The actual vs. desired outcome

[Solace]

he must have brought it with Paty's fibers already on the cord and tape,how convenient.

Yeah it goes right along with the "How Patsy Ramsey was set up" theory.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what a good percentage of parents who have murdered their children do. They lead the way.

You pulled that 'good percentage' out of your hat, did you?

 

[Solace]

Holdontoyourhat,


I'll pass on that one thanks. I prefer debating with rational people. You can count me out ever replying to any of your posts in the future.

UK, please continue to post even if it is to Holdon. You are doing a great job of it. :crazy:

 

[Solace]

Beheading a child isn't brutal? On what planet is that?

Holdon,

Come on down to Earth. That ransom note is written by someone who is erratic to enth in the beginning of it (one can see the shaking hand). Towards the end, that writer is more relaxed. It sounds almost childlike at times (beheading). It is meant to be gruesome and it ends up being laughable - no kidnapper wrote this note - IT IS THREE PAGES. If you want to defend this case, do it with some actual evidence. Everything points to a medicated Patsy writing this note.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Maybe the ransom note was a clue. Ron Walker looked at it and said "this is the war and peace of ransom notes". You can see him on the Bill Kurtis documentary. You know the one where John lies and says the FBI was not there and then Bill goes straight to Ron Walker and he says I was there. That be the one.

Your argument seems to be based on the offhand remark made before any forensics were even done, by someone who left no impression on JR. Did RW ever even speak to JR?

 

[BOESP]

The perp left DNA mixed with blood in her underwear, according to reports I read. Also she had injuries noted by the coroner that were consistent with some kind of sexual assault. Sexual murder would be any murder where one of the motivations was lust. Sexual assault is proof the perp was motivated by lust.

Presuming the sexual assault wasn't staged. Thats a safe assumption,though. The whole RDI idea was born even before any forensics were even done, so the only way to account for the forensic results was to call everything staging, right down to 'disguised handwriting' and 'the furrow in her neck was caused by a staging prop. These are only RDI myths. :boohoo:

Thanks for the attempt at answering Holdon but there's not much reason to continue reading and responding to your comments.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon,

If you want to defend this case, do it with some actual evidence.

You know, don't you, that the results of forensics failed to indiate RDI. If they succeeded, they'd have been arrested and tried. You're aware of this, right?

 

[BOESP]

[/b]

Why not? Neither of them remembers anything.

Page 165, hardcover edition, of Steve Thomas's book, mentions some of the inconsistencies. Here's one interesting extract:

"On December 26 Patsy had told police that JonBenet went to sleep wearing the red turtleneck top, which was later found balled up on the bathroom sink. Now it was the white one in which the body was found."

 

[Solace]

Your argument seems to be based on the offhand remark made before any forensics were even done, by someone who left no impression on JR. Did RW ever even speak to JR?

You are assuming again Holdon. When are you going to stop doing this? We are talking about a seasoned investigator - he is FBI. More than likely he has more experience than you in murder cases. So why would you say it is "an offhand" remark?

 

[Solace]

You know, don't you, that the results of forensics failed to indiate RDI. If they succeeded, they'd have been arrested and tried. You're aware of this, right?

You do know that Alex Hunter believedd Patsy committed the crime, don't you? Do you know that Hoffman believed Patsy committed the crime? Hunter who never took a case to trial during his tenure, that be NEVER, did not want to take this one for fear he would lose, so he said. He did not even want to bring them in although he had enough evidence to do it. There could be a number of reasons for that, but then you would have to know some more about Hunter before I go into it. Do you?

 

[Solace]

You pulled that 'good percentage' out of your hat, did you?

Actually no I did not. I pulled it from John Douglas. YOu know the profiler that said the John Ramsey is innocent. Not sure if he said Patsy was, did he (directed to those who might know out there - for some reason I thought he was he was hired solely for John, not Patsy).

 

[BOESP]

Actually no I did not. I pulled it from John Douglas. YOu know the profiler that said the John Ramsey is innocent. Not sure if he said Patsy was, did he (directed to those who might know out there - for some reason I thought he was he was hired solely for John, not Patsy).

Here's a comment from http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer2_tip.html :


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Georgia, serif][SIZE=-0]John Douglas was a pioneer of modern criminal investigative analysis and became the leading expert on criminal personality profiling, authoring several best-sellers on the subject. After Douglas publicly stated that he believed the Ramseys were innocent, criticism was rampant when he conceded that all the information for his "private" investigation came from the Ramsey team. He later recanted, saying he believed only that John Ramsey was not guilty, but could not vouch for Patsy.[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Solace]

Here's a comment from http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer2_tip.html :


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Georgia, serif][SIZE=+0]John Douglas was a pioneer of modern criminal investigative analysis and became the leading expert on criminal personality profiling, authoring several best-sellers on the subject. After Douglas publicly stated that he believed the Ramseys were innocent, criticism was rampant when he conceded that all the information for his "private" investigation came from the Ramsey team. He later recanted, saying he believed only that John Ramsey was not guilty, but could not vouch for Patsy.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Dam you are good. Thank you BOESP. Now that is interesting isn't it.

What do you think Holdon. Does that interest you?

 

[Solace]

You know, don't you, that the results of forensics failed to indiate RDI. If they succeeded, they'd have been arrested and tried. You're aware of this, right?

I am aware that you are trying desparetly to believe this and pass this on as to why Patsy was not indicted for the reckless homocide of her child.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I am aware that you are trying desparetly to believe this and pass this on as to why Patsy was not indicted for the reckless homocide of her child.

Whether or not I believe forensic evidence failed to indicate RDI is irrelevant. We all know that forensic evidence failed to indicate RDI, and thats an undisputed fact.

 

[Solace]

Whether or not I believe forensic evidence failed to indicate RDI is irrelevant. We all know that forensic evidence failed to indicate RDI, and thats an undisputed fact.[/quote]

Who told you that or did you just make that up yourself. From what I can glean from most of "you" IDIs is that you have little or no knowledge of the facts of the case and when you are up against the wall, you have even less to back up your claims. We have proved ad nauseum that what you say is untrue. We have proved that it is true that Chet Uboski was prepared to testify that Patsy was the author; yet you still think because the post is "past" it no longer matters.

All the evidence in this case matters a great deal. I would like to ask you to deal with Alex Hunter and his past for a bit and tell me what you think of the man. Will you?

 

[JMO8778]

Maybe the ransom note was a clue. Ron Walker looked at it and said "this is the war and peace of ransom notes". You can see him on the Bill Kurtis documentary. You know the one where John lies and says the FBI was not there and then Bill goes straight to Ron Walker and he says I was there. That be the one.

He also said,after reading the RN "You're going to be finding her body".
There were enough clues in the note to be able to decipher that...probably more than enough !

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Who told you that or did you just make that up yourself. From what I can glean from most of "you" IDIs is that you have little or no knowledge of the facts of the case and when you are up against the wall, you have even less to back up your claims. We have proved ad nauseum that what you say is untrue. We have proved that it is true that Chet Uboski was prepared to testify that Patsy was the author; yet you still think because the post is "past" it no longer matters.

All the evidence in this case matters a great deal. I would like to ask you to deal with Alex Hunter and his past for a bit and tell me what you think of the man. Will you?

Actually, it is RDI who is 'up against the wall'. No charges were filed against the R's because forensics failed to indicate RDI. Those closest to the investigation are testing other people against the CODIS DNA.

If only the DNA matched an R, now then you'd have something. Until then, you got what you got, and it aint enough.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

He also said,after reading the RN "You're going to be finding her body".
There were enough clues in the note to be able to decipher that...probably more than enough !

These remarks were made before any forensics were even done. That makes them only preliminary findings or hunches at best, premature and misleading at worst.

 

[Solace]

Actually, it is RDI who is 'up against the wall'. No charges were filed against the R's because forensics failed to indicate RDI. Those closest to the investigation are testing other people against the CODIS DNA.

If only the DNA matched an R, now then you'd have something. Until then, you got what you got, and it aint enough.

There is no doubt that you do not understand the DNA evidence. And it has been explained to you over and over. Apparently you were not watching when Cyrill Wecht came on and explained it all to the uninformed newscaster who looked like, for lack of a better word, an idiot when he was finished. Her only reply was "okay, okay, I get it".

They can test until they raise Clarence Darrow from the dead and they will not get a match, not here in these United States and not in Taiwan either unless the packager is a felon or the like.

But you have been told this over and over again. So why do you keep clinging to what is a well known falacy? Give us some real evidence such as fibers or hairs from an intruder. Surely you must have that since there were three of them absucting JonBEnet. What did they leave Holdon. Must have left something.