Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[Holdontoyourhat]

That doesn't make any sense. How can a case thats never been closed be reopened? I thought it was always open.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Ames

I saw a press conference about this, and it was stated that the Ramsey's were NOT cleared. They are looking at ALL possibilities.


JonBenet Ramsey case reopened

By Alysia Patterson, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS



Police will handle the investigation as a cold case, "reviewing everything that's been done, the evidence that's been collected, trying to determine where do we go from here," he said. (HO)


Images: Cold Case Files
BOULDER, Colo. - The slaying of JonBenet Ramsey will be investigated as a cold case with all evidence and actions taken 12 years ago reviewed anew, the police chief said Monday, as the department resumed a probe for which it had long been criticized

SNIPPED>>

Beckner told the Camera newspaper of Boulder the task force will "explore all possible theories about what happened the night JonBenet was killed" and added, "We are open to all possibilities."

Yeah, some IDIs are ALREADY getting upset. Guess we're not the ones "reading things" into it, after all.

MARY LACY is the ONLY person that has cleared them.

'NUFF SAID!

Oh, and one more thing: HOTYH..."those INVESTIGATING?" It's nice to see you have a sense of humor. This case hasn't been investigated in the true sense since 2002.

And people WONDER why I get so angry! I tell you folks, this case is enough to make a killer out of ME!

[Holdontoyourhat]

JonBenet Ramsey case reopened

By Alysia Patterson, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

From CNN:

Although the Ramsey case has not generated news since last year, tips and information regularly come in to authorities. Whoever is handling the investigation is charged with checking them out and deciding whether they are worth pursuing, Garnett said.

He said reports that he is considering reopening the case are inaccurate. "It's not closed. It hasn't been solved, and it's been open the whole time."

I knew it.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

JonBenet Ramsey case reopened

By Alysia Patterson, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

From CNN:

Although the Ramsey case has not generated news since last year, tips and information regularly come in to authorities. Whoever is handling the investigation is charged with checking them out and deciding whether they are worth pursuing, Garnett said.

He said reports that he is considering reopening the case are inaccurate. "It's not closed. It hasn't been solved, and it's been open the whole time."

I knew it.

Agreed. Would you also agree that the term "cold case" is inaccurate?

[Tadpole12]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

Very funny. Your post seems to imply that there could be something exculpatory found for the R's, when the R's are already cleared by evidence.

Somewhat funny. .....additional exculpatory evidence..... How's that.

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

Maybe you didn't hear the news. It is really big news for the JBR murder.

Ya ... I watched that episode on Oprah.

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

Turns out, the EXPERTS believe an intruder did it.

EXPERTS? ya. I was wondering about that .... if the 'intruder' dna was on another piece of evidence, as well.


http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008...e-lasting-imp/



Experts:



It’s also not clear that Boulder police embrace Lacy’s public exoneration.

In a statement released by Chief Mark Beckner on Wednesday, he called the DNA that Lacy used as evidence to eliminate the Ramseys “a significant finding.” But he didn’t echo or acknowledge Lacy’s opinion or issue a similar apology. He declined all further comment.

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

The circumstances of the DNA make it a certainty to belong to JBR's assailant, and not RDI's old factory worker. .

The presence of the same dna in three locations, and three different tests, two points in time indicate that the suggested contamination did not occur as improper procedure/contamination in the lab.

I guess one could speculate about contamination, but until the dna is sourced ..... it's futile.

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

It is so certain as to allow those investigating to declare the R's innocent.

same link, Lacy said, “No one is really cleared of a homicide until there is a conviction in court beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

The RDI answer for the DNA had to be modified from a factory worker to a new story, because RDI's factory worker idea was disproven.

ok so the old factory worker's been retired. Great.
Next up .... dirty laundry?

[Holdontoyourhat]

Originally Posted by Tadpole12

ok so the old factory worker's been retired. Great.
Next up .... dirty laundry?

