Poll: Will this case ever be solved?

[Sophie]

How does an individual enter a home, spend an large amount of time there moving from room to room, then kill a child violently (IMO!) write a ransom note (apprently with gloves on) and exit the house without leaving any fibers, hair, fingerprints, etc except for two small areas of touch DNA on JBR's clothing? How does all of that activity happen without leaving so much more of yourself at the crime scene (that we know about, in MY OPINION, without having been there). I mean, wouldn't you leave more than that? And why was the flashlight and other items clean of any prints. If you are wearing gloves, you wouldn't need to wipe things down and there should have been family member prints on those items? (even on the batteries, which i understand were clean of prints (but don't know for fact since I did not get to analize them.) And if you weren't wearing gloves, touch DNA should have been all over the place. AGAIN, ALL MY OPINION AND NO FACT TO BASE IT UPON, just observeration.

And why does it seem that there are folks that really want this IDI identified far more that the father of the slaughtered child? I would to my grave yelling for an answer if someone broke into my house and murdered my child, especially if they made it look like it was because me. I don't see this reaction from JR, and never have. Again, IMO, MOO, and whatever other initials i need to put for something that was suppose to be implied.

:clap: Brilliant post, Coco.

 

[BBB167893]

Uh, they are not proven, therefore they are simply additional elements/postulates added, against Occam's Razor.

The Razor applies to the case in general. Specifics are a bit more flexible.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

BTW, HOTYH, my IDI alternative theory (if I had one) wouldn't be that far from yours - I just don't think you need to look that far from Boulder to find your suspects. In fact, I'd be surprised if, at one point, you hadn't highlighted their general strangeness etc.

I'm actually not really looking.

Maybe you weren't reading, because I was only noting that nobody after more than 12 years has ever taken a simple, holistic prima facie approach. Wouldn't it be amazing if, after all the facts are in, there was a simple solution with no inconsistencies, no paradoxes?

Here's a f'rinstance:

Three intruders that were representing a foreign faction (in their mind), one of which writes just like the RN, talks just like the RN, and kills just like it shows. They were mad about big capitalist 'fat cats' and their lifestyle and bonuses. They sexually assaulted and murdered a child. They had planned on more killing.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

yeah.Whatever HOTYH

:boohoo:

 

[Sophie]

I'm actually not really looking.

Maybe you weren't reading, because I was only noting that nobody after more than 12 years has ever taken a simple, holistic prima facie approach. Wouldn't it be amazing if, after all the facts are in, there was a simple solution with no inconsistencies, no paradoxes?

Here's a f'rinstance:

Three intruders that were representing a foreign faction (in their mind), one of which writes just like the RN, talks just like the RN, and kills just like it shows. They were mad about big capitalist 'fat cats' and their lifestyle and bonuses. They sexually assaulted and murdered a child. They had planned on more killing.

It would be, especially since it would have to disprove laws of physics (eg. the sound of three adults tramping through a quiet house on Christmas Day). Sorry, that sounded flippant. However, if I accept your face value analysis, which for present purposes, I will, I'd still say you are being pretty selective in how you read the bare facts. Lemme just get the RN to hand and I'll tell you what I mean.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It would be, especially since it would have to disprove laws of physics (eg. the sound of three adults tramping through a quiet house on Christmas Day). Sorry, that sounded flippant. However, if I accept your face value analysis, which for present purposes, I will, I'd still say you are being pretty selective in how you read the bare facts. Lemme just get the RN to hand and I'll tell you what I mean.

Apology accepted.

Isn't that what ML said about 'innocent transfer' of the three DNA samples that all match the same unknown male? And I wonder what FBI would've said Dec 26th if they knew about unknown male DNA on JBR's body.

 

[BBB167893]

You don't know much about the media,do you?

Apparently not! "All the news that's fit to print?" It OUGHT to be "All the news that fits, we print."

The problem is I see very good RDI news among Garnett's lines and you don't.

ANYONE could see the implication there.

 

[BBB167893]

Just trying to fit in. Sorry.

Like my father used to say, HOTYH: if you dish it out, you'd better be able to take it.

I don't blame madeleine and Sophie for getting upset. But I'm usually a level-headed guy, so I'll leave it at that, for now.

So lets assume prior abuse, a fit of rage, an accidental head bash, staging, ownership of the murder weapon materials, and authorship of the RN. In keeping with Occam's Razor, of course.

