View Poll Results: Did probability of intruder change with DNA evidence?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • Probability went way up.

    17 28.33%
  • Probability went up somewhat.

    9 15.00%
  • Probability went down.

    0 0%
  • Probability was unchanged.

    34 56.67%
Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 401 to 425 of 508

Thread: Intruder probability more, less, or same?

  1. #401
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Experts can tell things we can't. And I never said Patsy disguised her handwriting. To me, it matched perfectly. Written hurriedly and possibly not with her dominant hand, but Patsy all the same.
    Matching perfectly, written hurriedly, and possibly not with her dominant hand are unsubstantial claims. Its stuff literally pulled right out of thin air. If thats what is needed to support RDI these days, I fully understand.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 04-16-2010 at 12:53 AM.

  2. #402
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    PR didn't write the note because she demonstrated she doesn't know how to spell 'advise'. She clearly spelled it 'advize' in both right and left hand exemplars. She misspelled it more clearly and neatly in both right and left hand exemplars than the RN author spelled it in the first place.

    RDI themselves never caught this, and has since made a series of unsubstantial claims in order to fit this phenomenon into the RDI model. This was embarrassing for RDI who now downplays it understandably.
    Brought up and answered effectively many times including here:
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62383"]Did You Know That Patsy Spelled Advise Wrong In The Sample RN? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
    This time we get it right

  3. #403
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    I am sorry but aren't these experts both examining the SAME NOTE and the SAME HANDWRITINGS??I thought this is SCIENCE.Then how come both are so extreme and one says black and the other says white?So if this is science and not a joke then my only conclusion is that ONE of them is biased or corrupt or just.......lying.Which one is it.

    Geez,this example shows clearly why I hate experts and why you can't trust any of them.........
    Q. When you were first retained did you agree to assist for a fee?
    A. No, I did not. In fact, I -- prior to being officially retained and while still an employee of the department of justice, I contacted the ethics officer at the Immigration and Naturalization Service and asked for permission to become involved in the case on a pro bono basis

    I had put in more than 50 hours of examination time in the case for which I did not bill anyone.

    Epstein was asked why his opinion differed from some other document examiners, including Dusak.
    His answer:

    Everyone knows everyone else. There are certain document examiners who, because of their exposure in the profession, because of the work that they do, because of the workshops that they may present, are looked upon by other examiners as leaders in their field.

    it was a matter of chain of events, one document examiner after another refusing to go up against someone who they knew, someone who was large in the profession, for fear that they would be criticized for saying something that another examiner -- it's sort of like an ethics within the medical community, where one doctor protects the other doctor.

    I feel personally that the other examiners were simply afraid to state what they believed to be the truth, or that they simply didn't devote the necessary time.
    This is the kind of case that you have to devote a tremendous amount of time and effort to. I've spent a lot of my years working cases where you don't count the hours, you simply count the weeks and you count the months and you devote the time that's necessary.
    If a document examiner is working this kind of a case and counting the hours, he's going to get to a point where it's going to be too expensive for him to bill, and so he's either not going to do the case in the time that's required or he's going to cut the time short.
    And I just don't believe that some of these people devoted the necessary amount of time to the case to come up with the correct conclusions, and I think they simply went along with what had been previously said because it was the most expedient thing to do.
    DEPOSITION OF GIDEON EPSTEIN
    May 17, 2002
    This time we get it right

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to cynic For This Useful Post:


  5. #404
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    What was answered effectively? I never asked a question. Were you responding to another post?

    What I did was make an assertion. Put another way, RDI will force fit new information into the RDI model, no matter what the new information is. This is true because RDI tends to use unsubstantial claims whenever the new information doesn't fit the RDI model.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 04-16-2010 at 01:22 AM.