Yeah, retired. RDI was swinging that one around for years. Along came this DNA finding and RDI will simply alter their scenario to suit. Shall we go with dirty laundry for a while?

Shall we place the dirty laundry alongside the painting slings, stage markers, stealing evidence from the crime scene, and deliberately misspelling a single word out of hundreds to 'throw off LE'.

Give me a break. How many silly made-up stories do I have to swallow to believe RDI? All these are made up stories to force-fit RDI into reality. There's not a single fact here.

I could likewise make up IDI stories. I haven't done it, but I could.

[TinaD]

Why don't we place the dirty laundry alongside the fibres from the jacket Patsy was wearing that night, found entwined in the knot of the cord around JB's neck? The jacket Patsy declared she had never worn into the basement? Or perhaps next to the fibres matching the black Israeli wool shirt John was wearing that night, found in the crotch of the brand new, never-been-worn-or-laundered undies? Or JB's hair also caught in the knot, indicating that the cord must have been tied around her neck, rather than being tied into a loop before being placed on her? Can you explain those HOTYH?

[GingBreade]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Yeah, some IDIs are ALREADY getting upset. Guess we're not the ones "reading things" into it, after all.



'NUFF SAID!

Oh, and one more thing: HOTYH..."those INVESTIGATING?" It's nice to see you have a sense of humor. This case hasn't been investigated in the true sense since 2002.

And people WONDER why I get so angry! I tell you folks, this case is enough to make a killer out of ME!

Look at that perfect thumb-mark bruise on JB's inner right upper arm. Hmm wonder who would do that? Not that it means anything, but it could mean something. What the heck do I know?

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

Yeah, retired. RDI was swinging that one around for years. Along came this DNA finding and RDI will simply alter their scenario to suit. Shall we go with dirty laundry for a while?

No need. Perhaps I should remind all of you, Bill O'Reilly had an FBI criminologist on his show to talk about this case. She said flat-out that the more sensitive DNA testing methods get, the more likely they are to find DNA that is irrelevant to a crime. That's what I believe happened here, especially since the DNA was very possibly WEEKS old.

Shall we place the dirty laundry alongside the painting slings,

We have a witness on record who says she saw the same cord and tape in the basement not three days earlier.

stage markers,

"STAGE MARKERS?" You mean the pieces of tape that are put on stage to show an actor where to go? That's a new one!

stealing evidence from the crime scene,

But we KNOW CAP was in the house not two days later taking anything that wasn't nailed down in big boxes. I will allow a small concession, though: I cannot honestly say she was knowlingly doing anything wrong.

and deliberately misspelling a single word out of hundreds to 'throw off LE'.

I never said that.

Give me a break. How many silly made-up stories do I have to swallow to believe RDI?

NONE! You just WON'T try! Why don't you try finding out why we believe what we believe? I'm not saying you HAVE to agree with it. But what could it hurt? Walk a mile, HOTYH. And before you shrug this off, don't forget who I used to be.

I KNOW you can do this. That's how much faith I have in you.

All these are made up stories to force-fit RDI into reality.

I wouldn't talk about made up stories, HOTYH, given how the Rs can't keep a story straight. My mother always said, "never thrown stones in a glass house."

There's not a single fact here.

If you want facts, I'm your man. TinaD has done a fine job in that regard.

I could likewise make up IDI stories.

Go ahead. You never know...

I haven't done it,

Oh, NO?

but I could.

Go for it.

[Holdontoyourhat]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

No need. Perhaps I should remind all of you, Bill O'Reilly had an FBI criminologist on his show to talk about this case. She said flat-out that the more sensitive DNA testing methods get, the more likely they are to find DNA that is irrelevant to a crime. That's what I believe happened here, especially since the DNA was very possibly WEEKS old.

As a layman, I can see that finding DNA on more than one article of clothing that a victim recently changed into, just prior to being murdered, discounts the irrelevant DNA claim. Investigators closest to the investigation believe the DNA was not innocently transferred. Remember that Lacy was a spokesperson for the DA's office, and not acting alone as you have claimed.