It's not as hard as you think.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It would be, especially since it would have to disprove laws of physics (eg. the sound of three adults tramping through a quiet house on Christmas Day). Sorry, that sounded flippant. However, if I accept your face value analysis, which for present purposes, I will, I'd still say you are being pretty selective in how you read the bare facts. Lemme just get the RN to hand and I'll tell you what I mean.

No it didn't. It sounded oversimplified and naive. Sorry back.

 

[BBB167893]

Wouldn't it be amazing if, after all the facts are in, there was a simple solution with no inconsistencies, no paradoxes?

Yes, it would! In fact, it would almost defy belief.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Like my father used to say, HOTYH: if you dish it out, you'd better be able to take it.

I don't blame madeleine and Sophie for getting upset. But I'm usually a level-headed guy, so I'll leave it at that, for now.



It's not as hard as you think.

Why don't you explain the December 25th anniversary thingy to Sophie, SD?

 

[Sophie]

Apology accepted.

Isn't that what ML said about 'innocent transfer' of the three DNA samples that all match the same unknown male? And I wonder what FBI would've said Dec 26th if they knew about unknown male DNA on JBR's body.

I still think they'd have looked long and hard at the Ramseys. They aren't idiots. They'd have also looked at Patsy's and John's clothes to see whether there was any of this DNA on their clothes (Christmas, you go to a party and hug people and touch people's furniture etc).

Seriously, pet, I guarantee that on your person now there will be some DNA belonging to someone you don't know and this has very possibly touched your chair and even your PC possibly.

 

[Sophie]

No it didn't. It sounded oversimplified and naive. Sorry back.

Not at all. I'm actually enjoying your selective appreciation of simplicity (which in the context of this thread is a delight to behold).

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Not at all. I'm actually enjoying your selective appreciation of simplicity (which in the context of this thread is a delight to behold).

I'm still at simple and you're not. You've added an assumption whereby three people are physically required to tramp.

Other assumptions arbitrarily direct attention to 'strange' Boulder residents. Nice.

 

[BBB167893]

Why don't you explain the December 25th anniversary thingy to Sophie, SD?

No point, that's why. You explain it a lot better than I ever could.

Moreover, it would change the subject.

 

[Sophie]

I'm still at simple and you're not. You've added an assumption whereby three people are physically required to tramp.

Other assumptions arbitrarily direct attention to 'strange' Boulder residents. Nice.

You said there were three intruders. How did you see them getting into the house, getting JBR from her room upstairs which presumably they'd have to find, going to kitchen and giving her pineapple, going to wine cellar and possibly killing her and getting out of the house if not on their feet? Levitation? Legerdemain?

Again, you really need to read and think before you post. I said that I thought you would have highlighted their strangeness. I didn't comment on my perception of their strangeness. I merely said that there is an obvious IDI scenario that would fit a good many of your criteria without dragging in so many absurdities. Evidently you haven't thought of it and I'm not going to help you out. I'll just relish your claiming to have found the simple solution through a face value examination of the case.

Seriously, though, this exchange of pedantries is incredibly unedifying and, I'm sure, massively boring for others and wasteful of Tricia's bandwidth so I think we should think about kicking it into touch or making it more inclusive.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You said there were three intruders. How did you see them getting into the house, getting JBR from her room upstairs which presumably they'd have to find, going to kitchen and giving her pineapple, going to wine cellar and possibly killing her and getting out of the house if not on their feet? Levitation? Legerdemain?

Again, you really need to read and think before you post. I said that I thought you would have highlighted their strangeness. I didn't comment on my perception of their strangeness. I merely said that there is an obvious IDI scenario that would fit a good many of your criteria without dragging in so many absurdities. Evidently you haven't thought of it and I'm not going to help you out. I'll just relish your claiming to have found the simple solution through a face value examination of the case.

Seriously, though, this exchange of pedantries is incredibly unedifying and, I'm sure, massively boring for others and wasteful of Tricia's bandwidth so I think we should think about kicking it into touch or making it more inclusive.

Where did I claim to have found the simple solution? Do you just type stuff?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No point, that's why. You explain it a lot better than I ever could.

Moreover, it would change the subject.

You're right.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yes, it would! In fact, it would almost defy belief.

Almost.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Seriously, though, this exchange of pedantries is incredibly unedifying and, I'm sure, massively boring for others and wasteful of Tricia's bandwidth so I think we should think about kicking it into touch or making it more inclusive.

This has been a treasure trove for me. Thanks.