  6. #405
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    What was answered effectively?
    The "issue" of advise and advize.
    This time we get it right

  7. #406
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    The "issue" of advise and advize.
    The only effective answer is you don't know why the RN has 'advise' and PR's exemplars have 'advize'. And I know you don't know. Obviously you're free to claim anything you want, but its unsubstantiated. Thats my whole point, by making unsubstantial claim RDI embarrasses itself. Better to not have a spontaneous knee-jerk answer to everything that doesn't fit.

  8. #407
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Q. When you were first retained did you agree to assist for a fee?
    A. No, I did not. In fact, I -- prior to being officially retained and while still an employee of the department of justice, I contacted the ethics officer at the Immigration and Naturalization Service and asked for permission to become involved in the case on a pro bono basis

    I had put in more than 50 hours of examination time in the case for which I did not bill anyone.

    Epstein was asked why his opinion differed from some other document examiners, including Dusak.
    His answer:

    Everyone knows everyone else. There are certain document examiners who, because of their exposure in the profession, because of the work that they do, because of the workshops that they may present, are looked upon by other examiners as leaders in their field.

    it was a matter of chain of events, one document examiner after another refusing to go up against someone who they knew, someone who was large in the profession, for fear that they would be criticized for saying something that another examiner -- it's sort of like an ethics within the medical community, where one doctor protects the other doctor.

    I feel personally that the other examiners were simply afraid to state what they believed to be the truth, or that they simply didn't devote the necessary time.
    This is the kind of case that you have to devote a tremendous amount of time and effort to. I've spent a lot of my years working cases where you don't count the hours, you simply count the weeks and you count the months and you devote the time that's necessary.
    If a document examiner is working this kind of a case and counting the hours, he's going to get to a point where it's going to be too expensive for him to bill, and so he's either not going to do the case in the time that's required or he's going to cut the time short.
    And I just don't believe that some of these people devoted the necessary amount of time to the case to come up with the correct conclusions, and I think they simply went along with what had been previously said because it was the most expedient thing to do.
    DEPOSITION OF GIDEON EPSTEIN
    May 17, 2002
    Gawd can't we make up our mind? These personal or professional insults really. Multiple unrelated claims of simply going along, not taking enough time, afraid to state what was really believed, or refusing to go up against others are curiously unsubstantiated.

    Can just one of these professionally insulting claims be substantiated? I didn't think so. Par for the course.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 04-16-2010 at 01:47 AM.

  9. #408
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,541
    HOTYH,

    You believe it was a SFF/unknown killer.Then you probably believe that FW is not involved in the crime.What do you think happened between him and the Ramsey's then?John points fingers at Fleet,Fleet points fingers at John and now I am sure that this happened after reading all the depo's again.(Levin confirms that FW is on the top of John's suspect list,Steve Thomas confirms that Fleet implies that a Ramsey did it,Mason confirms that there was a big fight between the two in Georgia,and so on)What was it about if a stranger killed JB and they're both innocent?
    Last edited by madeleine; 04-16-2010 at 06:27 AM.
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  10. #409
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,541
    There's no smoke without a fire.They key to this crime is the permanent fighting between FW and JR IMO.I mean it's not like they just yelled at each other.All the letters,the pointing fingers (through official channels) and the stuff we don't even know of yet.Publicly they both always stated that the other one is not a suspect.BS,behind the scenes BOTH accused one another.We don't even know their arguments.Why is that.Why the secrecy.Maybe both know/did something,or maybe they just waited for the incompetent ones to figure it out by themselves without saying too much,how convenient.
    JR thinks it's FW but he never says why and publicly he denies it.FW does the same.WTH is this about.
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  11. The Following User Says Thank You to madeleine For This Useful Post:


  12. #410
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,541
    Q. Has Fleet White ever made any
    23 statement to you about his opinion on who
    24 killed JonBenet Ramsey?
    25 A. Mr. White has always been very

    286

    1 careful with his language around me, as is
    2 his wife and I don't know that I could sit
    3 here and say today that he has come out and
    4 made a declaration as to who he believes
    5 killed JonBenet Ramsey. But the tone and
    6 inferences of some of these conversations made
    7 it fairly clear to me.
    8 Q. You think you understood from the
    9 tone and inferences what he was trying to say
    10 but not saying directly; is that your
    11 testimony?
    12 A. I think I believe that I know who
    13 Fleet has in mind as the offender in this
    14 case.

