Unknown male DNA and the panties discussion

[Smelly Squirrel]

treeseeker,
Yes I agree. Not unless gloves were worn. Many think the longjohns were clean on her after the size-12's were sourced as a replacement for her normal underwear.

I think it's possible, if IDI, that the killer took off his gloves during the sexual assault for lurid motivations.

And of course the DA has only told us if there was unidentified touch dna on the size-12's or longjohns. Not if there is any Ramsey touch dna present?

Yep, Patsy's DNA would not be unexpected. If they found John's DNA, he'd have a lot of explaining to do, and if he couldn't, I would hope would be arrested.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

If the intruder is that panicked why not leave her where she lies and get the hell out: clothes off, body exposed, not hidden in a locked room?

He wouldn't have heard any other commotion in the house so no need to leave then.

The intruder has to know to find the blanket,

If it's in her room, that's not so hard.

the room,

He could know it if he's been to the house before (seems an IDI killer does know of John at least), or if he entered before the Ramseys arrived and looked around, or if he entered though the basement and checked out that level before going upstairs, or if he was going to the basement anyway on his way out, he could easily find it then. It's not exactly a hidden room. The door is clearly right there out in the open if you're in that hallway.

and then to secure that latch at the top of the door to lock her in

He would have had to unlatch it to open the door. It's not a miracle for him to close it upon leaving.

the room before panicking and running out.

Doesn't appear he would have panicked much.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The ransom note gave them the opportunity to create a fiction to confuse LE, giving the Ramseys the excuse to get out of Dodge fast because of the threat to the family, thus avoiding intense interrogation immediately, which should have happened but for reasons unknown did not. Also, it allowed the Ramseys to give JB a "proper burial," which was on their minds obviously, if you read the note.

KoldKase, I don't see how the ransom note makes any of that more likely.
All they would need to do would be to break in a door or window to show an intruder, and that is necessary with or without a ransom note.

The size 12-14 Bloomies would not have stayed on the child if she had ever stood up in them. (See my avatar.) They were never washed, having come from a previously unused, new package, according to Patsy herself.

All the DNA found on the Bloomies and longjohns could have come from someone in the lab or even at autopsy. Think about the designated spots where it was found: the crotch of the panties and the waistband of the bottoms: if you were taking those off to examine the body, you would touch those spots. Dr. Meyer also touched the crotch of the Bloomies to the body, handling the panties to determine if the panty blood spots lined up with the blood found on the body. It did not, he noted.

In a lab, handling the clothing, one would carefully have to examine the blood spots, handle the longjohns, even fold them when finished. Have you folded a pair of pants? You start with the waistband.

Then there is Ollie Gray's theory: he stated on TV that maybe the DNA came from the paintbrush inserted into the child. The paintbrush was heavily used and Patsy had been to art classes, which is why she had the tote for her paints. I can think of a dozen ways the paintbrush might have gotten unsourced DNA on it.

It has become scientific fact in the last 20 years that DNA is so tiny and plentiful, it's all over the place. We're share it every day. If we can spread the flu from door handles, phones, food, and sneezes, we can spread DNA even more easily.

You can claim contamination for any piece of evidence in the case. I see no reason to handwave this particular evidence away a priori. I expect that contamination is always suspected in situations of unknown DNA and that lab techs are checked out. (This happened in the Caylee Anthony case and the unknown DNA was traced to a tech.)

I also doubt the same secondary transfer or contamination occurred at 3 different sites. It's possible but unlikely. All evidence analysis comes down to figuring probabilities.

Finally, it is the totality of the evidence which is important. With only DNA to incriminate some unidentified donor, it's not enough to convict even if that person was identified. It would take so much more, especially since Patsy Ramsey has never been eliminated as the writer of the note.

Of course it's not enough to convict anyone by itself. There isn't even anyone yet to point a finger at over the DNA. Any usability for prosecution would depend on who it was matched to (it would have to be someone who was in town that night, first off). What this evidence does, though, is give legitimate reason to doubt Ramsey guilt or prosecution. Even before this find, they didn't believe they had the evidence to convict. The DNA would be less important if there was an otherwise strong case against the Ramseys.

 

[KoldKase]

The case against the Ramseys is not only strong, it's undeniable that they are guilty if you follow the evidence LE does have.

You want to talk probabitlities? What is the probability that the child had chronic vaginal injuries which occurred in the days or weeks before she was sexually assaulted on the night she was murdered in her home, yet those were not from sexual abuse?

And if they were from sexual abuse, what is the probability that the perpetrator who sexually abused her before the night she was murdered was not someone the Ramseys actually knew?

And what are the probabilities, considering that evidence, that an intruder just happened to come in to kidnap, sexually assault, and murder a child who was already being sexually assaulted within her own inner circle, and those crimes against her are not related in any way?

Here's a statistic for you: one out of twelve murdered children are killed by someone unknown to the victim. The younger the child's age, the higher those odds go that it was a perpetrator known to the victim. Another: the highest percentage of molesters of children are older siblings.

Now consider that Patsy Ramsey cannot be eliminated as the ransom note writer--and for good reason, because she clearly wrote the note. But to satisfy your need to minimize the actual mountain of evidence against the Ramseys: what is the probability that the same intruder--who chose this child to victimize for some reason still unknown after 15 years, attempted to kidnap her, then changed his mind in mid-execution and carried her instead to the basement past numerous exterior doors, sexually assaulted her with a paintbrush, murdered her, all in her own home while her family slept upstairs and heard not one peep, all with items that can either be sourced to the home or are likely to have been in the home--coincidentally happened to write like Patsy, to use language like Patsy, to know the Ramsey's personal habits, inside jokes, and finances, all present in a 2.5 page note written while in the home? And all this he managed to do in the home, then slip out without leaving more than such a minimal number of complete and degraded DNA strands it took LE 11 years to even find them?

Okay, that last paragraph was too complicated, I see. So how about just telling us what are the odds this genius of an intruder/child killer would also have handwriting so like Patsy Ramsey?

Now what are the odds that this lucky child killer chose a family who would not cooperate with LE, one so arrogant as to completely obstruct the investigation by hiring the most powerful lawyers in Colorado to defend them, not just as a family, but individually, within hours of the body being "found" by John Ramsey? Separate lawyers for every member of their family, even some clearly in Atlanta at the time of the murder?

What are the odds that in the midst of all this, this very family would have the sheer luck to be in the county of a D.A. who would thwart the LE investigation to the point of obstructing the BPD in getting the most basic of evidence subpoenas, even going so far as to hire FOUR detectives for his own office to HUNT UP AN INTRUDER? Which had the effect of giving the defense its own investigators paid for by the citizens of Colorado, since all these four detectives found would then be handed over to the defense during discovery, if it ever came to trial. And those four detectives--Lou Smit, Ollie Gray, John San Agustin, and Steve Hainsworth--all ended up working for Team Ramsey, paid and/or de facto. What are those odds?

And finally, what are the odds that the intruder would be so lucky as to choose the child of a woman who would lie to LE repeatedly during her interrogations, the same woman whose handwriting his matched so well as he wrote on her pad, with her pen, in her home?

What are the odds and probabilities of this, my friend?

And so much more....

