A DNA poll for IDIs

If the was no foreign DNA, where would you stand

  • Still an IDI

    Votes: 38 61.3%
  • No idea.

    Votes: 6 9.7%
  • I would turn RDI

    Votes: 18 29.0%

  • Total voters
    62

tumble

New Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
579
Reaction score
1
I think I am starting to see how the IDIs here think ;)

No single piece of evidence is strong enough to pin a R down on its's own.

But then why don't you guys end up in the 'i don't know' group?

No single piece of evidence is strong enough to pin an intruder down on it's own.

Or is the DNA it?
If there was no foreign DNA would you have changed your mind on the case?
 
tumble said:
I think I am starting to see how the IDIs here think ;)

No single piece of evidence is strong enough to pin a R down on its's own.

But then why don't you guys end up in the 'i don't know' group?

No single piece of evidence is strong enough to pin an intruder down on it's own.

Or is the DNA it?
If there was no foreign DNA would you have changed your mind on the case?


I'd still be sitting on the fence.
 
Oh, sorry there are no choice for you fence sitters. Another poll another day.

But please feel free to voice your opinion.
 
To me the DNA means virtually nothing. The minuscule amount of DNA found in her underpants could have been left there by a sneezing, coughing, spittle-prone underwear factory worker. And if that is the case, that DNA cannot be used to exclude anyone from involvement. The DNA under her fingernails was compromised by the use of one clipper rather than 10. So my confidence in that DNA, even if they get a partial match, is shaky at best.

If the DNA does not match, Karr cannot be excluded in my opinion because of the two reasons I listed above. Something else will have to exclude him, like hard proof that he was not in Colorado that night.

My reasoning for believing in an intruder is the evidence around the window well, the shoeprint, and the 911 tape. One of my stongest feelings though revolves around the parents (or parent) being able to stage a kidnapping/murder scene effectively, come up with some weird and totally unnecessary ransom note situation, and write an intelligible ransom note after just killing their own child. I would think that the fear of being caught combined with the (presumably) unexpected murder and the grief associated with a dead child would have caused them to mess up. Leave some sign that obviously implicated themselves. But, if they did it, the Ramseys staged the perfect crime scene. In my opinion, that would have been impossible.
 
I'm still IDI because I believe there is an ideal suspect. A sadist, obsession with movies, drinker, hard times, etc., who actually writes and uses expressions just like the RN. An experienced kidnapper and killer, who had help. A very angry, vengeful, disturbed, violent person who would make JK look like a petty thief. A person who actually ends their letters with a revolutionary salutation.

Many believe that the killer left no forensic evidence, when the RN is a ton of forensic evidence. Right away, RDI had to make a claim that the handwriting is disguised, which allows almost any analysis to find subtle matches.

Remember the disguised handwriting claim is just a claim at this time. There's no proof that the handwriting is disguised, yet RDI is completely dependent on this idea.

The ideal suspect's handwriting will be a ringer.
 
tumble said:
I think I am starting to see how the IDIs here think ;)

No single piece of evidence is strong enough to pin a R down on its's own.

But then why don't you guys end up in the 'i don't know' group?

No single piece of evidence is strong enough to pin an intruder down on it's own.

Or is the DNA it?
If there was no foreign DNA would you have changed your mind on the case?




Tumble, you have inquired as to "why" more posters have not responded with an "I don't know" answer. Fair question, I suppose.

IMO - none of us here on this forum "know" for an absolute fact "who" was responsible for JonBenet's horrific murder - but, that doesn't mean we haven't formulated an opinion. Even one that may change from time to time ...

What we have is circumstantial evidence for each of us to consider and formulate our own individual "opinions" on what we have learned over time.

Some information and evidence is yet to be revealed as the investigation is still not complete.

However, our current opinions are based on what we have learned - 'the facts' .. 'the evidence' - as well as our own "gut feelings" which must be factored in to the equation. Sadly, I've noticed that some folks pick & choose the facts & evidence they find worthy & acceptable to substantiate their chosen position.

Hopefully, a "verdict" in this horrendous murder case will be decided in a court of law - based on all the evidence (fairly) presented - and thankfully, not on any of the many biased crime sleuthing forums.

As for DNA - nothing would please me more than the slam-dunk of an intruder's DNA to be positively identified and attributed to a known suspect. I'm just afraid that won't happen and the 'cloud of suspicion' will continue for years to come.