Originally Posted by SuperDave

We have a witness on record who says she saw the same cord and tape in the basement not three days earlier.

Who dat?

Originally Posted by SuperDave

"STAGE MARKERS?" You mean the pieces of tape that are put on stage to show an actor where to go? That's a new one!

Do a thread search.

Originally Posted by SuperDave

But we KNOW CAP was in the house not two days later taking anything that wasn't nailed down in big boxes. I will allow a small concession, though: I cannot honestly say she was knowlingly doing anything wrong.

She was being used as a pawn? Thats a creative one. The plot thickens!

Originally Posted by SuperDave

I never said that.

I don't get it. You believe that PR inadvertently spelled 'advize' in all of her exemplars, while spell ing it correctly in the RN?


If I were to 'make up' stories, like PR using somebody as an unwitting accessory to remove evidence, I would come up with better stuff.

For example, there would be a common reason why Christmas Day was chosen, and why beheading a six year old girl was presented, when it is a pretty remote, obscure idea. It had never even once occurred to me. NOT exactly the popular vernacular as Tad would say. The reason would be that the perp wanted to be seen as an evil cruel person. In my makeup story, the intruder wants to be seen as evil. What type of person would kill a child on Christmas night, after threatening to chop their head off to their parents?

[Ames]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

JonBenet Ramsey case reopened

By Alysia Patterson, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

From CNN:

Although the Ramsey case has not generated news since last year, tips and information regularly come in to authorities. Whoever is handling the investigation is charged with checking them out and deciding whether they are worth pursuing, Garnett said.

He said reports that he is considering reopening the case are inaccurate. "It's not closed. It hasn't been solved, and it's been open the whole time."

I knew it.

To be honest, I never thought that it had been officially closed either, but every news article out there said that the case was to be RE-OPENED. A more accurate statement would be that there hadn't been any ONGOING investigation, since around 2002. It had grown stale...

[Ames]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

Yeah, retired. RDI was swinging that one around for years. Along came this DNA finding and RDI will simply alter their scenario to suit. Shall we go with dirty laundry for a while?

Shall we place the dirty laundry alongside the painting slings, stage markers, stealing evidence from the crime scene, and deliberately misspelling a single word out of hundreds to 'throw off LE'.

Give me a break. How many silly made-up stories do I have to swallow to believe RDI? All these are made up stories to force-fit RDI into reality. There's not a single fact here.

I could likewise make up IDI stories. I haven't done it, but I could.

Yes, you have. YOU SAID...that JB was to be kidnapped by some foreign people. They fed her pineapple, so that she wouldn't get hungry in the car, on the way out of the country. She was to be married off, when she reached the marrying age...but, you didn't know what age that was. After they got to the Ramsey's home, you said, that the reason that they ended up killing her, instead of taking her with them, was because they realized that her eyes were really GREEN and NOT blue (gasp!!), because in the pictures of her, she was wearing blue contacts. And you said..that they also may have figured out that her hair was dyed blonde. She wasn't a natural blonde hair, blue eyed beauty...so they killed her. Now why they didn't SEE that as they were feeding her the pineapple, I haven't a clue...you will have to answer that question. Let me ask you this...Which sounds more credible.....YOUR VERSION...or the RDI version.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by GingBreade

Look at that perfect thumb-mark bruise on JB's inner right upper arm. Hmm wonder who would do that? Not that it means anything, but it could mean something. What the heck do I know?

Exactly! Not quite the picture of a perfect, "Leave it to Beaver" family, is it? You are not the only person that has noticed that bruise.

[Holdontoyourhat]

Originally Posted by Ames

Yes, you have. YOU SAID...that JB was to be kidnapped by some foreign people. They fed her pineapple, so that she wouldn't get hungry in the car, on the way out of the country. She was to be married off, when she reached the marrying age...but, you didn't know what age that was. After they got to the Ramsey's home, you said, that the reason that they ended up killing her, instead of taking her with them, was because they realized that her eyes were really GREEN and NOT blue (gasp!!), because in the pictures of her, she was wearing blue contacts. And you said..that they also may have figured out that her hair was dyed blonde. She wasn't a natural blonde hair, blue eyed beauty...so they killed her. Now why they didn't SEE that as they were feeding her the pineapple, I haven't a clue...you will have to answer that question. Let me ask you this...Which sounds more credible.....YOUR VERSION...or the RDI version.

Any version has to account for the facts. My version is admittedly a theory, and does not account for all the facts because I don't know them all. Whereas many RDI so-called facts aren't facts at all, nevertheless RDI presents them AS FACTS. Thats the difference in credibility.

A good theory accounts for the known facts in a plausible way. RDI is no longer capable of this, because the plausibility of male DNA showing up innocently on more than one article of clothing that JBR put on hours before her death, AND showing up in crime-related areas (mixed with blood in her underwear matching with the DNA on her longjohns) is very, very low.

Setting the DNA aside, the plausibility that an adult who lives in the house, educated here in the United States, knows capital crime laws, would associate 1500 or so characters of their own personal handwriting with a capital crime also is very, very low.

RDI is also forced to choose between PR deliberately or accidentally misspelling 'advise' in her exemplars. Which is it? I believe that the plausibility that someone would smoothly write 'advise' in the RN and then smoothly write 'advize' in repeated exemplars, whether accidental or on purpose, is very, very low.

RDI has low plausiblity these days.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

RDI has low plausiblity these days.

We'll see about that, now that the case is back where it belongs!

As a layman, I can see that finding DNA on more than one article of clothing that a victim recently changed into, just prior to being murdered, discounts the irrelevant DNA claim.

No, I get what you mean. I just don't think you understand me.

Investigators closest to the investigation believe the DNA was not innocently transferred. Remember that Lacy was a spokesperson for the DA's office, and not acting alone as you have claimed.

Spokesperson?! She was the damn DA! Moreover, HOTYH, I think it helps to take a look at WHO the "investigators" you speak of were! Or maybe it just doesn't faze you to know that they were handpicked BY the DA herself specifically because they agreed with her! That's not just my opinion. A lot of people, including some of her former campaign workers, have said that. And if they don't toe the line, they get booted out. Ask Jim Kolar if you don't believe me!

Heck, if you want a list of names, I'm game, brother!

Who dat?

That would be Linda Hoffman-Pugh.

Do a thread search.

Okay. Actually, HOTYH, I OFTEN search for things you and I talk about. NOT because I don't believe you; let me be clear on that. I do it to remind myself that you do have the ability to think outside the IDI "box" as you have on some occasions. Nobody says you have to agree with me, but that's a side of HOTYH I really like!

She was being used as a pawn?

Not necessarily; Pam has a history of doing and saying things that added to the Rs' problems. But I believe that is what happened, yes.

Thats a creative one.

Creative, nothing! This isn't just something I pulled out of thin air. We know from ST's book that Pam took several items of clothing out belonging to PR, which she was specifically ASKED to get. That's not "creative;" that's drawing an inference from existing circumstances.

The plot thickens!

What plot might that be?

I don't get it.

So I gathered.

You believe that PR inadvertently spelled 'advize' in all of her exemplars, while spelling it correctly in the RN?

As I've told you before, HOTYH, I don't think about it that much. As I've also told you before, there are any number of reasons for spelling mistakes. Or maybe you just forgot how drugged up PR was those first few weeks. Who knows what that stuff does to a person's mind?

If I were to 'make up' stories, like PR using somebody as an unwitting accessory to remove evidence,

I like how you use "make up" in quotation marks. Leaves you an out.

I would come up with better stuff.

I go with what my brains and guts tell me. Sorry if that doesn't pass Creative Storytelling 101. But I'm being straight with you.

For example, there would be a common reason why Christmas Day was chosen,

Chosen implies premeditation, HOTYH. Sure, I could come up with something, if I had reason to believe it.

and why beheading a six year old girl was presented, when it is a pretty remote, obscure idea.

I've given you a reason in the past, HOTYH: the note clearly was trying to sound like a terrorist. YOU yourself keep telling us that. And when most American laymen think of terrorism, they think of the Middle East. That was true BEFORE 9/11. And one of the things that is and was at the time common knowledge is that they chop off heads in that part of the world.

Beheading is NOT that remote or obscure. That's what I'm trying to TELL you. Who's "making up" things now? Have you ever run down just how often the idea of beheading appears in American popular culture ALONE? It's all over the place. Beheadings by race, by religion, by sex, by age, by geographical location, by seasons of the year, by time of day!

Beheading committed how? By sword, by knife, by ax, by machete, by guillotine, by super-strong fist, by truck, by car, by train, by shotgun blast, by flying blades, by ceiling fans, by helicopter rotors, by airplane propellors, by sliding plate glass!

Beheadings in film, in literature, in videogames, in news reports, etc, etc.

Let's take beheading on film, subdivided by the different genres of film, such as action, drama, horror, mystery and so forth.

Beheadings in video games, subdivided by the different genres there, such as fighting games, adventure games, role-playing games, action games, fantasy games, and on and on.

You getting all of this, or am I just talking to myself?

It had never even once occurred to me.

It's not YOU we're talking about, HOTYH. Last I checked, you weren't a journalism major with unfulfilled literary ambitions married to a man who just happened to be in the Phillipines during the anti-Marcos revolt, when many, MANY violent revolutionaries were coming out of the woodwork.

In other words, within each skull is a world all its own.

NOT exactly the popular vernacular as Tad would say.

Looks pretty popular to ME!

The reason would be that the perp wanted to be seen as an evil cruel person.

That's what I've been trying to say in the first place!

In my makeup story, the intruder wants to be seen as evil. What type of person would kill a child on Christmas night, after threatening to chop their head off to their parents?

In your makeup story? I like that. We're all just talking here, right?

Okay, to show I'm not a bad guy, I'm game. Well assuming that the threat was made afterwards (I don't), someone who really wanted to grind it in. Someone obsessed with revenge and spite.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Ames

To be honest, I never thought that it had been officially closed either, but every news article out there said that the case was to be RE-OPENED. A more accurate statement would be that there hadn't been any ONGOING investigation, since around 2002. It had grown stale...

I recall hearing somewhere that the BPD spent more investgating this case in a week than the DA's office did in six months.

[Holdontoyourhat]

Beheading a child is a very remote idea, distant from the more common middle-eastern or guillotine beheadings to which you referred. Thats the remote idea which never had occurred to me even once before JBR was murdered.

Sure some killers may have decapitated a child before, but putting a child beheading threat in writing hasn't. Because it is so unique, it is probably a good clue, providing insight into JBR's murderer.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

Beheading a child is a very remote idea, distant from the more common middle-eastern or guillotine beheadings to which you referred.

HOTYH, that doesn't matter. The person who wrote it, I believe, was not thinking in those terms. They were thinking (again, IMO) what would sound impressive.

Do you remember what CASKU said about the RN? They said it was most likely written after the crime was committed by someone in a highly agitated state of mind. AFTER the crime. It was just icing on the cake at that point. THINK about it: if the killer knew she was already dead, as I believe they did, then there's no real malice. This person wasn't talking about beheading a child; they were just talking, period.

Thats the remote idea which never had occurred to me even once before JBR was murdered.

HOTYH, whether it occured to YOU or not is not the issue here.

Sure some killers may have decapitated a child before,

Damn skippy.

but putting a child beheading threat in writing hasn't.