 

[Roy23]

The ransom note gave them the opportunity to create a fiction to confuse LE, giving the Ramseys the excuse to get out of Dodge fast because of the threat to the family, thus avoiding intense interrogation immediately, which should have happened but for reasons unknown did not. Also, it allowed the Ramseys to give JB a "proper burial," which was on their minds obviously, if you read the note.

The size 12-14 Bloomies would not have stayed on the child if she had ever stood up in them. (See my avatar.) They were never washed, having come from a previously unused, new package, according to Patsy herself.

All the DNA found on the Bloomies and longjohns could have come from someone in the lab or even at autopsy. Think about the designated spots where it was found: the crotch of the panties and the waistband of the bottoms: if you were taking those off to examine the body, you would touch those spots. Dr. Meyer also touched the crotch of the Bloomies to the body, handling the panties to determine if the panty blood spots lined up with the blood found on the body. It did not, he noted.

In a lab, handling the clothing, one would carefully have to examine the blood spots, handle the longjohns, even fold them when finished. Have you folded a pair of pants? You start with the waistband.

Then there is Ollie Gray's theory: he stated on TV that maybe the DNA came from the paintbrush inserted into the child. The paintbrush was heavily used and Patsy had been to art classes, which is why she had the tote for her paints. I can think of a dozen ways the paintbrush might have gotten unsourced DNA on it.

It has become scientific fact in the last 20 years that DNA is so tiny and plentiful, it's all over the place. We're share it every day. If we can spread the flu from door handles, phones, food, and sneezes, we can spread DNA even more easily.

Finally, it is the totality of the evidence which is important. With only DNA to incriminate some unidentified donor, it's not enough to convict even if that person was identified. It would take so much more, especially since Patsy Ramsey has never been eliminated as the writer of the note.

Disagree. There is no way anyone should theorize that LE should not have found that body within the first 30 minutes of being in that home. Under any circumstance, including a ransom note.

 

[KoldKase]

Disagree. There is no way anyone should theorize that LE should not have found that body within the first 30 minutes of being in that home. Under any circumstance, including a ransom note.

I thought I already agreed with that completely.

If you're saying that you deduce the Ramseys would have expected LE to find the body--again, I agree. I think that's exactly what they expected. I must have written about this on another thread recently, because you seem to think I disagree. Sorry if I was unclear.

If you study the psychology of the writer of the note, you can see what the goals were. You can also see into the thoughts of the writer.

For example, Greg McCrary, a former FBI profiler, has said that the writer of a fake ransom note reveals what his/her actual fears are in reality. If the ransom note is a fake--and even the Ramseys conceded that early on--then what is the reality of the writer's world that kidnapping by a foreign faction would come to mind as a viable red herring?

For example, when I think of any abduction of children in my family, like most Americans who watch too much news, I fear a stranger abduction, a pervert randomly trolling for victims.

But in the Ramsey ransom note, the fear that came to the writer's mind was related to John's international business--Lockheed Martin. Clearly the writer of the note was familiar with the threat of kidnapping of executives of international companies, which has been so common for decades now, to the point of there being kidnapping insurance available for executives with lots of overseas travel. It's the reason for the Mercedes E Class vehicle, with bullet-proof windows, and bodyguards, etc.

So in addition to the level of education of the writer, the handwriting, the linguistic style, etc., being entirely consistent with Patsy Ramsey, the writer in fact understood details of the rarefied business world in which the Ramseys lived.

The writer, writing to create a red herring, was no stranger to the Ramsey's lifestyle.

Then there is another fear that crops up in the ransom note: a proper burial for JonBenet. What kidnapper/child killer is worried if the child gets a proper burial? What cold-blooded human being who could abuse JonBenet so completely, yet be so sensitive to the RAMSEY'S OWN NEED TO SEE THE CHILD BURIED PROPERLY? It was the Ramseys who spoke to their need to give JonBenet a "proper burial"--verbatim, on TV.

People often ask why they didn't just take her body out of the home, dump her somewhere? John Douglas wrote long ago, before he became Team Ramsey and dismissed everything he'd said/written about the topic, when a victim is killed by someone who has emotional attachment to him/her personally the body will be "cared for." JonBenet's body was wiped, redressed, wrapped in a blanket, concealed in the cellar "tomb" until she could be found and PROPERLY BURIED. No animals gnawing on her; but a loving memorial service--dressed in her pageant finery, flowers, grave and headstone.

That was important to the Ramseys; the ransom note writer knew that, even mentioned it. It was on her mind, wasn't it?

As has been pointed out many times by those who are professionals in legal and scientific circles, the Ramsey's pursuit of the donor of the DNA has painted them into a corner: how many people known to them have been tested and eliminated by the DNA? So how could someone completely off the radar write this very personal ransom note, addressing the personal lives and fears of the Ramseys? Not mine, not yours. THEIRS.

What are the probabilities of the ransom note writer being an intruder whom the Ramseys did not know; yet whose handwriting, linguistics, and knowledge of the Ramsey's fears and cultural needs were spot on with Patsy Ramsey's; and who wrote on her pad, with her pen, in her home?

Your probabilities are vastly in favor of the Ramseys being the perpetrators of these crimes, IMO.

 

[Roy23]

I thought I already agreed with that completely.

If you're saying that you deduce the Ramseys would have expected LE to find the body--again, I agree. I think that's exactly what they expected. I must have written about this on another thread recently, because you seem to think I disagree. Sorry if I was unclear.

If you study the psychology of the writer of the note, you can see what the goals were. You can also see into the thoughts of the writer.

For example, Greg McCrary, a former FBI profiler, has said that the writer of a fake ransom note reveals what his/her actual fears are in reality. If the ransom note is a fake--and even the Ramseys conceded that early on--then what is the reality of the writer's world that kidnapping by a foreign faction would come to mind as a viable red herring?

For example, when I think of any abduction of children in my family, like most Americans who watch too much news, I fear a stranger abduction, a pervert randomly trolling for victims.

But in the Ramsey ransom note, the fear that came to the writer's mind was related to John's international business--Lockheed Martin. Clearly the writer of the note was familiar with the threat of kidnapping of executives of international companies, which has been so common for decades now, to the point of there being kidnapping insurance available for executives with lots of overseas travel. It's the reason for the Mercedes E Class vehicle, with bullet-proof windows, and bodyguards, etc.

So in addition to the level of education of the writer, the handwriting, the linguistic style, etc., being entirely consistent with Patsy Ramsey, the writer in fact understood details of the rarefied business world in which the Ramseys lived.

The writer, writing to create a red herring, was no stranger to the Ramsey's lifestyle.

Then there is another fear that crops up in the ransom note: a proper burial for JonBenet. What kidnapper/child killer is worried if the child gets a proper burial? What cold-blooded human being who could abuse JonBenet so completely, yet be so sensitive to the RAMSEY'S OWN NEED TO SEE THE CHILD BURIED PROPERLY? It was the Ramseys who spoke to their need to give JonBenet a "proper burial"--verbatim, on TV.

People often ask why they didn't just take her body out of the home, dump her somewhere? John Douglas wrote long ago, before he became Team Ramsey and dismissed everything he'd said/written about the topic, when a victim is killed by someone who has emotional attachment to him/her personally the body will be "cared for." JonBenet's body was wiped, redressed, wrapped in a blanket, concealed in the cellar "tomb" until she could be found and PROPERLY BURIED. No animals gnawing on her; but a loving memorial service--dressed in her pageant finery, flowers, grave and headstone.

That was important to the Ramseys; the ransom note writer knew that, even mentioned it. It was on her mind, wasn't it?

As has been pointed out many times by those who are professionals in legal and scientific circles, the Ramsey's pursuit of the donor of the DNA has painted them into a corner: how many people known to them have been tested and eliminated by the DNA? So how could someone completely off the radar write this very personal ransom note, addressing the personal lives and fears of the Ramseys? Not mine, not yours. THEIRS.

What are the probabilities of the ransom note writer being an intruder whom the Ramseys did not know; yet whose handwriting, linguistics, and knowledge of the Ramsey's fears and cultural needs were spot on with Patsy Ramsey's; and who wrote on her pad, with her pen, in her home?

Your probabilities are vastly in favor of the Ramseys being the perpetrators of these crimes, IMO.

Okay. I think you just wrote a wonderful response. And for the RDI theory it is an excellent take under the assumtion RDI is a fact. If that sounds condescending trust me it is not.

I do think you are overreacting to some that is in the ransom note. If RDI is true, you are exactly right. But I think you are wrong. You are assuming about the executive kidnappings and we are assuming that the letter writer knows of John's business. I am not really certain of that. The 118k could mean something or not.

I do like your message about the "proper burial". It is really good. But the comment really may mean nothing. Most of it was based off Clint Eastwood movies. Many criminals know just how not knowing where their dead kids bones are torment families. As IDI, I could also suggest "proper burial" was used because the killer knew he was gonna kill or had killed JBR. And the ransom note was to torment the Ramsey's. I just believe their was gonna be intent to get JBR out of the house.

And I see no logic that the Ramsey's would write a note based upon executive kidnappings all the while their dead kid was in their house. These were good people for the most part. And we have to create imaginary demons because their past shows no signs of this behavior. I know it happens all the time but we can't make the evidence fit and LE did a horrible job. It is not fair to put square pegs in round holes.

 

[Whaleshark]

I could be reading wrong, but there is a responsibility to not mislead by either misrepresenting the evidence by making it say more than it does, or by portraying it as though only an RDI interpretation is possible.

How was I misleading, misrepresenting the evidence by making it say more than it does, and protraying it as though only an RDI interpretation is possible?

I wholeheartedly disagree....

Smelly Squirrel, I finally joined this forum this year after only lurking for years and not being either RDI or IDI. I go away and come back every few months with fresh eyes to be open-minded and see what has developed or see how I feel about things and view the information discussed. I have read and watched and researched all the material for many years before finally deciding to join and speak on this forum after reading testimony from JR that stood out to me as completely absurd and is what convinced me to come off the fence and lean more toward RDI.

However, I was also willing to consider AKWILKS idea of Brian Mitchell being a suspect, and have also recently changed my viewpoint to feeling that JR rather than PR is the author of the RN. I looked at many people for many years and have come full circle on suspects, till I finally made a decision this year....

I would like to think that if anyone is flexible and open-minded about this case, I think it's me....

...but whatevs.

 

[Roy23]

How was I misleading, misrepresenting the evidence by making it say more than it does, and protraying it as though only an RDI interpretation is possible?

I wholeheartedly disagree....

Smelly Squirrel, I finally joined this forum this year after only lurking for years and not being either RDI or IDI. I go away and come back every few months with fresh eyes to be open-minded and see what has developed or see how I feel about things and view the information discussed. I have read and watched and researched all the material for many years before finally deciding to join and speak on this forum after reading testimony from JR that stood out to me as completely absurd and is what convinced me to come off the fence and lean more toward RDI.

However, I was also willing to consider AKWILKS idea of Brian Mitchell being a suspect, and have also recently changed my viewpoint to feeling that JR rather than PR is the author of the RN. I looked at many people for many years and have come full circle on suspects, till I finally made a decision this year....

I would like to think that if anyone is flexible and open-minded about this case, I think it's me....

...but whatevs.

I gotta say it. At least you know PR could not have done this. I dont' think JR wrote the note but PR did not and could not do this. I believe the body was staged. But many killers like to stage their prey. Kold kase has some interesting theories on why JBR was in the house to keep her away from bugs. But this was a brutal killing. Overkill. IDI all the way baby.

The wrapping up of the body, wiping, was ceremonial.

 

[KoldKase]

Okay. I think you just wrote a wonderful response. And for the RDI theory it is an excellent take under the assumtion RDI is a fact. If that sounds condescending trust me it is not.

I do think you are overreacting to some that is in the ransom note. If RDI is true, you are exactly right. But I think you are wrong. You are assuming about the executive kidnappings and we are assuming that the letter writer knows of John's business. I am not really certain of that. The 118k could mean something or not.

I do like your message about the "proper burial". It is really good. But the comment really may mean nothing. Most of it was based off Clint Eastwood movies. Many criminals know just how not knowing where their dead kids bones are torment families. As IDI, I could also suggest "proper burial" was used because the killer knew he was gonna kill or had killed JBR. And the ransom note was to torment the Ramsey's. I just believe their was gonna be intent to get JBR out of the house.

And I see no logic that the Ramsey's would write a note based upon executive kidnappings all the while their dead kid was in their house. These were good people for the most part. And we have to create imaginary demons because their past shows no signs of this behavior. I know it happens all the time but we can't make the evidence fit and LE did a horrible job. It is not fair to put square pegs in round holes.

I don't have to create any imaginary demon; their horribly abused and murdered child was in the basement of their home. I'm not imagining that.

If the evidence leads to some bizarre sequence of events based in the FACT that someone from the family was molesting the child, so be it. The autopsy is clear, and I'm not imagining that.

I don't think it's a coincidence, either, that Patsy dressed JonBenet up in pageant costumes inappropriate for her age, with pageant training also inappropriate for her age. Thousands of mothers may do it, and their intentions might be entirely without fault, but in spite of the ever-broadening acceptance of dressing and presenting children in provocative clothing--see the current news on fashion and advertising with children--I believe it's dangerous. So do the Ramseys, if their own interviews have any truth in them.

Well, we can ride on this merry-go-round till we drop, can't we?

In the end, all we think we know is not going to tell us who struck that head blow, who molested the child before Dec. 25th, who tied on the cord, and who inserted that paintbrush in the basement.

If there is evidence to prove any of that--for instance, DNA on the garrote cord or paintbrush parts left behind--we haven't heard about it and are not likely to do so. Nobody in Boulder LE wants this case so much as mentioned ever again, I'd guess. The Ramseys certainly don't.

 

[KoldKase]

How was I misleading, misrepresenting the evidence by making it say more than it does, and protraying it as though only an RDI interpretation is possible?

I wholeheartedly disagree....

Smelly Squirrel, I finally joined this forum this year after only lurking for years and not being either RDI or IDI. I go away and come back every few months with fresh eyes to be open-minded and see what has developed or see how I feel about things and view the information discussed. I have read and watched and researched all the material for many years before finally deciding to join and speak on this forum after reading testimony from JR that stood out to me as completely absurd and is what convinced me to come off the fence and lean more toward RDI.

However, I was also willing to consider AKWILKS idea of Brian Mitchell being a suspect, and have also recently changed my viewpoint to feeling that JR rather than PR is the author of the RN. I looked at many people for many years and have come full circle on suspects, till I finally made a decision this year....

I would like to think that if anyone is flexible and open-minded about this case, I think it's me....

...but whatevs.