More than anything else - I want "true justice" for JonBenet. That's my bottom line .. as I'm confident it is for all posters on this JBR forum.


13th Juror
 
Thanks to everyone who voted answered so far.

I read you comments with great interest.

More than anything else - I want "true justice" for JonBenet.

Couldn't agree more.

The ideal suspect's handwriting will be a ringer.

Sorry I don't understand 'ringer'.

Some information and evidence is yet to be revealed as the investigation is still not complete.

I find this really frustrating ;)
But I understand that it have to be done that way.
Maybe we should start a thread guessing what these evidence could be.
 
tumble said:
Or is the DNA it?
If there was no foreign DNA would you have changed your mind on the case?

No, I strongly believe there was an intruder.

The Boulder Police blew this one a long time ago. I just hope this new DA and her vast support staff are able to right the wrongs of the past investigation. JonBenet and her family deserve the truth.


Rum Tum Tugger
 
Rum Tum Tugger said:
No, I strongly believe there was an intruder.

The Boulder Police blew this one a long time ago. I just hope this new DA and her vast support staff are able to right the wrongs of the past investigation. JonBenet and her family deserve the truth.
Rum Tum Tugger
Just because the investigation was botched doesn't mean that there was an intruder.
Imo the Boulder police ruined the investigation right from the start because they failed to arrest the Ramseys as soon as JB's dead body was discovered in their own home.
 
I think the suspect we have is so obsessive the way he washed and redressed JBR that the dna might well not be there at all. We note there were no fingerprints on the flashlight in the kitchen - not even the family's, meaning he wiped it down as well as probably everything else.

The speck of white male dna on the underwear is mixed with JBR's blood and that is what the investigators hope will match Karr's. If it doesn't, I still think he could be found guilty with enough other evidence. A convincing case has to be built from the ground up.

In the reverse of this situation, the Simpson case had tons of dna, and he still went free because the defense argued so successfully that the dna was mishandled, and therefore not reliable.

Anything could happen. I still think OJ did it and depending on the mountain of evidence they have on Karr, if it is convincing enough I don't think dna is required.
 
I didn't know about the foreign DNA until fairly recently - I've been leaning towards that it was probably an intruder, based partially on the police lies in this case - the behavior where they tried to convict in the media through releasing misleading statements and the occasional flat out lie - holding the body hostage (like the killers would be so emotionally attached to the body?) - and just the length of the investigation that found nothing to go to trial with, sufficiently nothing that they've moved on and now think it was an intruder - that's what sets my opinion.
 
rashomon said:
Just because the investigation was botched doesn't mean that there was an intruder.

Imo the Boulder police ruined the investigation right from the start because they failed to arrest the Ramseys as soon as JB's dead body was discovered in their own home.


I didn't connect the 2 sentences with the word "because".

#1. I believe the perpetrator that murdered JonBenet was an intruder, not either one of her parents.

#2. I feel that the inept BPD totally blew this case back in Dec. of 1996 with their rush to judgement of the Ramsey parents.

One thought is not contingent upon the other.

We agree on the failures of the BPD, but not on the reasoning.

Rum Tum Tugger
 
cwiz24 said:
To me the DNA means virtually nothing. The minuscule amount of DNA found in her underpants could have been left there by a sneezing, coughing, spittle-prone underwear factory worker. And if that is the case, that DNA cannot be used to exclude anyone from involvement. The DNA under her fingernails was compromised by the use of one clipper rather than 10. So my confidence in that DNA, even if they get a partial match, is shaky at best.

If the DNA does not match, Karr cannot be excluded in my opinion because of the two reasons I listed above. Something else will have to exclude him, like hard proof that he was not in Colorado that night.