    15 Q. Why don't you just ask him?
    16 A. I did not, that I recall, ask him
    17 outright who he thought did it.
    (BULLS##T STEVE imo)
    18 Q. I mean, you've talked to him since
    19 you left the Boulder Police Department,
    20 haven't you?
    21 A. Yes.
    22 Q. When is the last time you talked
    23 with Fleet White?
    24 A. I think I last saw them in
    25 probably July or August of 2000 and then

    287

    1 again had a pleasant hallway conversation in
    2 Jefferson County, Colorado, outside a
    3 courtroom in the last couple months.
    4 Q. What was the nature of your seeing
    5 him in July of 2000?
    6 A. A personal visit.
    7 Q. Personal, but tell me, please, if
    8 you would, the nature of the visit?
    9 A. I think I had finished a carpentry
    10 job up on -- in that part of the world and
    11 in the late afternoon or early evening, drove
    12 by their house to say hello and they invited
    13 me to stay for dinner.
    14 Q. Drinks?
    15 A. I don't really drink.
    16 Q. Whether you really drink or not --
    17 most people either drink or they don't drink.
    18 I don't know about I don't really drink.
    19 That sounds like you might occasionally take
    20 a glass of wine or drink, I don't know. Do
    21 you?
    22 A. I won't drink three beers in a
    23 year's time.
    24 Q. Did you have a glass of wine with
    25 the Whites that night you had dinner?

    288

    1 A. No.
    2 Q. Did they?
    3 A. I don't know whether or not they
    4 had alcohol.
    5 Q. How many times do you think you've
    6 seen them on a social basis since you left
    7 the department in August of 1998?
    8 A. Two or three maybe.
    9 Q. And one was the dinner in July of
    10 2000. What were the other two occasions?
    11 A. Post resignation in August of '98,
    12 maybe a time or two in 1999, I'm not sure.
    13 Q. What were the occasions? You had
    14 dinner one time. What were the other social
    15 occasions; do you recall what they were?
    16 A. That was the only time I ever ate
    17 with the people.
    18 Q. What were the other social
    19 occasions, sir, what did you do with them?
    20 A. Probably just stopped by their
    21 house and said hello. I didn't meet them at
    22 other locations.
    23 Q. Do you consider Fleet and
    24 Priscilla White personal friends of yours?
    25 A. I don't know how I would

    289

    1 characterize these people who I have a lot of
    2 compassion for.
    3 Q. Do you know what you consider
    4 someone -- do you know what it is to
    5 consider someone a personal friend of yours?
    6 A. Yes.
    7 Q. Do they fall in that category or
    8 not?
    9 A. It's an unusual characterization.
    10 I have never had a relationship with somebody
    11 that I met wearing one hat and continued that
    12 in this context. So if you're asking me am
    13 I friendly and would I consider myself
    14 friends with these people, yes.



    http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09...teveThomas.txt
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  13. #411
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,541
    Q. (By Mr. Levin) Hang on. I

    21 suppose what I'm -- I don't mean to cut you

    22 off, Mr. Ramsey, obviously. But what I am

    23 interested in, I mean, we had a list of

    24 names that you provided early on
    , and I was

    25 interested if there are recent people. I

    0010

    1 mean, obviously we've looked at Chris Wolf

    2 and we looked at Fleet and we've looked at

    3 Priscilla and we've looked at Merrick, and

    4 those people, and I'm looking for --

    5 MR. WOOD: Have they been

    6 cleared, Bruce? Have they been cleared?

    7 MR. LEVIN: I can't comment on the

    8 status of the investigation.

    9 MR. WOOD: Has he been cleared

    10 from your list. Are we wasting our time?

    11 Tell us so we won't waste Ollie's resources.
    12 They can go elsewhere.



    http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/20...w-Complete.htm
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  14. #412
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,541
    Q And generally speaking, what were you doing in Georgia?
    20 A We went to Georgia to basically just do background
    21 investigations. We got some information that there had been
    22 a major fight in the house between Mr. Ramsey and one of the
    23 other people that were there.
    I don’t remember --
    24 Q Does “Mr. White” ring a bell?
    25 A “White,” that’s who it was, Mr. White, and we had heard

    LARRY MASON - DIRECT (JONES)

    18

    1 that there was problems there in the house, and we wanted to
    2 find out what was going on.


    http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/05...nTestimony.txt
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  15. #413
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,541
    It's obvious to ME now that it's

    1.JR knows or did something
    2.FW knows or did something

    or
    3.BOTH know or did something (hey,maybe that crazy woman was right after all or at least she came up with a theory that shouldn't be disregarded imo) )

    And what about that jacket PW owned that was IDENTICAL to PR's?If you have two identical jackets how can you know the fibers belonged to X or Y.


    6:03 AM Whites Arrived. Fleet & Priscilla White arrived at Ramsey house
    6:06
    AM Fleet White Searched Basement. Fleet White went downstairs to basement to look for JBR (Schiller 1999a: 44). This time is supported by Carnes (2003:14): "The Whites arrived at defendant's home at approximately 6:00 a.m., and Mr. White, alone, searched the basement within fifteen minutes of arrival.
    After 6:06 AM Fleet White Searched Wine Cellar Room. "Mr. White also opened the door to the wine cellar room, but he could not see anything inside because it was dark and he could not find the light switch.

    Riiiiiiiiight to the basement....okay.

    http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/December%2026

    DNA doesn't exonerate any of them.I will always argue that whoever did this could have had an accomplice and no one can prove otherwise.
    Last edited by madeleine; 04-16-2010 at 07:11 AM.
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  16. #414
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,541
    FW was in bed with the cops all the time,JR was in bed with the DA all the time ,both pointing fingers at each other and you want me to believe this was all about an innocent argument/misunderstanding?BS.

    Okay,I am done now.
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  17. #415
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Matching perfectly, written hurriedly, and possibly not with her dominant hand are unsubstantial claims. Its stuff literally pulled right out of thin air. If thats what is needed to support RDI these days, I fully understand.
    Dare I say it ... no, I won't.

    The reasoning you use to support that someone other than Patsy wrote the note is based on the same type thinking you use to dismiss the evidence that supports her writing the note.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BOESP For This Useful Post:


  19. #416
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    Dare I say it ... no, I won't.

    The reasoning you use to support that someone other than Patsy wrote the note is based on the same type thinking you use to dismiss the evidence that supports her writing the note.
    Thats funny. Unlike RDI, I never characterized how it was written, by which hand, or whether the author was disgusing their writing or spelling. What are you talking about? I did once suggest the RN was written by BOTH hands at the same time, but I was just kidding around.

    Suppose the RN and PR's exemplars both had the same misspelled word 'bussiness'. Then suppose I argued that its a commonly misspelled word and both PR and the intruder misspelled it. THEN I would be dismissing evidence that PR wrote the note, by formulating an unsubstantial claim in response to RDI-favoring evidence. See what I mean?
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 04-16-2010 at 10:59 AM.

  20. #417
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,620
    Patsy owned a jacket SIMILAR, but not identical, to one owned by Pricilla White. Patsy speaks about it on one of her interviews. She mentioned that PW had a jacket that she fancied, and she was able to find one like it for herself in a Marshalls (or some similar shop). There is often confusion when this garment has been described as a jacket or sometimes a sweater.
    It was made of polyester fleece- of a type many women would be familiar with. So in this respect could be classified as either a sweater or jacket, though I would call it a jacket. Not an outerwear type of jacket, though. More like a soft, unconstructed fabric jacket that you would wear to complete an outfit (more like a suit jacket). In Patsy's case, it was a black/red/white pattern that I can imagine looked nice with the black velvet pants and red sweater that Patsy wore with it.
    It was never said that it was identical to PW's, though Patsy and the RST would certainly like it out there that it was. Forensics would probably be able to discern the difference in the fibers, by the dyes and finishing process, between two similar garments, but made by different manufacturers (or maybe even the same one) yet shipped to different stores at different times.
    They were able to discover, even in 1997, exactly which manufacturing batch the tape and Sharpie pen ink came from, and so were able to seen when and where they were made and to what stores they were shipped.
    We have already discussed that NO forensic specialist will state that a fiber came from a SPECIFIC garment. Rather they will describe it as "being consistent with" fibers from a particular garment. This is because, even in one-of-a-kind garments (as in a handknit sweater), the yarns and dyes may not be exclusive to that ONE garment. However, fibers from garments found to be from particular shops or manufacturers can be identified with a high degree of accuracy.
    For example, JR's wool Israeli-made shirt may not be the only one in the world. BUT it was the only one in the house. The likelihood of an intruder coming into contact with JB's panty crotch (and leaving NO fibers anywhere else) wearing the exact same shirt that the victim's father wore that exact day is virtually non-existent. And not to make light of this tragedy, but claims to the otherwise are actually...laughable.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  21. #418
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Oh, its over alright.
    Don't you believe it.

    The most evidence ever left at a child murder + the two perpetrators living in the same house + ten years + no charges filed = incompetence.
    Couldn't agree with that more!

    Not simply on the part of LE or the DA either,
    Agreed. They were dealt a lousy hand to begin with. But the fact remains that they didn't have the intelligence to play it well.

    IOW if you haven't gotten it by now...
    One of doesn't get it, all right...
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  22. #419
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    I am sorry but aren't these experts both examining the SAME NOTE and the SAME HANDWRITINGS??
    Not exactly. Epstein had a lot more comparison material and knowledge, among other things.

    I thought this is SCIENCE.
    I'm afraid it isn't. It's still "one person, one opinion."

    Then how come both are so extreme and one says black and the other says white?
    A few reasons, really. Not the least of which is that one was (at least at the time) a member of a group which is dominated by a few guys who convince everyone else to go along with them, and the other one LEFT said group because he was sick of the political BS and groupthink which led "experts" to agree with their colleagues' conclusions even when they were wrong.

    So if this is science and not a joke then my only conclusion is that ONE of them is biased or corrupt or just.......lying. Which one is it?
    1) It isn't a science.

    2) As for being biased or corrupt, that charge has been thrown around on both sides.

    Geez,this example shows clearly why I hate experts and why you can't trust any of them.........
    You just nailed it. One of the few good ideas Hunter had was not to rely on experts and let the jury hash it out for themselves.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  24. #420
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Correct. I suggest filtering the expert and witness testimony by the context within which the expert spoke. Was it for publicity, were they hired by the R's? the tabs? Did they already have an axe to grind?

    It seems to me that the most valid testimoy were from those closest to the case, who gave their statements in the course of being there, as they had no choice. If they were asked by LE or DA to do a job, or if they would normally be there.
    That's something we all can agree on.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  25. #421
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Q. When you were first retained did you agree to assist for a fee?
    A. No, I did not. In fact, I -- prior to being officially retained and while still an employee of the department of justice, I contacted the ethics officer at the Immigration and Naturalization Service and asked for permission to become involved in the case on a pro bono basis

    I had put in more than 50 hours of examination time in the case for which I did not bill anyone.

    Epstein was asked why his opinion differed from some other document examiners, including Dusak.
    His answer:

    Everyone knows everyone else. There are certain document examiners who, because of their exposure in the profession, because of the work that they do, because of the workshops that they may present, are looked upon by other examiners as leaders in their field.

    it was a matter of chain of events, one document examiner after another refusing to go up against someone who they knew, someone who was large in the profession, for fear that they would be criticized for saying something that another examiner -- it's sort of like an ethics within the medical community, where one doctor protects the other doctor.

    I feel personally that the other examiners were simply afraid to state what they believed to be the truth, or that they simply didn't devote the necessary time.
    This is the kind of case that you have to devote a tremendous amount of time and effort to. I've spent a lot of my years working cases where you don't count the hours, you simply count the weeks and you count the months and you devote the time that's necessary.
    If a document examiner is working this kind of a case and counting the hours, he's going to get to a point where it's going to be too expensive for him to bill, and so he's either not going to do the case in the time that's required or he's going to cut the time short.
    And I just don't believe that some of these people devoted the necessary amount of time to the case to come up with the correct conclusions, and I think they simply went along with what had been previously said because it was the most expedient thing to do.
    DEPOSITION OF GIDEON EPSTEIN
    May 17, 2002
    That's what I've been trying to say!
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  26. #422
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Thats funny. Unlike RDI, I never characterized how it was written, by which hand, or whether the author was disgusing their writing or spelling. What are you talking about? I did once suggest the RN was written by BOTH hands at the same time, but I was just kidding around.

    Suppose the RN and PR's exemplars both had the same misspelled word 'bussiness'. Then suppose I argued that its a commonly misspelled word and both PR and the intruder misspelled it. THEN I would be dismissing evidence that PR wrote the note, by formulating an unsubstantial claim in response to RDI-favoring evidence. See what I mean?
    Your posts imply, at least to me, that you do not believe Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. If that's not what you think then please do say so.

    I am not a questioned documents examiner but common sense tells me that anyone at any time can fake spelling errors, especially a highly educated, intelligent person such as Patsy who also would have been highly motivated to make such errors purposely. I'm sure she was acquainted with red herrings.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to BOESP For This Useful Post:


  28. #423
    I would like to find out more about Suzanne Savage if anyone can provide some information or links. TIA

  29. #424
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    Your posts imply, at least to me, that you do not believe Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. If that's not what you think then please do say so.

    I am not a questioned documents examiner but common sense tells me that anyone at any time can fake spelling errors, especially a highly educated, intelligent person such as Patsy who also would have been highly motivated to make such errors purposely. I'm sure she was acquainted with red herrings.
    Firstly, the idea that a female victimized JBR is somewhat rare as sexually assaulted females go. Secondly, the idea that a child murder was done by an educated, intelligent person is rare.

    Now, you would multiply the two rarities together to get the final probability that a highly educated, intelligent female sexually assaulted and murdered a female child.

    I would like to know of one highly educated, intelligent person who would, under ANY circumstance, be so stupid as to handwrite a long ransom note and leave it in their own house. This seems so massively paradoxical, as to not be plausible. I'm surprised ANYBODY in LE really thought this even for a minute.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 04-16-2010 at 09:53 PM.

  30. #425
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,620
    Patsy wrote the note.



    Anyway....


    I don't think Patsy was sexually molesting her daughter. I think it was a male relative.
    There could have been injuries caused by Patsy if she was douching her daughter, though.
    I do know that there are cases where children are molested by women, even their mothers, as awful as that is. But I do not feel that was the case here.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415161718192021 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 138
    Last Post: 11-01-2013, 09:41 PM
  2. A New Look at Intruder Theories
    By angelwngs in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 407
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 09:57 PM
  3. Defending against an intruder
    By Holdontoyourhat in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: 08-21-2008, 02:02 AM
  4. If an Intruder...
    By Nehemiah in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 05-10-2004, 01:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •