Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[TexasTuff]

This is interesting. The daughter of Robert Schuller (deceased) that preached from the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove CA. lived in the Ramsey house for a while.

http://www.westword.com/news/jonben...bout-finding-light-in-darkness-photos-5857792

 

[OliviaG1996]

LE, what does it mean?

LE- Law Enforcement
BPD- Boulder Police Department

 

[TexasTuff]

I think both PR and JR killed JB.

PR started it, JR finished it.

That's what the evidence says to me.

JB did not die easily.

How does the evidence conclusively prove that PR started it and JR finished it?

The link below shows autopsy photo's (graphic!). You'll never get me to believe that PR and JR caused that kind of damage to JB's skull NEVER!

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

 

[SapphireSteel]

How does the evidence conclusively prove that PR started it and JR finished it?

The link below shows autopsy photo's (graphic!). You'll never get me to believe that PR and JR caused that kind of damage to JB's skull NEVER!
http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

Bias noted.

 

[perdedorita]

About the unidentified DNA - I just watched the rerun of the 48 Hours episode about the Carol Kennedy murder. There was DNA under her fingernails that didn't belong to either of the suspects (ie Steven DeMocker, the husband or Jim Knapp, the nutty neighbor). DeMocker's attorneys hailed this as a-ha! exculpatory evidence until the DNA was ultimately identified as belonging to a man who had been autopsied just prior to Kennedy. Obviously there are major differences between this and the JBR case so I'm not saying it's apples to apples -- but a reminder that successful sourcing of unidentified DNA is as likely to work against you as it is for you. Also, we just never know what all went on behind the scenes. We like to think of a coroner's office as this sterile, controlled environment but - fun fact - in the DeMocker case the coroner transported the body in the back of his pick-up truck. As a favor to the family, of course.

Anyway, sorry to blabber on about the DeMocker case but the parallel stood out to me.

http://dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=122090

 

[BOESP]

Considering the fact that they tried to scare her with supposed "scientific evidence" they had against her, do yuh think her lawyers were smart enough to know that it would be better if she confronted them when she wasn't in a Valium fog?

I think the history of most parents whose child was murdered speaks for itself: Marc Klass, Jessica Lunsford's dad and others.

There are others I believe are guilty but weren't charged and even they spoke to police.

Using valium as an excuse not to help find your child's killer ASAP doesn't speak to me as innocence. It didn't stop her from wanting to speak on CNN news.

 

[TexasTuff]

About the unidentified DNA - I just watched the rerun of the 48 Hours episode about the Carol Kennedy murder. There was DNA under her fingernails that didn't belong to either of the suspects (ie Steven DeMocker, the husband or Jim Knapp, the nutty neighbor). DeMocker's attorneys hailed this as a-ha! exculpatory evidence until the DNA was ultimately identified as belonging to a man who had been autopsied just prior to Kennedy. Obviously there are major differences between this and the JBR case so I'm not saying it's apples to apples -- but a reminder that successful sourcing of unidentified DNA is as likely to work against you as it is for you. Also, we just never know what all went on behind the scenes. We like to think of a coroner's office as this sterile, controlled environment but - fun fact - in the DeMocker case the coroner transported the body in the back of his pick-up truck. As a favor to the family, of course.

Anyway, sorry to blabber on about the DeMocker case but the parallel stood out to me.

http://dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=122090

I've seen documentaries on crime labs where the technicians didn't clean the areas where they were working and there was cross contamination

 

[TexasTuff]

I think the history of most parents whose child was murdered speaks for itself: Marc Klass, Jessica Lunsford's dad and others.

There are others I believe are guilty but weren't charged and even they spoke to police.

Using valium as an excuse not to help find your child's killer ASAP doesn't speak to me as innocence. It didn't stop her from wanting to speak on CNN news.

It didn't stop her from wanting to speak on CNN news.

Major difference being? She wasn't being interrogated by the :cop: with their lieing conniveing ways!

 

[Anti-K]

Noooooo. What it means is that the totality of evidence IS favorable to RDI. It doesn't take long to see that. Kolar proves THAT, if nothing else.

Kolar didn’t prove anything. Even amongst RDI, there are many Kolar-Doubters.

BTW, the totality of the evidence does not support RDI. The totality of the evidence is a mixed bag. I’m beginning to think that some people don’t understand what “totality” means.

Totality means ALL of the evidence. ALL of the evidence includes exculpatory evidence (which hahaha DOES exist. We can argue over valuation, but it exists). What you, and Kolar, and virtually everyone who uses the term, should be saying is that the preponderance of the evidence, or the majority of it, the most, something, etc. One can make that argument(beware doubters. ), but the claim of totality is blatantly false and not reasonably defensible. And, yes, sometimes terminology matters.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Henry Lee himself said that unidentified, irrelevant DNA is found at roughly half (HALF!) of all crimes where DNA is involved. And he said that back around 2000, when you actually needed a fairly good-sized sample just to perform a test.

I gotta be honest, folks: this tDNA scares the living cr*p out of me, just for that reason.

Lee is not a DNA expert. Never has been, and his credibility has been questioned on more than one occasion (see Fisher’s “Forensics Under Fire”).

However, it is probably true that innocent DNA (and, other trace evidence) is often found at crime scenes. But, the only way that we could know this it be true is if those innocent sources had been found. In this case, despite effort, an innocent source has not been found.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Don't I know it!


Would you like a list of names?



It's the WAY they handled it, Scarlett. They could have run his DNA quietly while he was still in Thailand. Instead, they shipped him back here at taxpayer expense, parading him in front of the media as "the guy" even as his story was already crumbling, only to throw him back because his DNA wasn't it. Which bring me to...



Nothing amusing about it, Scarlett. That's how IDI logic works: if the DNA is automatically taken as relevant, anyone who doesn't match has to be discounted, no matter what else is against them.

I have no doubt in my mind that Mary Lacy intended JMK to take the fall. But when his DNA turned up a zero, she'd already painted herself into a corner. She couldn't just turn around and say that the DNA was iffy (which she TRIED, briefly, let us not forget). Whatever credibility she had left would have gone "pfft."

Let me give you IDI's a nickel's worth of free advice: forget focusing on one piece and take a holistic approach to this case. Did wonders for me.

Since the beginning of time, IDI have taken a holistic approach, considering ALL the evidence known AND all the possible explanations for said evidence. IDI have been around since long before this DNA evidence was discovered and this DNA evidence merely corroborates the IDI position.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

AND it took nearly ten years worth of advancement in DNA testing methods just to GET to 10! I find it incredible that people can blithely claim that it matches the tDNA, when, by definition, partial DNA profiles can't match anything.

You wrote, “by definition, partial DNA profiles can't match anything.” This is not true in any way, shape or form. By definition, a partial profile is a profile with fewer markers identified than what was looked for.

Regardless, if what you are saying is true (that partial DNA profiles can't match anything BTW, it isn’t true. LOL) then CODIS would not accept 10 marker profiles and they would never run anything through their databanks other than full, 13 marker profiles. But, we know 10 marker samples – this one included – are run routinely.

The claim that it took “nearly ten years worth of advancement in DNA testing methods just to GET to 10” is also false. I’m currently without my resources, but anyone with Kolar’s book can look this up, but as I recall it the panty DNA was first tested in 2003 and was accepted to CODIS in, uh, 2003? Maybe 2005? Kolar, anyone?
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

AND it took nearly ten years worth of advancement in DNA testing methods just to GET to 10! I find it incredible that people can blithely claim that it matches the tDNA, when, by definition, partial DNA profiles can't match anything.

I’m going to try to explain this matching thing in a different way, keeping things really simple, roughly analogous, sort of metaphorical and all that.

First, this is one of the markers used (for real) by CODIS: D3S1358

Second, let’s pretend the markers are colors and that D3S1358 is the color red.

Each color will tell us if it came from Mom or if it came from Dad or from both Mom and Dad. We’ll represented this as MM, or DD, or MD, or DM.

Sample A is a Full Profile. It has all 13 colors.

Sample B has only one marker. It is D3S1358. It is red. It is Red with MM.

Sample A’s Red is also MM.

These samples match. That’s what that means.

A match does not mean that Sample A and Sample B came from the same person. It means that they could have came from the same person. How likely it is that they came from the same person is largely determined by the using the number of markers found in the Sample with the fewest number found.

In this example, everyone with Red DD matches. They are INCLUDED.

Everyone with Red DD, or Red MD, or Red DM is EXCLUDED. That DNA did not come from them.

A DNA match simply means that every single (even if only one) marker that was found, matched.

Just for fun, I’ll throw this is (but, I’m really starting to feel like this should be moved over to a DNA thread).

DNA is a numbers game, and in and of itself, only tells us who is included (and to what degree) and who is excluded.

Exclusions are 100 % and determined by only ONE marker. Inclusions are NEVER 100% but they’re going to tell us how many people out of what size group can be included as being the possible source; how close to 100% (1/1) we can get.

I don’t think there is a Court accepted Standard here, but the FBI has determined that, still using the color analogy, a marker such as Red MM will occur once in every group of 13.66 people. 1/13.66.

Every time you have another matching marker you just multiply it by 1/13.66. Try it. The numbers get really big, really fast. Even at five markers, we’re talking about a group of one out of every 400,00+ people. Boulder population was under 100, 00 wasn’t it?

BTW, I moved this aspect (DNA) of the discussion, and copied this post, to here: http://tinyurl.com/ple2xed
…

AK

 

[giagreen]

The Denver Post
Joanne Ostrow
11/07/2015

John Ramsey recalls trying to shield his son from media coverage


"JonBenét Ramsey: Inside the Mystery" also featured the first TV interview with Burke, now 28, who said he has moved on since the tragedy."

What interview? Do you have a link? Ive always wanted to know what he thought of all this.

 

[Anti-K]

About the unidentified DNA - I just watched the rerun of the 48 Hours episode about the Carol Kennedy murder. There was DNA under her fingernails that didn't belong to either of the suspects (ie Steven DeMocker, the husband or Jim Knapp, the nutty neighbor). DeMocker's attorneys hailed this as a-ha! exculpatory evidence until the DNA was ultimately identified as belonging to a man who had been autopsied just prior to Kennedy. Obviously there are major differences between this and the JBR case so I'm not saying it's apples to apples -- but a reminder that successful sourcing of unidentified DNA is as likely to work against you as it is for you. Also, we just never know what all went on behind the scenes. We like to think of a coroner's office as this sterile, controlled environment but - fun fact - in the DeMocker case the coroner transported the body in the back of his pick-up truck. As a favor to the family, of course.

Anyway, sorry to blabber on about the DeMocker case but the parallel stood out to me.

http://dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=122090

This is another example of how contamination occurs and how we know it occurs. Contamination IS an innocent source and, so far, attempts to trace this DNA to an innocent source have failed. “

IOWs, cases such as this support the IDI position because it shows that attempts to find innocent sources are often successful.

But, when those sources are reasonably exhausted and the probability of transfer by killer remains (because of recent contact and location of contact); well, we should, at least, acknowledge that (this is a comment meant ïn general” and not specifically directed at anyone).
…

AK

 

[otg]

(bbm)

It was the investigator that told Patsy, "What if I tell you I have scientific evidence that you killed Jonbenet," :waitasec: which was a complete lie, because if he had had the evidence he wouldn't have been interviewing her, he would have arrested her. :jail:

If he said that, he indeed would have been lying. But that's not exactly what was said. He suggested that there was trace evidence that was in the process of being examined that appeared to link her (Patsy) to the death. But it's better to read it in context (emphasis mine):

20 TOM HANEY: We talked yesterday or
21 the day before too about I told you of a
22 personal experience of being a policeman, people
23 tend to lie to me and you told me a few minutes
24 ago that you're telling me everything that you
25 know about.
0592
1 PATSY RAMSEY: That's correct.
2 TOM HANEY: Okay. And that's all
3 been truthful?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
5 TOM HANEY: And I told you then
6 that I wouldn't lie to you. And I don't have
7 any reason to lie to you.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Great.
9 TOM HANEY: And I didn't lie to you
10 about the information, this medical information
11 that I told you about.
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay, this is very
13 hurtful.
14 TOM HANEY: I know that. And if I
15 told you right now that we have in the process
16 of being examined trace evidence that appears to
17 link you to the death of JonBenet, what would
18 you tell me?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: That's totally
20 incredible. (INAUDIBLE).
21 TOM HANEY: How is it impossible?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: I did not kill my
23 child. I didn't have a thing to do with it.
24 TOM HANEY: And I am not talking,
25 you know, somebody's guess or some rumor or some
0593
1 story.
2 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't care what
3 you're talking about.
4 TOM HANEY: I am talking about
5 scientific evidence.
6 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't give a damn
7 how scientific it is, go back to the damn
8 drawing board. I didn't do it. John Ramsey
9 didn't do it and we didn't have a clue of
10 anybody who did do it. So we all got to be
11 working together from this day forward to try to
12 find out who the hell did it.
​

 

[Tadpole12]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...enet-rehash-7354305+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Barbara Walters's John Ramsey Interview a Cringe-Worthy JonBenet Rehash
November 19, 201

"Okay, it was trash. But at least it was recycled trash. The bulk of the material consisted of old clips, including generous excerpts from Walters' tear-soaked interview with John and Patsy Ramsey in 2000. Lawrence Schiller, author of Perfect Murder Perfect Town, showed up to explain how Boulder's open-space policy is driven by a desire "to keep itself separate from the rest of the world." The last quarter of the show was basically handed over to John Ramsey — who, under gentle fawning and prodding from Walters, talked about how the family tragedy drained his finances and made him all but unemployable. He also introduced his current wife. (Patsy died in 2006.)Other than a brief glimpse of JonBenet's brother Burke as an adult, there wasn't much new here. Walters didn't go near what are arguably the only "newsy" developments in the JonBenet investigation in recent years — evidence that the DNA in the case is much more muddled than we were led to believe and the revelation that the grand jury voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey on criminal charges back in 1999, but Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter refused to sign off on the prosecution. Instead of tackling those juicy subjects head-on with Ramsey, Walters stuck to an old, old script. She insisted that the parents had been "officially exonerated" by Hunter's successor (a characterization the current Boulder DA doesn't accept) and that marks on JonBenet's body "exactly matched" the contact points of a stun gun (a canard advanced by intruder theorist Lou Smit, debunked by investigator James Kolar in his 2012 book Foreign Faction).
Details, details. Nothing was going to get in the way of the gooey, sugary story line Walters was determined to serve up — that John Ramsey is a man who has suffered much and come out smiling. That her whiffle-ball questions might have given him plenty of reasons to smile never seems to have occurred to her."

****************************
good review

 

[otg]

Kolar didn’t prove anything. Even amongst RDI, there are many Kolar-Doubters.

BTW, the totality of the evidence does not support RDI. The totality of the evidence is a mixed bag. I’m beginning to think that some people don’t understand what “totality” means.

Totality means ALL of the evidence. ALL of the evidence includes exculpatory evidence (which hahaha DOES exist. We can argue over valuation, but it exists). What you, and Kolar, and virtually everyone who uses the term, should be saying is that the preponderance of the evidence, or the majority of it, the most, something, etc. One can make that argument(beware doubters. ), but the claim of totality is blatantly false and not reasonably defensible. And, yes, sometimes terminology matters.
…

AK

I think you just proved the bolded statement by showing that you don’t understand it.

“Totality” does not mean that ALL of the evidence only points in one direction. It doesn’t mean all of the evidence agrees with itself. All of anything includes each individual item. “Totality” means the state of being total -- the sum. IOW, take all the plusses and minuses and add them up to get the total. The totality takes into consideration all of the known evidence (culpatory and exculpatory) and sums it up to a conclusion. While you can say that the totality of evidence is a preponderance one way or another; that preponderance is simply the weight given to the larger amount. Preponderance indicates which is the larger portion of the total. A preponderance of evidence is the burden of proof required in civil litigations. Criminal law requires a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It would be correct (and maybe even more accurate) to say “that the preponderance of the evidence, or the majority of it, the most, something, etc.” But it is still correct to also say the totality of evidence when expressing one’s opinion about it. It’s all opinion anyway.

 

[otg]

(sbm)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...enet-rehash-7354305+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Barbara Walters's John Ramsey Interview a Cringe-Worthy JonBenet Rehash
November 19, 201

OMG, Tad! I can't believe the picture Westworld chose to use. :floorlaugh:

Looks like they deliberately caught him while he was showing Barbara Walters how he got the nickname "lizard lips". :lol:

 

[otg]

Blast from the past (courtesy of whynut):

[video=youtube;At1sAG66-j4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At1sAG66-j4[/video]