Which is strongest RDI evidence?

joeskidbeck · Mar 14, 2011

DeeDee249 said:
The possibility of deliberately misspelled words still has to be considered.

Right, DeeDee, especially if Patsy was known for not making spelling errors. I'm sure, in her mind, she thought this would point away from her since everyone knows Patsy doesn't make spelling errors. I have a huge problem with a person who can't spell business being able to spell attache'. Come to think of it, I lost a huge spelling bee once because I misspelled the word medicine. I was devastated. I guess the pressure just got to me. Wonder what words I would have missed if I had just caused or witnessed the death of my child?
My point is this: she could have misspelled those words deliberately or because of the tremendous amount of stress she was under. She can't be ruled out because of spelling errors, in any case.

BBB167893 · Mar 14, 2011

wonderllama said:
I have a postgraduate degree Holdon, am I beyond making a spelling mistake under pressure? C'mon...that's lame.

I agree completely. I graduated college with honors, and I make spelling mistakes even when only slightly distracted, let alone with a gun to my head, figuratively speaking.

BBB167893 · Mar 14, 2011

Holdontoyourhat said:
Your theory then is that PR misspelled an elementary school word due to pressure, despite her college education and being a parent of a child learning all those same words? You're kidding, right?

Then there is the phenomenon where PR in her exemplars spelled advise with a 'z' which was decidedly different than the ransom note. Are you going to use the same 'pressure' explanation there, even though she used the 'z' in both right and left hand exemplars?

Or could it be that PR and the ransom note author are two different spellers? This IS the prima facie explanation for the phenomenon. It IS evidence that PR did not write the note.

DeeDee249 said:
Not under pressure. She misspelled them deliberately. That was part of the staging, too. While the Rs constructed the note to implicate an array of suspects. This misspelling, particularly of the double S word "bussiness" was done to make it seem like the note was written by someone who wouldn't know the proper spelling; in other words, to make it seem like it couldn't possibly be Patsy. LHP was a very early casualty of this fiasco- she was named almost immediately. She was far beneath Patsy in social standing, education, financial means, and she had access to the house. A perfect "patsy" (no pun intended). Only problem- there was ZERO forensic evidence linking her to the body (an impossible scenario for ANY suspect). Fortunately, there was forensic material from the actual perps (her parents) on her body, clothes, and the white blanket.

Perhaps a revisit to the "Masterpiece of Misdirection" thread is in order?

BBB167893 · Mar 14, 2011

wonderllama said:
Now you're being naive.
To think a spelling difference is evidence someone didn't write something is just a laughable defence Holdon.

If I write something on a piece of paper then come back the next day and write the same thing on a difference piece of paper but spell one word different, that's proof to you I didn't write both?
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that is the case?
Stop right now and answer that question.
Are you GENUINELY telling everyone in this forum that a difference in SPELLING is "EVIDENCE" that one person didn't write two notes prepared at different times.

As much as you question everything that RDI might put up as proof the Ramsey's were involved.....the answer to THIS question is paramount to your credibility as a proponent of the Intruder theory.

So I will ask it once more so we're all clear on this.

Is a difference in spelling, in your books, evidence of two writers?

And I really have to tell you, and this is someone with a postgraduate degree, lecturing experience, teaching experience, thesis writing experience.
As your level of education increases, it does not indicate your ability to spell improves. The two are not dependent upon the other.

I know many many academics, Professors etc who cannot spell or are inconsistent spellers.

Attempting to exonerate PR from being the author based on any ability to spell because she has a "College Education" is a nonsense and no attempt to introduce it back into the fold will make it relevant. It is not.

Well, you've certainly backed him into a corner!

BBB167893 · Mar 14, 2011

Holdontoyourhat said:
I find it interesting though that you believe misspellings should be dismissed or ignored as insignficant, whereas I believe all phenomenon require an explanation because its a child murder.

Sorry to cut in, but to me, that illustrates an important difference. I understand you believe that, HOTYH. But the fact is, there will ALWAYS be a phenomenon that will not be explained, no matter WHAT kind of case it it. The only place where every single element comes together is in the movies. Don't take my word for it, either. Ask Tom Haney, among others.

BBB167893 · Mar 14, 2011

joeskidbeck said:
Right, DeeDee, especially if Patsy was known for not making spelling errors. I'm sure, in her mind, she thought this would point away from her since everyone knows Patsy doesn't make spelling errors. I have a huge problem with a person who can't spell business being able to spell attache'.

That goes for me, too. We're expected to believe that a person who spelled "attache" (complete with accent mark), "countermeasures," and a whole host of other words correctly couldn't spell business the right way? Sure. I got a bridge for sale. Anybody interested?

Whaleshark · Mar 14, 2011

right....y'all do know that Patsy pointed out the spelling errors as well. She was aware....and made it a point to say so.

(But she "never read the note all the way through", and states this over and over...even though she knew about the dollar amount, that they said 'we have your daughter', what the end of the note said, etc.).

wonderllama · Mar 14, 2011

Holdontoyourhat said:
Well then clearly you're not in IT or computer programming where one misspelled word anywhere in the code stops everything...congratulations.

Its still evidence that PR did not write the note, and thats not MY idea, its presented by a college professor outranking your postgraduate...sorry insulting me or what you accidentally thought was my idea didnt work like you planned, did it. :-(

I find it interesting though that you believe misspellings should be dismissed or ignored as insignficant, whereas I believe all phenomenon require an explanation because its a child murder. If two different writers then spellings would be different especially on a large document. It is evidence, and no thats not my idea you're arguing with your teacher now.

Actually, when I was doing Computer Programming at University, forgetting the semicolon was enough to bugger things up.

But as much as your IT analogy might make you think you've scored a point, you in fact haven't because we're not talking about the code or the flow of a computer program are we...we're talking about as YOU said, a difference in spelling from one written example to another.

Don't muddy the waters with irrelevant comparisons to computer programming....Strike One.

Outranked by a college Professor?
I assume this is an American Professor?
In America you are called "Professor" simply for having a PhD so guess what, he doesn't outrank me....Strike Two.

And finally (we're about to have your team pitch again by the way), I didn't dismiss the spelling mistake, I dismissed your conclusions that it was evidence PR didn't write it as the nonsense statement that it is.
I think the spelling mistake is MASSIVELY significant in the context of interpreting the note. You're reaching strange conclusions with my posts...dismissing your theory doesn't mean I dismiss the evidence. We have very different interpretations is what it means.....which would then be a Strike Three.

You're out.

Holdontoyourhat said:
Hows your math, BTW:

Different spellings (stylistics) + nonrandom unsourced DNA + no smoking gun evidence against either PR or JR = IDI

IDI + zero local leads = FFDI, just like the RN author stated.

It's pretty good now....it was bad in Grade 4 but I studied really hard and got quite good at it. I faultered in first year University though but I'd got a new girlfriend and was somewhat distracted from my studies.

Anyway....

Different Spellings.....right....as established, means nothing with respect to being the same author (IDI or not).
+
Non-Random Unsourced DNA....okay, which is related to the note how? Besides, the unsourced DNA could quite easily be unrelated as well...depends on your "choice" of Professor I guess.
+
No smoking gun against Ramseys.....well, I tend to believe the note is pretty smoking.

Look, just because you find an egg in the garden in a couple of weeks, it doesn't mean the Easter Bunny was there.

Holdontoyourhat · Mar 14, 2011

wonderllama said:
Actually, when I was doing Computer Programming at University, forgetting the semicolon was enough to bugger things up.

But as much as your IT analogy might make you think you've scored a point, you in fact haven't because we're not talking about the code or the flow of a computer program are we...we're talking about as YOU said, a difference in spelling from one written example to another.

Don't muddy the waters with irrelevant comparisons to computer programming....Strike One.

Outranked by a college Professor?
I assume this is an American Professor?
In America you are called "Professor" simply for having a PhD so guess what, he doesn't outrank me....Strike Two.

And finally (we're about to have your team pitch again by the way), I didn't dismiss the spelling mistake, I dismissed your conclusions that it was evidence PR didn't write it as the nonsense statement that it is.
I think the spelling mistake is MASSIVELY significant in the context of interpreting the note. You're reaching strange conclusions with my posts...dismissing your theory doesn't mean I dismiss the evidence. We have very different interpretations is what it means.....which would then be a Strike Three.

You're out.

It's pretty good now....it was bad in Grade 4 but I studied really hard and got quite good at it. I faultered in first year University though but I'd got a new girlfriend and was somewhat distracted from my studies.

Anyway....

Different Spellings.....right....as established, means nothing with respect to being the same author (IDI or not).
+
Non-Random Unsourced DNA....okay, which is related to the note how? Besides, the unsourced DNA could quite easily be unrelated as well...depends on your "choice" of Professor I guess.
+
No smoking gun against Ramseys.....well, I tend to believe the note is pretty smoking.

Look, just because you find an egg in the garden in a couple of weeks, it doesn't mean the Easter Bunny was there.

You're alone in your belief that the ransom note is smoking gun...even devout RDI's admit the lack of smoking gun evidence is significant hinderance to their case. The only way the ransom note can be smoking gun is if its proven it was authored by either PR or JR. Did you know that never happened?

Please consider that the whole concept of 'pretty smoking gun' as an oxymoron. Its either a smoking gun or its not, and neither BPD, the DA, nor the media treat it as such.

Glad to read that you're not dismissing evidence. As an undeniable fact, PR and the ransom note author spelled words differently. RDI has to account for this important evidence in a plausible way. I've heard 'pressure' and 'deliberate,' but to read these feeble attempts at explanations humerously harks back to the old factory worker explanation for the unknown male inside underwear crotch blood mix DNA that showed up in police forensic testing. The factory worker explanation became less popular with the discovery of matching DNA on longjohns that showed up in more forensic testing. Remember that forensic evidence? Now RDI seems to be more inclined to the police lab worker cross-contamination explanation. Its a better explanation but somewhat circular, no?

Throughout the investigation, RDI has been under pressure to explain all of their contradictory evidence. Moreso than IDI. And please dont take my word for it...take it from (insert any DA's name here), the GJ, or the media! I'm very glad to see that justice is winning over the incompetent professionals, the experts-for-hire, and the amateur lynch mob mentalities.

wonderllama · Mar 14, 2011

For the record, I don't buy the "sneeze from a factory worker" theory.
I believe it was initially used as an example to prove that the amount of DNA and the source need not be from the time of the murder but in fact could have been from something as remote and ludicrous as a factory worker with a cold.

*Knock Knock* - I wonder who's at the door? It could be the Queen of England.
Doesn't mean it is, but the possibility as to who IS at the door is open....just like the DNA being referred to in the factory worker story.

"Pretty Smoking" in my last post is my way of saying it's as close to a smoking gun as you can get WITHOUT it being a smoking gun.

The beauty of there being no smoking gun is....there's no smoking gun for an Intruder either.

Am I correct in assuming the "anti" smoking gun for you is the DNA evidence?
I think I am....and from there every other bit of evidence goes towards corroborating that evidence.

But (and we won't get into it cos there are much better threads talking about this with what I believe to be exceptionally presented evidence and discussion which you have dismissed) Butttttttt....RDI folks don't see that DNA evidence the same way you do.

You have always said this is a DNA case....and I actually agree with you.
But we don't reach the same conclusions.

As for contradictory evidence...I also believe there is a lot of that, however I don't believe it thusly points to an Intruder.

As the serial killer says to the detective...."We're not so different you and I..."

BBB167893 · Mar 14, 2011

wonderllama said:
For the record, I don't buy the "sneeze from a factory worker" theory.
I believe it was initially used as an example to prove that the amount of DNA and the source need not be from the time of the murder but in fact could have been from something as remote and ludicrous as a factory worker with a cold.

*Knock Knock* - I wonder who's at the door? It could be the Queen of England.
Doesn't mean it is, but the possibility as to who IS at the door is open....just like the DNA being referred to in the factory worker story.

"Pretty Smoking" in my last post is my way of saying it's as close to a smoking gun as you can get WITHOUT it being a smoking gun.

The beauty of there being no smoking gun is....there's no smoking gun for an Intruder either.

Am I correct in assuming the "anti" smoking gun for you is the DNA evidence?
I think I am....and from there every other bit of evidence goes towards corroborating that evidence.

But (and we won't get into it cos there are much better threads talking about this with what I believe to be exceptionally presented evidence and discussion which you have dismissed) Butttttttt....RDI folks don't see that DNA evidence the same way you do.

You have always said this is a DNA case....and I actually agree with you.
But we don't reach the same conclusions.

As for contradictory evidence...I also believe there is a lot of that, however I don't believe it thusly points to an Intruder.

As the serial killer says to the detective...."We're not so different you and I..."

Sadly, llama, I don't think our friend understands that "smoking gun" cases make up the vast minority of cases. The problem here is that no one knew how to put a circumstantial case together.

joeskidbeck · Mar 14, 2011

SuperDave said:
Sadly, llama, I don't think our friend understands that "smoking gun" cases make up the vast minority of cases. The problem here is that no one knew how to put a circumstantial case together.

Right, Dave. The only thing I would say differently is that, IMO, it was the DA's office who didn't or wouldn't know how to prosecute a circumstantial case. After all, you can't lose cases that you never prosecuted; therefore, they end up with a near-perfect record. I would like to believe that the BPD would have taken this case to court and perhaps there were twelve people in Boulder who had enough common sense to know who was responsible for JonBenet's death.

Holdontoyourhat · Mar 14, 2011

wonderllama said:
For the record, I don't buy the "sneeze from a factory worker" theory.
I believe it was initially used as an example to prove that the amount of DNA and the source need not be from the time of the murder but in fact could have been from something as remote and ludicrous as a factory worker with a cold.

*Knock Knock* - I wonder who's at the door? It could be the Queen of England.
Doesn't mean it is, but the possibility as to who IS at the door is open....just like the DNA being referred to in the factory worker story.

"Pretty Smoking" in my last post is my way of saying it's as close to a smoking gun as you can get WITHOUT it being a smoking gun.

The beauty of there being no smoking gun is....there's no smoking gun for an Intruder either.

Am I correct in assuming the "anti" smoking gun for you is the DNA evidence?
I think I am....and from there every other bit of evidence goes towards corroborating that evidence.

But (and we won't get into it cos there are much better threads talking about this with what I believe to be exceptionally presented evidence and discussion which you have dismissed) Butttttttt....RDI folks don't see that DNA evidence the same way you do.

You have always said this is a DNA case....and I actually agree with you.
But we don't reach the same conclusions.

As for contradictory evidence...I also believe there is a lot of that, however I don't believe it thusly points to an Intruder.

As the serial killer says to the detective...."We're not so different you and I..."

I dont know what an anti smoking gun is... now it seems you're making stuff up for the sake of argument. It became trite and boring with the insults:

wonderllama said:
Now you're being naive.

The idea that nobody who isn't a family member or a US citizen is ever considered as suspect flies in the face of the evidence (ransom note specifically eluded to foreign) and demonstrates a certain political naivety.

When it comes to the final solution to this child murder, RDI will be seen as politically naive.

wonderllama · Mar 14, 2011

Don't be silly....the "anti smoking gun" was simply me saying the IDI version of the "smoking gun".

As in Matter....Anti-matter. I may be Australian but I'm not speaking a foreign language.

joeskidbeck · Mar 14, 2011

Politically naive? How so? The writer of the rn wanted to point at anyone but themselves. Can you show one example of an rn that was written by a political group that did not identify themselves? It would serve no purpose. How could it? What was the message to take away from this crime? These "groups" are typically so full of themselves and confident in their cause that they will take credit for crimes they didn't even commit. Not one took credit for this crime. The mentioning of an sff did exactly what it was intended, to point at someone other than the real perp.

Holdontoyourhat · Mar 14, 2011

wonderllama said:
Don't be silly....the "anti smoking gun" was simply me saying the IDI version of the "smoking gun".

As in Matter....Anti-matter. I may be Australian but I'm not speaking a foreign language.

Oh, good...then you can probably read the ransom note. The common denominator among key expressions is sociopolitical:

foreign faction
respect your country
immediately executed
beheaded
proper burial
fat cat
use that good southern common sense
Victory!

Did you know that these can all be cross-border topics?

wonderllama · Mar 14, 2011

I can tell you one thing for sure...it wasn't written by an Australian.

BBB167893 · Mar 14, 2011

joeskidbeck said:
Right, Dave. The only thing I would say differently is that, IMO, it was the DA's office who didn't or wouldn't know how to prosecute a circumstantial case. After all, you can't lose cases that you never prosecuted; therefore, they end up with a near-perfect record. I would like to believe that the BPD would have taken this case to court and perhaps there were twelve people in Boulder who had enough common sense to know who was responsible for JonBenet's death.

Yeah, I was going to touch on that, beck. But, since it would be difficult for even me to improve on what you just said, I'll consider it handled.

BBB167893 · Mar 14, 2011

joeskidbeck said:
Politically naive? How so? The writer of the rn wanted to point at anyone but themselves. Can you show one example of an rn that was written by a political group that did not identify themselves? It would serve no purpose. How could it? What was the message to take away from this crime? These "groups" are typically so full of themselves and confident in their cause that they will take credit for crimes they didn't even commit. Not one took credit for this crime. The mentioning of an sff did exactly what it was intended, to point at someone other than the real perp.

Yeah, I was going to mention THAT, too. Frankly, I find it crazy that anyone could accuse RDI of being politically naive when it seems like we're the ONLY ones who understand that it was politics that played such a large role in crippling this case.

joeskidbeck · Mar 14, 2011

Dave, how did you get in my head? I'm skeered to go in there! You are so right on the politics. I almost said it would be nice to have those kinds of connections, but not really sure that I would want to get away with the murder of my child. That's just too sad to consider.

Which is strongest RDI evidence?

Which RDI claim is easiest to prove?

PR/JR handled the weapons or sexually assaulted.

PR/JR wrote the ransom note or helped to write it.

PR/JR were motivated to hide prior abuse or rage.

PR/JR used words or actions that prove their guilt.

Rest in Peace

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

New Member

Registered Snoozer

Former Member

Registered Snoozer

Former Member

Rest in Peace

Former Member

Registered Snoozer

Rest in Peace

Former Member

Registered Snoozer

Former Member

Former Member

Rest in Peace

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics