fact gathered is just another assumption on RDI's part.

So how come you can argue from unknown and currently non-existant forensic evidence, to place an intruder in the house?

Where is the beef? Put the evidence on the table, do not concern us with what we do not know, or might have known, tell us what evidence you have, step up to the plate!

Besides, there's plenty of sources that claim there are unsourced fibers, hairs, DNA, shoeprints, and handwriting. Thats not exactly 'zero forensic evidence of an intruder' as RDI continuously claims.

Where is this cornucopia of evidence, bring it on, as I've stated before there is absolutely zero forensic evidence linking the death of JonBenet to an intruder, conversely there is forensic evidence linking the parents to the staged crime-scene.

Without any substance or backup to any of your claims, it appears you are making it all up as you go along, a theory without any evidence simply amounts to a personal fantasy, or more charitably a personal opinion.


.

 

[JMO8778]

I have a feeling this whole thread has something to do with Wendy Murphy's new book.Any thoughts?

 

[JMO8778]

I doubt anyone would be sitting in a car parked on the street in the middle of the night.

there was also an alley,and besides,it wasn't Mayberry.

Other evidence includes the RN that RDI has assumed to be a hoax. It is possible the RN author was telling it like it was.

JR said the same thing in DOI.
I couldn't believe he had the nerve to write out that whole nonsensical scenario,like anyone was going to believe it.He left out a whole lot of the facts and evidence,and generalized much of it.Forensic evidence doesn't run on generalizations.
I don't know what planet that could have occured on..
reminds me of a quote,btw.. 'when the heart grows cold,the mind runs wild'.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Where is the beef? Put the evidence on the table, do not concern us with what we do not know, or might have known, tell us what evidence you have, step up to the plate!

Without any substance or backup to any of your claims, it appears you are making it all up as you go along, a theory without any evidence simply amounts to a personal fantasy, or more charitably a personal opinion.


.

My claim is that the cord should've been easily shown to be among household items, if it really did belong to the house. According to RDI, its purchase wasn't concealed, and its purpse wasn't a secret. There are many and varied ways in which someone not involved in a staging coverup would know about the cord. Even by any prior use of similar cord.

Since the cord cannot be factually linked to household items, then it can be assumed it was not a household item. The fact is, the only use of cord at the R's was on JBR, so it very much appears it brought for the purpose of crime. RDI has to steer away again from the outward appearance of the crime, to support rage accident/coverup.

There is no sense to concealing cord while leaving paintbrush fragments. Of course, theres no sense to accidentally headbashing your daughter and then staging both a foreign faction kidnapping AND a sexual assault and murder.

Keep trying RDI.

 

[UKGuy]

My claim is that the cord should've been easily shown to be among household items, if it really did belong to the house. According to RDI, its purchase wasn't concealed, and its purpse wasn't a secret. There are many and varied ways in which someone not involved in a staging coverup would know about the cord. Even by any prior use of similar cord.

Since the cord cannot be factually linked to household items, then it can be assumed it was not a household item. The fact is, the only use of cord at the R's was on JBR, so it very much appears it brought for the purpose of crime. RDI has to steer away again from the outward appearance of the crime, to support rage accident/coverup.

There is no sense to concealing cord while leaving paintbrush fragments. Of course, theres no sense to accidentally headbashing your daughter and then staging both a foreign faction kidnapping AND a sexual assault and murder.

Keep trying RDI.

Holdontoyourhat,

My claim is that the cord should've been easily shown to be among household items, if it really did belong to the house.

Well the inference that if an item belongs in the house then its easy to show its origin, does not hold up?

You are on stronger ground if you suggest an intruder removed Jonbenet's size-6 underwear as a trophy, so redressed her in the size-12's.

The cord does not link to anything outside of the Ramsey house, so you may want it to be suspect because it cannot be demonstrated to belong in the house, but that is different from linking directly to an intruder.

The fact is, the only use of cord at the R's was on JBR, so it very much appears it brought for the purpose of crime. RDI has to steer away again from the outward appearance of the crime, to support rage accident/coverup.

I do not suscribe to the accident theory, I reckon JonBenet was sexually molested then killed as a consequence, and that the staging was constructed to hide all of that. This profile is not without precedent, investigate other sex crimes where children are involved, and you will find a similar pattern, which sometimes includes the parent dumping the body outdoors away from the house. One case included a parent asphyxiating his daughter as he sexually assaulted her, then placing her to bed and staging a bedtime assault.


.

 

[JMO8778]

My claim is that the cord should've been easily shown to be among household items, if it really did belong to the house. According to RDI, its purchase wasn't concealed, and its purpse wasn't a secret. There are many and varied ways in which someone not involved in a staging coverup would know about the cord. Even by any prior use of similar cord.

and you think JR would have admitted it was there? Likewise,BR was obviously coached on what to say,as per the 911 call and the fact he *was up during that time.Why do you think it took them FOUR MONTHS to consent to an interview??? They needed ample time to get their stories straight,and much of it was likely due to BR being coached on what exactly to admit and what not to admit or say.
These were the only other occupants of the house,why would anyone else necessarily even know it was there?? It's not like Patsy would have announced to the world that she bought some cord!

Since the cord cannot be factually linked to household items, then it can be assumed it was not a household item. The fact is, the only use of cord at the R's was on JBR, so it very much appears it brought for the purpose of crime. RDI has to steer away again from the outward appearance of the crime, to support rage accident/coverup.

well,I think we all know that's a lot of hogwash.Plenty of household items are on hand that could be used in a murder,and not all of them can be accounted for in every crime.If it had been kite string,would you have said,'well, nobody saw BR or JB ever fly a KITE.So therefore,the item didn't belong in the house'.See how silly that is?

There is no sense to concealing cord while leaving paintbrush fragments.

they couldn't hide the whole tote.

Of course, theres no sense to accidentally headbashing your daughter and then staging both a foreign faction kidnapping AND a sexual assault and murder.

it's called 'cover your arse !' there would be absolutely no sense in a SFF even coming to the US just to pull off this one crime,and then leave a 3 page calling card,without ever claiming responsibility for the crime.A terrorist group wouldn't do that...they LOVE getting credit for what they do,correct?? And if they're so well hidden,why haven't they come fwd and claimed responsibility,and also stated the reason this crime was committed in the first place??? There was obviously no international intent,period.

Keep trying RDI.

we don't have to try at all.you're the one making up all this ridiculous nonsense.

 

[DeeDee249]

To suggest that ANYTHING doesn't belong to the house just because there is not evidence when or where it was bought or there is no proof of when or of it was used is ridiculous.
That could encompass just about anything at all. If there was no prior use for the cord-so what? Doesn't mean it wasn't there before that night.
It is similar to this scenario:
Someone buys a hunting rifle and brings it home, intending to use it on the next hunting trip. But next day, they use it to kill their spouse. Can it logically be said that because there was no prior use of the rifle that it didn't belong to the homeowner?
The cord had not been used PREVIOUSLY. It doesn't mean it was not intended to be used at some point in the future. After all, it was only bought shortly before the murder.

 

[icedtea4me]

Perhaps Holdontoyourhat is of the mindset that you have to use an item the split second you bring it home from the store.


-Tea

 

[DeeDee249]

Perhaps Holdontoyourhat is of the mindset that you have to use an item the split second you bring it home from the store.


-Tea

And ONLY for it's intended purpose.