Have no doubt that most of us who have been around these forums and studying this case for 15 years have changed our theories many, many times as we've learned more about the evidence.

I change mine about once a year now.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The case against the Ramseys is not only strong, it's undeniable that they are guilty if you follow the evidence LE does have.

KK, why do you give these pronouncements about clearly controversial points as though your opinion is fact? It is easily deniable they are guilty simply by listening to last Sunday's radio show. Among the RDI supporters there was Donna there saying there was not enough evidence to indict nor convict and citing Henry Lee as agreeing as well.

Another obvious problem is that even among RDI supporters there is no agreement about which Ramsey did what, who killed Jonbenet, who staged her, etc. Dr. Wecht said JR molested her and killed her by autoerotic asphyxiation. Some believe PR because of bedwetting rage or anger at JR after catching him. Steve Thomas believes it was all PR and JR was not involved. How are you going to convict when you can't agree who killed her?

You want to talk probabitlities? What is the probability that the child had chronic vaginal injuries which occurred in the days or weeks before she was sexually assaulted on the night she was murdered in her home, yet those were not from sexual abuse?

Maybe they were from chronic abuse, maybe they weren't. If they were, there's no telling who did it. How are you going to prove the culprit there too?

And if they were from sexual abuse, what is the probability that the perpetrator who sexually abused her before the night she was murdered was not someone the Ramseys actually knew?

They may have known her even if not RDI. IDI doesn't say the killer can't have known them.

And what are the probabilities, considering that evidence, that an intruder just happened to come in to kidnap, sexually assault, and murder a child who was already being sexually assaulted within her own inner circle, and those crimes against her are not related in any way?

They could be, but it doesn't prove RDI.

Here's a statistic for you: one out of twelve murdered children are killed by someone unknown to the victim. The younger the child's age, the higher those odds go that it was a perpetrator known to the victim. Another: the highest percentage of molesters of children are older siblings.

So I guess no stranger suspect should ever be convicted based on that stat? That's hardly useful evidence in identifying a killer in a specific case. It tells you for a large sample, most should not be stranger killers, not what happened in a single case. If no stranger killings ever happened, that might be helpful, but that's not the case.

And, again, IDI doesn't say the killer didn't know them.

Now consider that Patsy Ramsey cannot be eliminated as the ransom note writer--and for good reason, because she clearly wrote the note.

Another opinion posing as fact.

But to satisfy your need to minimize the actual mountain of evidence against the Ramseys:

My need? Hardly. I don't have a bias about who must the killer be (though I am beginning suspect some do have such a bias). If the evidence clearly showed a Ramsey did it, then I'd have no feeling one way or other about it, other than I'm glad it's solved. My goal is for the justice system to find the killer, whoever it is, not to name someone just to be naming someone.

The Ramseys may have done it, but if so, they have gotten away with it so far because of the evidence. People get away with murder all the time because of lack of evidence. That's life.

what is the probability that the same intruder--who chose this child to victimize for some reason still unknown after 15 years, attempted to kidnap her, then changed his mind in mid-execution and carried her instead to the basement past numerous exterior doors, sexually assaulted her with a paintbrush, murdered her, all in her own home while her family slept upstairs and heard not one peep, all with items that can either be sourced to the home or are likely to have been in the home--coincidentally happened to write like Patsy, to use language like Patsy, to know the Ramsey's personal habits, inside jokes, and finances, all present in a 2.5 page note written while in the home? And all this he managed to do in the home, then slip out without leaving more than such a minimal number of complete and degraded DNA strands it took LE 11 years to even find them?

I don't know why you don't see that the same could be said for RDI about the unlikeliness of specific steps along the way (notwithstanding your characterizations are biased and unfounded here).

Okay, that last paragraph was too complicated, I see. So how about just telling us what are the odds this genius of an intruder/child killer would also have handwriting so like Patsy Ramsey?

Unproven.

Now what are the odds that this lucky child killer chose a family who would not cooperate with LE, one so arrogant as to completely obstruct the investigation by hiring the most powerful lawyers in Colorado to defend them, not just as a family, but individually, within hours of the body being "found" by John Ramsey? Separate lawyers for every member of their family, even some clearly in Atlanta at the time of the murder?

Getting a lawyer is no indication of guilt. Given the BPD was looking hard at the Ramseys from the start, as the RDI supporters often like to point out, then it was only "common sense" that they get attorneys.

What are the odds that in the midst of all this, this very family would have the sheer luck to be in the county of a D.A. who would thwart the LE investigation to the point of obstructing the BPD in getting the most basic of evidence subpoenas, even going so far as to hire FOUR detectives for his own office to HUNT UP AN INTRUDER? Which had the effect of giving the defense its own investigators paid for by the citizens of Colorado, since all these four detectives found would then be handed over to the defense during discovery, if it ever came to trial. And those four detectives--Lou Smit, Ollie Gray, John San Agustin, and Steve Hainsworth--all ended up working for Team Ramsey, paid and/or de facto. What are those odds?

Sorry, I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat so I don't see the merit in this grand conspiracy theory that would require all these people to be willingly covering up one of the most desired to be solved cases ever, where it would be a major legacy coup for any of them to have been a part of having helped solved, that all these LE professionals would throw JBR and their integrity under the bus because of the supermagical pupppetmaster powers of the Ramseys. No sale.

And finally, what are the odds that the intruder would be so lucky as to choose the child of a woman who would lie to LE repeatedly during her interrogations, the same woman whose handwriting his matched so well as he wrote on her pad, with her pen, in her home?

"Repeatedly lying" is also an unfounded presumption and biased characterization.

What are the odds and probabilities of this, my friend?

And so much more....

Odds are only useful when they're calculated against sound facts, not biased characterizations.

Sorry if this is disagreeable but you shouldn't expect others to just accept what are clearly only your opinions as though they're gospel.

 

[KoldKase]

KK, why do you give these pronouncements about clearly controversial points as though your opinion is fact? It is easily deniable they are guilty simply by listening to last Sunday's radio show. Among the RDI supporters there was Donna there saying there was not enough evidence to indict nor convict and citing Henry Lee as agreeing as well.

Another obvious problem is that even among RDI supporters there is no agreement about which Ramsey did what, who killed Jonbenet, who staged her, etc. Dr. Wecht said JR molested her and killed her by autoerotic asphyxiation. Some believe PR because of bedwetting rage or anger at JR after catching him. Steve Thomas believes it was all PR and JR was not involved. How are you going to convict when you can't agree who killed her?

One thing that is clear from the BODY OF EVIDENCE is that it was not an intruder, but someone within the home, someone who had access to JonBenet that night, someone Patsy Ramsey would write a faux ransom note to cover for. You think that's a stranger/intruder? Fine, your opinion, just like I have mine.

The evidence pointed to the Ramseys: Patsy's clothing fibers tied into the garrote knots; Patsy's paintbrush; Patsy's pad, pen, handwriting, etc. John's shirt fibers were found in the genital area where the child was wiped down, as well. John and Pasty lied repeatedly to LE through their interviews; they withheld evidence they knew was extremely important in the investigation--the alleged package of Bloomies; they obstructed the investigation through hiring lawyers they hid behind from Day One. Their child was found in their basement, with all the evidence which has ever been linked to anyone belonging to the Ramseys, with the exception of minute particles of DNA which even Mary Lacy once stated could be artifact.

If you don't think that's evidence against the Ramseys, then that's your opinion. Sure RDI have differing opinions. None of us has ever seen the full case files, including Dr. Wecht and Dawna. None of any of the evidence in this case has been tested in a court at trial, so we're all crippled by not hearing any expert testimony about any of it under oath. IDI have differing opinions as well. What I have is my opinion, and I don't "expect" anyone to believe it, buy it, or care a flip about it. I'm not the judge and I'm not the jury. I'm just discussing my own observations. I thought that's what we do on forums.

Maybe they [chronic vaginal injuries] were from chronic abuse, maybe they weren't. If they were, there's no telling who did it. How are you going to prove the culprit there too?

They [molester] may have known her even if not RDI. IDI doesn't say the killer can't have known them.

They [chronic vaginal injuries/missing hymen] could be [related to murder], but it doesn't prove RDI.

[I inserted some things to clarify the issues you were addressing.]

You brought up probabilities, so I was asking you to consider probabilities in face of the factual evidence. You seem to be applying 50/50 chance to individual pieces of evidence. But to correctly calculate the probabilities you'd have to include each element built upon other elements. That's typically called "the body of evidence" in a case, which is supposed to be considered by a jury to determine if the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been met.

You also seem to believe JonBenet could have been molested by someone and Patsy Ramsey didn't much care about it, if you think she would ignore that someone they did or didn't know was molesting her child before JB's autopsy proved it.

Here's a simple, unambiguous question that you might consider: why would Patsy Ramsey refuse to help LE find the molester and killer of her child? That's exactly what she did when she allowed her lawyers--who worked for HER--to stand between her answering questions ONLY SHE could answer for LE in the investigation into who murdered her child.

If someone were sexually assaulting JonBenet before that night--and the actual autopsy evidence is damning that someone was--then Patsy was the most likely person to help LE find out who that was. Maybe the only person.

Considering the injuries inflicted on JonBenet the night she was killed, finding the person who was molesting her before that night could be THE KEY to finding out who in fact abused and murdered her. Even if it were an intruder, that would be the one thing that should lead LE right to the killer; whether the person who committed the prior sexual assault was the killer or not, it's certainly critical to identify that person, because that could have been the catalyst to the series of events on Dec. 25th. It's important. How can LE ignore it? How can Team Ramsey ignore it?

But of course, IDI have to deny, deny, deny those facts of evidence. Why? Why can't you simply accept that this is factual evidence and that it is very relevant that a six year old murder victim was being molested in the days/wks./mo's. before her death?

Because you also don't believe Patsy Ramsey would cover up for someone she wasn't invested in who molested and murdered her child. That's why you refuse to admit the facts of the ransom note lead to Patsy, or that the Ramsey's refusal to cooperate with LE not only crippled the investigation from the start but is evidence the Ramseys meant to do exactly that. You refuse to admit the prior molestation happened, as well; because if you admit the facts of evidence of prior sexual abuse, then you have a huge set of elements incriminating the Ramseys to explain which begin with that "no history" IDI so love. Prior sexual assault is HISTORY.

And that sexual abuser would certainly have to be someone who knew the child, unless you think Patsy was in the habit of handing her 5/6 year old over to strangers for periods of time adequate to groom and molest JonBenet.

Now why wouldn't Patsy and John be racking their brains to figure out who did this before that night, instead of denying it and arguing about the evidence when faced with it by LE? There is a limited number of people who could have done that, after all, and the Ramseys would know all of them.

Now answer me this: why did the Ramseys OWN INVESTIGATORS ignore that evidence, not even discuss it with the Ramseys, if they were actually looking for that old intruder, as they told us countless times? More Ramsey lies to make themselves appear not guilty to the public; we only found out the truth of that when under oath in the Wolf deposition JR said their lawyers were only building a defense, not looking for the killer. May not be evidence admitted in court, but it is yet another example that the Ramseys were very comfortable lying to anyone and everyone about the investigation into the murder of their child. You may not think being a pair of studied liars is incriminating when the stake is a child killer has never been identified whom they allege targeted their family, but it seems a no brainer to me.

The Ramseys have never sought an answer to the question, who was molesting their child before that night? Patsy quickly skipped over that evidence in 1998 when asked about it by Det. Haney. What innocent parent of a child murdered by an intruder would do that?

So I guess no stranger suspect should ever be convicted based on that stat? That's hardly useful evidence in identifying a killer in a specific case. It tells you for a large sample, most should not be stranger killers, not what happened in a single case. If no stranger killings ever happened, that might be helpful, but that's not the case.

And, again, IDI doesn't say the killer didn't know them.

I never said stats were evidence. I was responding to you because you brought up probabilities. You conveniently are taking what I wrote out of context.

Another opinion posing as fact.

Now you're misstating the evidence; you should read more on the ransom note, the expert opinions, including the Ramseys' own experts.

My need? Hardly. I don't have a bias about who must the killer be (though I am beginning suspect some do have such a bias). If the evidence clearly showed a Ramsey did it, then I'd have no feeling one way or other about it, other than I'm glad it's solved. My goal is for the justice system to find the killer, whoever it is, not to name someone just to be naming someone.

Now you're insulting me. Attacking me, because you can't win on the evidence. That's the hallmark of a weak argument; I think I've clearly backed up with evidence my theory that the Ramseys are guilty of this murder. By dismissing me as just picking a name out of a hat, you ignore my fact-based points and prove you know you have lost the debate.

The Ramseys may have done it, but if so, they have gotten away with it so far because of the evidence. People get away with murder all the time because of lack of evidence. That's life.

I don't know why you don't see that the same could be said for RDI about the unlikeliness of specific steps along the way (notwithstanding your characterizations are biased and unfounded here).

Unproven.

Getting a lawyer is no indication of guilt. Given the BPD was looking hard at the Ramseys from the start, as the RDI supporters often like to point out, then it was only "common sense" that they get attorneys.

Sorry, I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat so I don't see the merit in this grand conspiracy theory that would require all these people to be willingly covering up one of the most desired to be solved cases ever, where it would be a major legacy coup for any of them to have been a part of having helped solved, that all these LE professionals would throw JBR and their integrity under the bus because of the supermagical pupppetmaster powers of the Ramseys. No sale.

"Repeatedly lying" is also an unfounded presumption and biased characterization.

Odds are only useful when they're calculated against sound facts, not biased characterizations.

Sorry if this is disagreeable but you shouldn't expect others to just accept what are clearly only your opinions as though they're gospel.

Again, I don't expect anything. You take my opinions very personally. If you are somehow invested in the Ramseys personally, then I understand. They inspire loyalty among their family, friends, and fans.

But that doesn't erase the evidence, which I'm looking at to guide my own OPINIONS. Call it a conspiracy if you like; the facts are that the detectives Hunter hired ended up working for Team Ramsey. That's indisputable. The fact is that Hunter refused to get subpoenas for the phone records and the Ramsey's clothes. Ever. The fact is that Hunter decided not to indict the Ramseys and ended up on TV quoting the Ramsey's own disinformation about the "scale" upon which Patsy Ramsey was compared to the ransom note writer--a scale that in fact does not even exist other than in the propaganda of Team Ramsey. The fact is that Mary Lacy, without any legal ability or professional responsibility, spent her 8 years in office working to exonerate the Ramseys, effectively putting the last nail in the coffin of any prosecution, ever, of anyone, when her job was to act on behalf of the State.

