There has been an unfortunate blow-up on the FFJ forum involving Paradox and his theory. There was an effort to belittle his theory and this shouldn't go unchallenged. As far as I know, the theory put forth by Paradox is the same theory put forth by Steve Thomas except Paradox suggests JonBenet's death was intentional.
Basically it's Patsy/accident or Patsy/intentional. Steve Thomas asked John on the Larry King show to clarify this point and for some reason John avoided the question. But nothing in Paradox's theory undermines the efforts of Steve Thomas. This is important.
When you have someone who is guilty of a crime, the last thing their lawyers and investigators want to do is to solve the crime. Instead their efforts are aimed at creating doubt and possibilities. This is exactly what the Ramsey team has been doing for years. Lou Smit wasn't trying to solve the crime, he was creating doubt.
Steve Thomas solved this crime 10 years ago. When people trot out Burke and John, they are actually doing the same thing as Lou Smit. They are creating doubt and possibilities. You can't limit doubt.
Paradox was asked to give a timeline for his theory. Intentional or accidental, the timeline should be the same. Everything works for Steve's theory, so it should work for Paradox's theory.
And what about John's fibers?
If people can blindly cling to these fibers then why can't people blindly cling to the DNA in JonBenet's underwear.
The DNA in the underwear can be eliminated because if you look at the overall context of the crime, an intruder doesn't make sense.
If you look at the overall context of the crime, does John make sense. No. Do you think Steve eliminated him because he flipped a coin?
Fibers mean something when they tell you something. If fibers from Ted Bundy's shirt are found on a dead girl that he had no reason to be in contact with, those fibers tell us something.
If fibers from anybody JonBenet was around Christmas night were found on her, it would tell us nothing. The only reason Patsy's fibers meant anything is becaue of their circumstances. A fiber from Patsy found lying somewhere on JonBenet would have told us nothing. A fiber from Fleet White found lying somewhere on JonBenet would have told us nothing. Same for John.
Where the fibers were found is especially meaningless because of the known undressing, cleaning, redressing, and who knows what else.
Look past the fibers and the shoe print, and the DNA and walk through the crime. You should come to the same basic conclusion as Steve Thomas. And Paradox.
Patsy, Patsy, and more Patsy.
Basically it's Patsy/accident or Patsy/intentional. Steve Thomas asked John on the Larry King show to clarify this point and for some reason John avoided the question. But nothing in Paradox's theory undermines the efforts of Steve Thomas. This is important.
When you have someone who is guilty of a crime, the last thing their lawyers and investigators want to do is to solve the crime. Instead their efforts are aimed at creating doubt and possibilities. This is exactly what the Ramsey team has been doing for years. Lou Smit wasn't trying to solve the crime, he was creating doubt.
Steve Thomas solved this crime 10 years ago. When people trot out Burke and John, they are actually doing the same thing as Lou Smit. They are creating doubt and possibilities. You can't limit doubt.
Paradox was asked to give a timeline for his theory. Intentional or accidental, the timeline should be the same. Everything works for Steve's theory, so it should work for Paradox's theory.
And what about John's fibers?
If people can blindly cling to these fibers then why can't people blindly cling to the DNA in JonBenet's underwear.
The DNA in the underwear can be eliminated because if you look at the overall context of the crime, an intruder doesn't make sense.
If you look at the overall context of the crime, does John make sense. No. Do you think Steve eliminated him because he flipped a coin?
Fibers mean something when they tell you something. If fibers from Ted Bundy's shirt are found on a dead girl that he had no reason to be in contact with, those fibers tell us something.
If fibers from anybody JonBenet was around Christmas night were found on her, it would tell us nothing. The only reason Patsy's fibers meant anything is becaue of their circumstances. A fiber from Patsy found lying somewhere on JonBenet would have told us nothing. A fiber from Fleet White found lying somewhere on JonBenet would have told us nothing. Same for John.
Where the fibers were found is especially meaningless because of the known undressing, cleaning, redressing, and who knows what else.
Look past the fibers and the shoe print, and the DNA and walk through the crime. You should come to the same basic conclusion as Steve Thomas. And Paradox.
Patsy, Patsy, and more Patsy.
