The actual vs. desired outcome

[Holdontoyourhat]

Most QDEs identify it as likely having been written by the late Patsy Ramsey.

This has been gone over and over again, and the fact is not one CDE who is a ABFDE member concluded PR wrote the note. So where you get your so-called facts from has to be exclusively RDI hired experts.

The FBI never identified PR as the likely author. Neither did CBI. They said there was not enough to support any definite conclusion.

It is this kind of disinformation that probably hinders the investigation, IMO.

 

[BOESP]

This has been gone over and over again, and the fact is not one CDE who is a ABFDE member concluded PR wrote the note. So where you get your so-called facts from has to be exclusively RDI hired experts.

The FBI never identified PR as the likely author. Neither did CBI. They said there was not enough to support any definite conclusion.

It is this kind of disinformation that probably hinders the investigation, IMO.

You must enjoy semantics since your posts always seem to change things around to suit the point you chose to make. Re-read what I said. I said "likely." I did not say that any one "concluded" she wrote the note. Neither was Patsy excluded, not even by the defense team, and you seem to be saying they did exclude her as the author.

So, let's get the facts right. She can't be excluded. With one exception, if memory serves me, those who stated it as highly unlikely were hired by the defense team and that means anyone studying this case has to consider that bias. Nevertheless, those on the defense couldn't exclude her either.

If you want to decide the probability of guilt or innocence based only on the ransom note, have at it. Good investigators look at a body of evidence before coming to a theory. And please don't forget Patsy Ramsey told Steve Thomas she believed that whoever wrote the ransom note killed JonBenet. I think she is correct about that.

Most people who study what is available to the public can, and will, come to their own conclusions.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Those who stated it as highly unlikely were hired by the defense team and that means anyone studying this case has to consider that bias.

Uh, US Secret Service was hired by the defense team? I didn't know that. They stated it was highly unlikely. You stated those who stated it as highly unlikely were hired by the defense team. Do you just say stuff?

 

[BOESP]

Uh, US Secret Service was hired by the defense team? I didn't know that. They stated it was highly unlikely. You stated those who stated it as highly unlikely were hired by the defense team. Do you just say stuff?

Holdon, again, re-read. I said with "one exception if memory serves me."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon, again, re-read. I said with "one exception if memory serves me."

One exception, or one deception? Or did we just sortof forget that the secret service was the exception?

 

[BOESP]

Uh, US Secret Service was hired by the defense team? I didn't know that. They stated it was highly unlikely. You stated those who stated it as highly unlikely were hired by the defense team. Do you just say stuff?

You seem to be saying we should discard every conclusion except the one that fits your theory. Your theory seems to be that three Intruders did it. There are no provable facts to support your theory and there is a great body of evidence that suggests it was, in the words of John Ramsey, "an inside job."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You seem to be saying we should discard every conclusion except the one that fits your theory.

Very funny. There were NO conclusions that PR wrote the note by ANY ABFDE certified document examiners. How you can construe that every conclusion except the secret service conclusion favors PR as the author is totally beyond me. This POV has no basis in reality.

 

[BOESP]

Very funny. There were NO conclusions that PR wrote the note by ANY ABFDE certified document examiners. How you can construe that every conclusion except the secret service conclusion favors PR as the author is totally beyond me. This POV has no basis in reality.

Where did I say any QDE stated it was conclusive that Patsy wrote the note? Since I didn't say it, you're twisting what I said from it was "likely" or that she "could not be excluded." I can only assume that you conclude she didn't write the note, which in my opinion is a very naive conclusion.

I can understand why you are comfortable over at CrimeLibrary. You should talk to Shill over there. You all have a lot in common.

I think your conclusion about IDI is wrong. You think I'm wrong. So be it. I know what my skills are and I trust them. I don't know you from Adam's housecat.

 

[JMO8778]

Please don't get sucked into the tabloid 'ALIEN SPACE BABY FOUND ABANDONED ON THE MOON' mentality (not bad, huh?). Its those same pages that fill with RDI stuff, because rich family child sex abuse scandal sells, while IDI doesn't.

I DON'T read the tabloids,but you know what? Even if it could be possible to find an alien space baby on the moon,I'd say it's parents also live on the moon;it's the same smoking gun as in the R case...

 

[JMO8778]

As long as the RN author, known to in fact be one of the perps, states it was a kidnapping, and as long as you don't know who did it or why, then the elements of a kidnapping are there.

one of the perps,in this case one of the parents,stated it was a KN in order to throw LE off their tail.The who did it and why have already been explained;I'm sure you know this by now.the body is found within the home;there is no KN,there never was,the RN was never anything more than a ruse designed to throw LE for a loop,which it did for awhile,esp. with the assistance of those who told LE to 'treat the R's as victims,not as suspects'.

Crimelibrary.com is more moderate, factual, and less biased toward gossip.

sounds like the same thing JR said of J's site in DOI.(not much slips by me,it really doesn't).

 

[JMO8778]

Most people who study what is available to the public can, and will, come to their own conclusions.

that's exactly what irks the R's so much....

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

And please don't forget Patsy Ramsey told Steve Thomas she believed that whoever wrote the ransom note killed JonBenet. I think she is correct about that.

I'm not sure if this is coy, cute, or just being a smart a--, but its been repeated ad nauseum, and doesn't add to any discussion.

Most people who study what is available to the public can, and will, come to their own conclusions.

Nobody can come to any rational conclusion unless there is sufficient information. Your statement seems to assert that there is, and that the public is somehow in a position to make a valid conclusion based on what is publicly available. Thats an assumption, it assumes the information is there and that it is valid. Its a very long list of RDI so-called facts that are presented as facts that aren't really facts. Maybe thats your idea of what most people should study.

Why are you so concerned with what conclusions most people come to? Are you involved in politics or something?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The who did it and why have already been explained;I'm sure you know this by now.

I think if you replace 'explained' with 'presumed' you'd have a more accurate statement.

 

[JMO8778]

Your statement seems to assert that there is, and that the public is somehow in a position to make a valid conclusion based on what is publicly available.

there is sufficient information,and one look at that ridiculous so-called stupid 'ransom note',which isn't even a ransom note AT ALL,says it all.

Why are you so concerned with what conclusions most people come to? Are you involved in politics or something?

I believe it is you who are most concerned with what conclusions ppl come to,and the next line speaks for itself.

 

[DeeDee249]

Actually, since none of us has (presumably) BEEN on the moon, the space babies cannot be assumed to exist or not.

 

[UKGuy]

Actually, since none of us has (presumably) BEEN on the moon, the space babies cannot be assumed to exist or not.

DeeDee249,
Do you have a source for this. Buzz Aldrin said on make-it-up-tv that he saw small creatures living in the moon-craters?

 

[JMO8778]

Actually, since none of us has (presumably) BEEN on the moon, the space babies cannot be assumed to exist or not.

good point

 

[JMO8778]

I think if you replace 'explained' with 'presumed' you'd have a more accurate statement.

the evidence is there,I'm sure you know that.

and this is from crime library:

That said, some in the field are having no trouble being absolute.

Gideon Epstein, a forensic document examiner from Rockville, Md., wrote in2001 that he had "no doubt" it was JonBenet's mother, Patsy Ramsey, who wrote the note. Another examiner, Larry Ziegler of Sterling, Va.,agreed.

 

[BOESP]

I'm not sure if this is coy, cute, or just being a smart a--, but its been repeated ad nauseum, and doesn't add to any discussion.Nobody can come to any rational conclusion unless there is sufficient information. Your statement seems to assert that there is, and that the public is somehow in a position to make a valid conclusion based on what is publicly available. Thats an assumption, it assumes the information is there and that it is valid. Its a very long list of RDI so-called facts that are presented as facts that aren't really facts. Maybe thats your idea of what most people should study.

Why are you so concerned with what conclusions most people come to? Are you involved in politics or something?

Holdon, since you seemed puzzled I'll elaborate. I speculate that Patsy thought she was being coy and cute when she touched Steve Thomas's arm. There's no other realistic way to take that action, in my opinion. As to agreeing with Thomas on live national television about the killer being the person who wrote the ransom note, I think she was being a dumb instead of a smart .

Bye now. :dance:

 

[BOESP]

.... sounds like the same thing JR said of J's site in DOI.(not much slips by me,it really doesn't).

Interesting comment, JMO. Do you mean some people who post on boards may be someone there to act as a shill?