santos1014
Nana to Madelynn and Ethan
Would like to know the reasons that IDI may have changed their minds to RDI and vice versa.
santos1014 said:Would like to know the reasons that IDI may have changed their minds to RDI and vice versa.
SuperDave said:In my case, that's a long story.
On a recent show a woman who's son was murdered said the most difficult time for her was leaving her son when he was buried. She said everyone was leaving and she turned around and it was cold and she felt he was all by himself.philamena said:Innocent parents, who's child is found in their home, sexually abused and brutally murdered, do n't call their private pilot to get them the hell out of Dodge within hours of the murder. Innocent parents don't lawyer up before their child's body is found. Innocent parents DO NOT evade LE and go directly to CNN to conduct an interview.
Wow that could have been my mom but she's never been on a TV show but she said those exact same words. ;(Solace said:On a recent show a woman who's son was murdered said the most difficult time for her was leaving her son when he was buried. She said everyone was leaving and she turned around and it was cold and she felt he was all by himself.
Didn't seem to bother John and Patsy at all.
Credence said:Wow that could have been my mom but she's never been on a TV show but she said those exact same words. ;(
Back on topic; I am still a fence sitter. I am very familiar with the facts of the case and I don't understand how anyone can be either RDI or IDI. For every single theory I've read; I've read another that contradicts it based on the same evidence. I read one and say RDI and then read another and say IDI. Oh well. Haven't read anything that has made me lean towards one or the other.
I don't understand how anyone can be either RDI or IDI.
UKGuy said:Credence,
There is no forensic evidence that links an intruder to the Ramsey household, not one iota!
Lou Smits Intruder theory is inconsistent with the forensic evidence, and is in parts an interpretation, by him, of a sociopathic sexual predator!
There is no other intruder theory I know of that explains away the circumstances discovered within the Ramsey Household.
There are numerous items of evidence linking the Ramsey's directly to the crime-scene, not withstanding their initial inconsistent statements regarding events on that fateful night.
With no evidence at all to support an IDI case then this leaves RDI as the only viable option. From this you can generate individual RDI theories, BlueCrab's Burke Did It, is a fairly consistent example, since Burke was resident and remains a suspect.
Or you can extract features of BlueCrabs BDI theory, e.g. family and establishment cover up, to promote a Ramsey Conspiracy Theory, that is they were all involved, all have something to hide, so they all colluded to fabricate a version of events regarding the night JonBenet was killed.
The test is not whether theories are contradictory with each other, but are they consistent with the forensic evidence, on this basis Lou Smit's Intruder Theory is fantasy!
.
Not exactly so. They are looking to match so many of the points. Just incase. Then evidence will have to go the rest of the distance. So far no match ......imagine that.Alexi said:Interesting that the DA is using that same DNA to eliminate other suspects isn't it?
Alexi said:Only if you ignore the foreign dna
UKGuy said:There is no forensic evidence that links an intruder to the Ramsey household, not one iota!
You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine. There is apt to be trace evidence against the Ramseys; they lived there. There are fibers however that have not been identified. In another post of yours you state that the DNA is older than the blood spot - not true; they couldn't "age" the stain. I don't believe all of Smit's theory and neither do I believe Thomas' theory. However, I don't believe she fell and hit her head but was hit on the head deliberately which IMO rules out an accident; with no accident there is no reason for a coverup. In addition to that if foreign DNA is ruled artifact; then there leaves many suspects that remain since they were cleared via DNA.UKGuy said:Credence,
There is no forensic evidence that links an intruder to the Ramsey household, not one iota!
Lou Smits Intruder theory is inconsistent with the forensic evidence, and is in parts an interpretation, by him, of a sociopathic sexual predator!
There is no other intruder theory I know of that explains away the circumstances discovered within the Ramsey Household.
There are numerous items of evidence linking the Ramsey's directly to the crime-scene, not withstanding their initial inconsistent statements regarding events on that fateful night.
With no evidence at all to support an IDI case then this leaves RDI as the only viable option. From this you can generate individual RDI theories, BlueCrab's Burke Did It, is a fairly consistent example, since Burke was resident and remains a suspect.
Or you can extract features of BlueCrabs BDI theory, e.g. family and establishment cover up, to promote a Ramsey Conspiracy Theory, that is they were all involved, all have something to hide, so they all colluded to fabricate a version of events regarding the night JonBenet was killed.
The test is not whether theories are contradictory with each other, but are they consistent with the forensic evidence, on this basis Lou Smit's Intruder Theory is fantasy!
.
Credence said:You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine. There is apt to be trace evidence against the Ramseys; they lived there. There are fibers however that have not been identified. In another post of yours you state that the DNA is older than the blood spot - not true; they couldn't "age" the stain. I don't believe all of Smit's theory and neither do I believe Thomas' theory. However, I don't believe she fell and hit her head but was hit on the head deliberately which IMO rules out an accident; with no accident there is no reason for a coverup. In addition to that if foreign DNA is ruled artifact; then there leaves many suspects that remain since they were cleared via DNA.
I still cannot come to a conclusion either way - whether RDI or IDI just too many holes in either theory. MOO
Really do you have a source for this please?In another post of yours you state that the DNA is older than the blood spot - not true; they couldn't "age" the stain.
I agree, but some of what passes for opinion according to other posters, is either hard forensic evidence or can be concluded from it. e.g. Patsy's fibers embedded into the garrote have not arrived there by chance or circumstance, particularly when Patsy is on record stating she never went down to the basement that morning.You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.