My reasoning for believing in an intruder is the evidence around the window well, the shoeprint, and the 911 tape. One of my stongest feelings though revolves around the parents (or parent) being able to stage a kidnapping/murder scene effectively, come up with some weird and totally unnecessary ransom note situation, and write an intelligible ransom note after just killing their own child. I would think that the fear of being caught combined with the (presumably) unexpected murder and the grief associated with a dead child would have caused them to mess up. Leave some sign that obviously implicated themselves. But, if they did it, the Ramseys staged the perfect crime scene. In my opinion, that would have been impossible.
I would remain an IDI, for the reasons cited above by cwiz.
 
rashomon said:
Just because the investigation was botched doesn't mean that there was an intruder.
Imo the Boulder police ruined the investigation right from the start because they failed to arrest the Ramseys as soon as JB's dead body was discovered in their own home.
I think they botched it by not securing the home (Ramseys already had company over when LE got there) and allowing the Ramseys to control the situation rather than LE proceeding the way they would now if a child's murdered body were found in the home. This investigation was doomed from the beginning due to LE lack of experience and kid glove treatment of Ramseys. Hopefully they have the perpetrator in custody, but I'm not convinced yet.
:rolleyes:
 
Interesting to hear that some of you partly base your opinion on how the police handled the case after the fact.

How can this influence the guilt factor?

Do you feel some of the info we today take as facts regarding the case are planted or distorted?
 
Rum Tum Tugger said:
I didn't connect the 2 sentences with the word "because".

#1. I believe the perpetrator that murdered JonBenet was an intruder, not either one of her parents.

#2. I feel that the inept BPD totally blew this case back in Dec. of 1996 with their rush to judgement of the Ramsey parents.

One thought is not contingent upon the other.

We agree on the failures of the BPD, but not on the reasoning.

Rum Tum Tugger
But the ransom note and the garrote scenario don't fit together if it was an intruder. For why would a sexual predator who had killed the child then sit down in the Ramsey home and write that idiotic and totally redundant ransom note? Remember that the note was written with pen and paper from the Ramsey home.

IDIs will mention the bootprint and the DNA, but hardly ever will you hear a comment from them on the ransom note, and for obvious reasons.
If they mention the ransom note at all, they mostly fail to come up with a time line. For a random intruder must have written it after the murder, because a random intruder could not have gotten pen and paper from the Ramsey home beforehand. But even to IDIs the thought of a random intruder sitting down at the Ramsey kitchen table after the murder to write a three-page note is obviously absurd, which is why they say the note must have been written before the murder. But now it gets difficult: how did that intruder get pen and paper from the Ramsey home beforehand? Has any IDI come up with an explanation so far? If yes, please post it here.
 
rashomon said:
But the ransom note and the garrote scenario don't fit together if it was an intruder. For why would a sexual predator who had killed the child then sit down in the Ramsey home and write that idiotic and totally redundant ransom note? Remember that the note was written with pen and paper from the Ramsey home.

No one has ever said that the note was conclusively written after the kidnapping/murder. That cannot be proven.
 
tumble said:
Interesting to hear that some of you partly base your opinion on how the police handled the case after the fact.

How can this influence the guilt factor?

Do you feel some of the info we today take as facts regarding the case are planted or distorted?
Because how the police act indicates to me that they never seriously considered the evidence. It became personal, they were focused, tunnel vision, could see nothing other than the Ramseys, had no willingness to consider anything else.

I think a lot of the attitude, feel the Ramsey's gave off was planted and distorted - they were portrayed as absolutely the killers, no doubt, by the false 'snow all around the house' bit. That slants how they are percieved, how their every action is percieved, then more info is heard with that slant, and when the misinformation is corrected, the slant remains, and the new info that was heard with that slant is now considered sufficient evidence to replace the evidence that has proven to be misinformation. If the police are not honest, if they show a sincere, emotional, angry belief that the Ramsey's did it, and that they must catch them, with real evidence or fake - how can you trust their investigation to find all the facts? Things are ignored, leads disregarded (I've posted a link a few times about some of the leads that were ignored, some very similar cases out there) - it's not that the facts are wrong, it's that they aren't all there.
 
rashomon said:
But the ransom note and the garrote scenario don't fit together if it was an intruder. For why would a sexual predator who had killed the child then sit down in the Ramsey home and write that idiotic and totally redundant ransom note? Remember that the note was written with pen and paper from the Ramsey home.
I agree with this and especially that lengthy diatribe known as the "ransom note". Why would a stranger intruder/sexual predator need to sit down and write that note? Why not just get in there and out? Even if they'd spent time in the house waiting for JBR to arrive home, someone like Karr sounds like he'd be up in her room playing with her toys! It would make more sense for someone in the house to write it to try to deflect suspicion onto a stranger. Everything's so :confused: !!
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
113
Guests online
2,232
Total visitors
2,345

Forum statistics

Threads
590,002
Messages
17,928,877
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top