Instead, Lacy finally destroyed any possibility of prosecution for all time. With the very public arrest of John PERV Karr, with Lacy's public statements and letters "exonerating" the Ramseys, it's over for any successful conviction in a court of law. It's that simple. There isn't a half-brained lawyer in the country who couldn't build reasonable doubt with the (Patsy's) ransom note and the arrest of Karr for anyone ever tried.

Why do you think it took Karr's public defenders exactly two weeks to get him released without so much as one question being asked of him by LE while he was in the Boulder jail?

As for influence brought to bear on behalf of the Ramseys: if you don't believe there is any power in being an executive of Lockheed Martin, you probably also believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. I'd be the last to disabuse you of that childish trust. So yeah, you're so right; Hunter and Lacy would have spent $2 million of their paltry budget to make sure any of us wouldn't have been unfairly prosecuted. Sure they would!

Any defense picks at each piece of evidence individually. That's how it's done, I know. But what you don't want to address is that added together, it's a damning case against the Ramseys, with little-to-no room for an intruder. Which one did what to JonBenet, WE don't know. Maybe LE has the evidence to prove that, but WE have never seen it. There were three people in the house who could have executed the elements of the crime in several combinations; because they lived there, I admit it is hard to determine exactly what happened among those four people that night. The three who remain have covered up the truth, have lied about it to the public and to LE for 15 years, which the actual evidence has proven without any doubt.

That this never went to trial, that there are various opinions on who did what, does not negate that the actual evidence points to none other than one or more of the Ramseys as perpetrator(s) of all the crimes against JonBenet: I belive that they know what happened and why.

And that's my opinion. As my tag says, nothing more. You don't agree. Got it.

 

[DeeDee249]

Naming ANY of the three people known to have been in the home when JB was murdered is NOT 'naming someone just to name someone". It is naming as an opinion three very possible suspects.

That is not pulling a name out of a hat (or anywhere else).

ANYONE who is proven to be in the exact place and at the exact time as a murder must be considered as a suspect until some one else is arrested/indicted/convicted.

Like it or not, the parents and BR fit this description. They were THERE when it happened. No one else has ever been proven to be in that house at the time.

 

[UKGuy]

One thing that is clear from the BODY OF EVIDENCE is that it was not an intruder, but someone within the home, someone who had access to JonBenet that night, someone Patsy Ramsey would write a faux ransom note to cover for. You think that's a stranger/intruder? Fine, your opinion, just like I have mine.

The evidence pointed to the Ramseys: Patsy's clothing fibers tied into the garrote knots; Patsy's paintbrush; Patsy's pad, pen, handwriting, etc. John's shirt fibers were found in the genital area where the child was wiped down, as well. John and Pasty lied repeatedly to LE through their interviews; they withheld evidence they knew was extremely important in the investigation--the alleged package of Bloomies; they obstructed the investigation through hiring lawyers they hid behind from Day One. Their child was found in their basement, with all the evidence which has ever been linked to anyone belonging to the Ramseys, with the exception of minute particles of DNA which even Mary Lacy once stated could be artifact.

If you don't think that's evidence against the Ramseys, then that's your opinion. Sure RDI have differing opinions. None of us has ever seen the full case files, including Dr. Wecht and Dawna. None of any of the evidence in this case has been tested in a court at trial, so we're all crippled by not hearing any expert testimony about any of it under oath. IDI have differing opinions as well. What I have is my opinion, and I don't "expect" anyone to believe it, buy it, or care a flip about it. I'm not the judge and I'm not the jury. I'm just discussing my own observations. I thought that's what we do on forums.



[I inserted some things to clarify the issues you were addressing.]

You brought up probabilities, so I was asking you to consider probabilities in face of the factual evidence. You seem to be applying 50/50 chance to individual pieces of evidence. But to correctly calculate the probabilities you'd have to include each element built upon other elements. That's typically called "the body of evidence" in a case, which is supposed to be considered by a jury to determine if the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been met.

You also seem to believe JonBenet could have been molested by someone and Patsy Ramsey didn't much care about it, if you think she would ignore that someone they did or didn't know was molesting her child before JB's autopsy proved it.

Here's a simple, unambiguous question that you might consider: why would Patsy Ramsey refuse to help LE find the molester and killer of her child? That's exactly what she did when she allowed her lawyers--who worked for HER--to stand between her answering questions ONLY SHE could answer for LE in the investigation into who murdered her child.

If someone were sexually assaulting JonBenet before that night--and the actual autopsy evidence is damning that someone was--then Patsy was the most likely person to help LE find out who that was. Maybe the only person.

Considering the injuries inflicted on JonBenet the night she was killed, finding the person who was molesting her before that night could be THE KEY to finding out who in fact abused and murdered her. Even if it were an intruder, that would be the one thing that should lead LE right to the killer; whether the person who committed the prior sexual assault was the killer or not, it's certainly critical to identify that person, because that could have been the catalyst to the series of events on Dec. 25th. It's important. How can LE ignore it? How can Team Ramsey ignore it?

But of course, IDI have to deny, deny, deny those facts of evidence. Why? Why can't you simply accept that this is factual evidence and that it is very relevant that a six year old murder victim was being molested in the days/wks./mo's. before her death?

Because you also don't believe Patsy Ramsey would cover up for someone she wasn't invested in who molested and murdered her child. That's why you refuse to admit the facts of the ransom note lead to Patsy, or that the Ramsey's refusal to cooperate with LE not only crippled the investigation from the start but is evidence the Ramseys meant to do exactly that. You refuse to admit the prior molestation happened, as well; because if you admit the facts of evidence of prior sexual abuse, then you have a huge set of elements incriminating the Ramseys to explain which begin with that "no history" IDI so love. Prior sexual assault is HISTORY.

And that sexual abuser would certainly have to be someone who knew the child, unless you think Patsy was in the habit of handing her 5/6 year old over to strangers for periods of time adequate to groom and molest JonBenet.

Now why wouldn't Patsy and John be racking their brains to figure out who did this before that night, instead of denying it and arguing about the evidence when faced with it by LE? There is a limited number of people who could have done that, after all, and the Ramseys would know all of them.

Now answer me this: why did the Ramseys OWN INVESTIGATORS ignore that evidence, not even discuss it with the Ramseys, if they were actually looking for that old intruder, as they told us countless times? More Ramsey lies to make themselves appear not guilty to the public; we only found out the truth of that when under oath in the Wolf deposition JR said their lawyers were only building a defense, not looking for the killer. May not be evidence admitted in court, but it is yet another example that the Ramseys were very comfortable lying to anyone and everyone about the investigation into the murder of their child. You may not think being a pair of studied liars is incriminating when the stake is a child killer has never been identified whom they allege targeted their family, but it seems a no brainer to me.

The Ramseys have never sought an answer to the question, who was molesting their child before that night? Patsy quickly skipped over that evidence in 1998 when asked about it by Det. Haney. What innocent parent of a child murdered by an intruder would do that?



I never said stats were evidence. I was responding to you because you brought up probabilities. You conveniently are taking what I wrote out of context.



Now you're misstating the evidence; you should read more on the ransom note, the expert opinions, including the Ramseys' own experts.



Now you're insulting me. Attacking me, because you can't win on the evidence. That's the hallmark of a weak argument; I think I've clearly backed up with evidence my theory that the Ramseys are guilty of this murder. By dismissing me as just picking a name out of a hat, you ignore my fact-based points and prove you know you have lost the debate.



Again, I don't expect anything. You take my opinions very personally. If you are somehow invested in the Ramseys personally, then I understand. They inspire loyalty among their family, friends, and fans.

But that doesn't erase the evidence, which I'm looking at to guide my own OPINIONS. Call it a conspiracy if you like; the facts are that the detectives Hunter hired ended up working for Team Ramsey. That's indisputable. The fact is that Hunter refused to get subpoenas for the phone records and the Ramsey's clothes. Ever. The fact is that Hunter decided not to indict the Ramseys and ended up on TV quoting the Ramsey's own disinformation about the "scale" upon which Patsy Ramsey was compared to the ransom note writer--a scale that in fact does not even exist other than in the propaganda of Team Ramsey. The fact is that Mary Lacy, without any legal ability or professional responsibility, spent her 8 years in office working to exonerate the Ramseys, effectively putting the last nail in the coffin of any prosecution, ever, of anyone, when her job was to act on behalf of the State.

Instead, Lacy finally destroyed any possibility of prosecution for all time. With the very public arrest of John PERV Karr, with Lacy's public statements and letters "exonerating" the Ramseys, it's over for any successful conviction in a court of law. It's that simple. There isn't a half-brained lawyer in the country who couldn't build reasonable doubt with the (Patsy's) ransom note and the arrest of Karr for anyone ever tried.

Why do you think it took Karr's public defenders exactly two weeks to get him released without so much as one question being asked of him by LE while he was in the Boulder jail?

As for influence brought to bear on behalf of the Ramseys: if you don't believe there is any power in being an executive of Lockheed Martin, you probably also believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. I'd be the last to disabuse you of that childish trust. So yeah, you're so right; Hunter and Lacy would have spent $2 million of their paltry budget to make sure any of us wouldn't have been unfairly prosecuted. Sure they would!

Any defense picks at each piece of evidence individually. That's how it's done, I know. But what you don't want to address is that added together, it's a damning case against the Ramseys, with little-to-no room for an intruder. Which one did what to JonBenet, WE don't know. Maybe LE has the evidence to prove that, but WE have never seen it. There were three people in the house who could have executed the elements of the crime in several combinations; because they lived there, I admit it is hard to determine exactly what happened among those four people that night. The three who remain have covered up the truth, have lied about it to the public and to LE for 15 years, which the actual evidence has proven without any doubt.

That this never went to trial, that there are various opinions on who did what, does not negate that the actual evidence points to none other than one or more of the Ramseys as perpetrator(s) of all the crimes against JonBenet: I belive that they know what happened and why.

And that's my opinion. As my tag says, nothing more. You don't agree. Got it.

KoldKase,
Excellent points. I like to make all IDI aware that the IDI theory has no forensic evidence that supports or links to any known person. The IDI case rests on the staging and the touch dna which may have been deposited at the autopsy.

it's a damning case against the Ramseys, with little-to-no room for an intruder.

Say no more!


.

 

[UKGuy]

Naming ANY of the three people known to have been in the home when JB was murdered is NOT 'naming someone just to name someone". It is naming as an opinion three very possible suspects.

That is not pulling a name out of a hat (or anywhere else).

ANYONE who is proven to be in the exact place and at the exact time as a murder must be considered as a suspect until some one else is arrested/indicted/convicted.

Like it or not, the parents and BR fit this description. They were THERE when it happened. No one else has ever been proven to be in that house at the time.

DeeDee249,
Currently these are the only suspects. Nobody else has been shown to have been in the house that night.

 

[vlpate]

Have no doubt that most of us who have been around these forums and studying this case for 15 years have changed our theories many, many times as we've learned more about the evidence.

I change mine about once a year now.

I changed mine last Tuesday. One aspect of my theory dujour that never changes, the perp was one of three people, and they were all admittedly home the night JonBenet was killed.

The dna evidence is meaningless since it was on the outside of her body and nowhere inside her body or in the blood found on her actual body (not clothing).

 

[vlpate]

KK, why do you give these pronouncements about clearly controversial points as though your opinion is fact? It is easily deniable they are guilty simply by listening to last Sunday's radio show. Among the RDI supporters there was Donna there saying there was not enough evidence to indict nor convict and citing Henry Lee as agreeing as well.

Another obvious problem is that even among RDI supporters there is no agreement about which Ramsey did what, who killed Jonbenet, who staged her, etc. Dr. Wecht said JR molested her and killed her by autoerotic asphyxiation. Some believe PR because of bedwetting rage or anger at JR after catching him. Steve Thomas believes it was all PR and JR was not involved. How are you going to convict when you can't agree who killed her?

The one thing most everyone with common sense and access to the evidence agrees upon, it was a Ramsey, not an intruder.

 

[jeeps]

One thing that is clear from the BODY OF EVIDENCE is that it was not an intruder, but someone within the home, someone who had access to JonBenet that night, someone Patsy Ramsey would write a faux ransom note to cover for. You think that's a stranger/intruder? Fine, your opinion, just like I have mine.

The evidence pointed to the Ramseys: Patsy's clothing fibers tied into the garrote knots; Patsy's paintbrush; Patsy's pad, pen, handwriting, etc. John's shirt fibers were found in the genital area where the child was wiped down, as well. John and Pasty lied repeatedly to LE through their interviews; they withheld evidence they knew was extremely important in the investigation--the alleged package of Bloomies; they obstructed the investigation through hiring lawyers they hid behind from Day One. Their child was found in their basement, with all the evidence which has ever been linked to anyone belonging to the Ramseys, with the exception of minute particles of DNA which even Mary Lacy once stated could be artifact.

If you don't think that's evidence against the Ramseys, then that's your opinion. Sure RDI have differing opinions. None of us has ever seen the full case files, including Dr. Wecht and Dawna. None of any of the evidence in this case has been tested in a court at trial, so we're all crippled by not hearing any expert testimony about any of it under oath. IDI have differing opinions as well. What I have is my opinion, and I don't "expect" anyone to believe it, buy it, or care a flip about it. I'm not the judge and I'm not the jury. I'm just discussing my own observations. I thought that's what we do on forums.



[I inserted some things to clarify the issues you were addressing.]

You brought up probabilities, so I was asking you to consider probabilities in face of the factual evidence. You seem to be applying 50/50 chance to individual pieces of evidence. But to correctly calculate the probabilities you'd have to include each element built upon other elements. That's typically called "the body of evidence" in a case, which is supposed to be considered by a jury to determine if the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been met.

You also seem to believe JonBenet could have been molested by someone and Patsy Ramsey didn't much care about it, if you think she would ignore that someone they did or didn't know was molesting her child before JB's autopsy proved it.

Here's a simple, unambiguous question that you might consider: why would Patsy Ramsey refuse to help LE find the molester and killer of her child? That's exactly what she did when she allowed her lawyers--who worked for HER--to stand between her answering questions ONLY SHE could answer for LE in the investigation into who murdered her child.

If someone were sexually assaulting JonBenet before that night--and the actual autopsy evidence is damning that someone was--then Patsy was the most likely person to help LE find out who that was. Maybe the only person.

Considering the injuries inflicted on JonBenet the night she was killed, finding the person who was molesting her before that night could be THE KEY to finding out who in fact abused and murdered her. Even if it were an intruder, that would be the one thing that should lead LE right to the killer; whether the person who committed the prior sexual assault was the killer or not, it's certainly critical to identify that person, because that could have been the catalyst to the series of events on Dec. 25th. It's important. How can LE ignore it? How can Team Ramsey ignore it?

But of course, IDI have to deny, deny, deny those facts of evidence. Why? Why can't you simply accept that this is factual evidence and that it is very relevant that a six year old murder victim was being molested in the days/wks./mo's. before her death?

Because you also don't believe Patsy Ramsey would cover up for someone she wasn't invested in who molested and murdered her child. That's why you refuse to admit the facts of the ransom note lead to Patsy, or that the Ramsey's refusal to cooperate with LE not only crippled the investigation from the start but is evidence the Ramseys meant to do exactly that. You refuse to admit the prior molestation happened, as well; because if you admit the facts of evidence of prior sexual abuse, then you have a huge set of elements incriminating the Ramseys to explain which begin with that "no history" IDI so love. Prior sexual assault is HISTORY.

And that sexual abuser would certainly have to be someone who knew the child, unless you think Patsy was in the habit of handing her 5/6 year old over to strangers for periods of time adequate to groom and molest JonBenet.

Now why wouldn't Patsy and John be racking their brains to figure out who did this before that night, instead of denying it and arguing about the evidence when faced with it by LE? There is a limited number of people who could have done that, after all, and the Ramseys would know all of them.

Now answer me this: why did the Ramseys OWN INVESTIGATORS ignore that evidence, not even discuss it with the Ramseys, if they were actually looking for that old intruder, as they told us countless times? More Ramsey lies to make themselves appear not guilty to the public; we only found out the truth of that when under oath in the Wolf deposition JR said their lawyers were only building a defense, not looking for the killer. May not be evidence admitted in court, but it is yet another example that the Ramseys were very comfortable lying to anyone and everyone about the investigation into the murder of their child. You may not think being a pair of studied liars is incriminating when the stake is a child killer has never been identified whom they allege targeted their family, but it seems a no brainer to me.

The Ramseys have never sought an answer to the question, who was molesting their child before that night? Patsy quickly skipped over that evidence in 1998 when asked about it by Det. Haney. What innocent parent of a child murdered by an intruder would do that?



I never said stats were evidence. I was responding to you because you brought up probabilities. You conveniently are taking what I wrote out of context.



Now you're misstating the evidence; you should read more on the ransom note, the expert opinions, including the Ramseys' own experts.



Now you're insulting me. Attacking me, because you can't win on the evidence. That's the hallmark of a weak argument; I think I've clearly backed up with evidence my theory that the Ramseys are guilty of this murder. By dismissing me as just picking a name out of a hat, you ignore my fact-based points and prove you know you have lost the debate.



Again, I don't expect anything. You take my opinions very personally. If you are somehow invested in the Ramseys personally, then I understand. They inspire loyalty among their family, friends, and fans.

But that doesn't erase the evidence, which I'm looking at to guide my own OPINIONS. Call it a conspiracy if you like; the facts are that the detectives Hunter hired ended up working for Team Ramsey. That's indisputable. The fact is that Hunter refused to get subpoenas for the phone records and the Ramsey's clothes. Ever. The fact is that Hunter decided not to indict the Ramseys and ended up on TV quoting the Ramsey's own disinformation about the "scale" upon which Patsy Ramsey was compared to the ransom note writer--a scale that in fact does not even exist other than in the propaganda of Team Ramsey. The fact is that Mary Lacy, without any legal ability or professional responsibility, spent her 8 years in office working to exonerate the Ramseys, effectively putting the last nail in the coffin of any prosecution, ever, of anyone, when her job was to act on behalf of the State.

Instead, Lacy finally destroyed any possibility of prosecution for all time. With the very public arrest of John PERV Karr, with Lacy's public statements and letters "exonerating" the Ramseys, it's over for any successful conviction in a court of law. It's that simple. There isn't a half-brained lawyer in the country who couldn't build reasonable doubt with the (Patsy's) ransom note and the arrest of Karr for anyone ever tried.

Why do you think it took Karr's public defenders exactly two weeks to get him released without so much as one question being asked of him by LE while he was in the Boulder jail?

As for influence brought to bear on behalf of the Ramseys: if you don't believe there is any power in being an executive of Lockheed Martin, you probably also believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. I'd be the last to disabuse you of that childish trust. So yeah, you're so right; Hunter and Lacy would have spent $2 million of their paltry budget to make sure any of us wouldn't have been unfairly prosecuted. Sure they would!

Any defense picks at each piece of evidence individually. That's how it's done, I know. But what you don't want to address is that added together, it's a damning case against the Ramseys, with little-to-no room for an intruder. Which one did what to JonBenet, WE don't know. Maybe LE has the evidence to prove that, but WE have never seen it. There were three people in the house who could have executed the elements of the crime in several combinations; because they lived there, I admit it is hard to determine exactly what happened among those four people that night. The three who remain have covered up the truth, have lied about it to the public and to LE for 15 years, which the actual evidence has proven without any doubt.

That this never went to trial, that there are various opinions on who did what, does not negate that the actual evidence points to none other than one or more of the Ramseys as perpetrator(s) of all the crimes against JonBenet: I belive that they know what happened and why.

And that's my opinion. As my tag says, nothing more. You don't agree. Got it.

I think I love you KK.

Spoiler

:saythat:

 

[BBB167893]

If RDI, I think their best story would be that they found her dead in the morning.

How do you figure? The "botched-kidnapping-with-RN" story gives them the whole WORLD as suspects.

One thing about the story which to me leans (paradoxically) towards IDI is the lack of an obvious entry point. I think there are possible points, but no obvious site that you can say that must have been it. If RDI, I would think they would have done more to show where a break-in occurred. JR has even downplayed the basement window since the beginning, saying he thought any break was from when he broke in (trying not to be too obvious? maybe).

Smelly Squirrel, I've heard this argument a LOT. And to me, it comes back to the same thing. Even if you discount the problems with providing an obvious entry point (it wouldn't look too good if you were spotted smashing in your own door in the middle of the night), it seems that the idea here was to find the ransom note first. Nothing could look out of place until then. Their story doesn't work any other way.

Not only that, but their story hinges on the idea that whomever did this was some super-intelligent master criminal who could enter and exit a house without leaving any sort of evidence, like a ghost. Someone who would put BATMAN's enemies to shame.

This is an example misrepresenting the evidence. First off, this information comes from an interview, where it's unknown how factual anything they said is. When pressed by Wood, they wouldn't show any report.

I sure wouldn't show him a report! Not only is he not entitled to it, but he's not TRUSTWORTHY, either.

Look, one of the big problems with this case is that the DA's office gave away the whole store to the Ramseys and their lawyers. I'm GLAD they finally got some investigators who knew how to play things close to the vest. That's what you're SUPPOSED to do.

If there are unidentified fibers and in greater numbers, that would diminish the importance of these fibers.

Not necessarily, it wouldn't. It helps to establish the context of fibers (specific location, time placement, etc).

However, the fact of the lack of any prosecution then leads me to think this fiber evidence is not so definitive.

Don't fool yourself, Squirrel. There are a lot of reasons why the Ramseys weren't prosecuted. I'll be happy to list them for ya.