HOTYH, if the deed was already done, then the threat is empty.

Because it is so unique, it is probably a good clue, providing insight into JBR's murderer.

It sure does: a person with an overdeveloped flair for the dramatic and a need to dazzle people whose only knowledge about crime and ransom notes comes from books and TV. That's not just my opinion, not by a long shot it isn't.

I don't know why this has to be so difficult.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

Any version has to account for the facts. My version is admittedly a theory, and does not account for all the facts because I don't know them all. Whereas many RDI so-called facts aren't facts at all, nevertheless RDI presents them AS FACTS. Thats the difference in credibility.

A good theory accounts for the known facts in a plausible way. RDI is no longer capable of this, because the plausibility of male DNA showing up innocently on more than one article of clothing that JBR put on hours before her death, AND showing up in crime-related areas (mixed with blood in her underwear matching with the DNA on her longjohns) is very, very low.

Setting the DNA aside, the plausibility that an adult who lives in the house, educated here in the United States, knows capital crime laws, would associate 1500 or so characters of their own personal handwriting with a capital crime also is very, very low.

RDI is also forced to choose between PR deliberately or accidentally misspelling 'advise' in her exemplars. Which is it? I believe that the plausibility that someone would smoothly write 'advise' in the RN and then smoothly write 'advize' in repeated exemplars, whether accidental or on purpose, is very, very low.

RDI has low plausiblity these days.

Come on Holdon....Patsy was a JOURNALISM MAJOR, do you expect me to believe that she cannot spell a fourth grade (look it up, its a 4th grade word) spelling word? Give me a break.

One other thing...did you not notice that thumb print bruise on her right arm, in the picture of her that was in one of my above posts. And you tell me that there is no way that Patsy could have snapped??

[Ames]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

I recall hearing somewhere that the BPD spent more investgating this case in a week than the DA's office did in six months.

I can believe that!

[Ames]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

Beheading a child is a very remote idea, distant from the more common middle-eastern or guillotine beheadings to which you referred. Thats the remote idea which never had occurred to me even once before JBR was murdered.

Sure some killers may have decapitated a child before, but putting a child beheading threat in writing hasn't. Because it is so unique, it is probably a good clue, providing insight into JBR's murderer.

As SD said, the RN was written AFTER the murder. So, the author could have said that they were going to behead the child, and chop off her arms and legs, and nail her torso to the wall (sorry for the visual)...and it wouldn't have mattered, because she was ALREADY dead. It was easier for the author to talk about beheading a child that was already dead. So, the beheading wasn't really a threat, now was it?? All that RN author was doing was writing a bunch of cr@p that they thought sounded good, and would be convincing enough to keep the Rams butt out of jail.

[Holdontoyourhat]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

It sure does: a person with an overdeveloped flair for the dramatic and a need to dazzle people whose only knowledge about crime and ransom notes comes from books and TV. That's not just my opinion, not by a long shot it isn't.

The RN author threatened in writing to behead a small child. I think you want to separate the child from the equation, and approach the beheading issue as if it were referring to any adult in any movie. Obviously thats impossible because the child is the 'subject' of the sentence in the ransom note.

This statement is unprecedented in the annals of crime, and because it is so unique, a truly serious observer from any POV should take pause and consider where a statement like that would originate, and why it would be used.

A person with an 'overdeveloped flair for the dramatic' is an understated characterization, more suited to describing an author or an actor. A better characterization would be a person with a bizarre outlook on violence. Executing or beheading small children is a bizarre, inappropriate concept even for a ransom kidnapper.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

The RN author threatened in writing to behead a small child. I think you want to separate the child from the equation, and approach the beheading issue as if it were referring to any adult in any movie. Obviously thats impossible because the child is the 'subject' of the sentence in the ransom note.

This statement is unprecedented in the annals of crime, and because it is so unique, a truly serious observer from any POV should take pause and consider where a statement like that would originate, and why it would be used.

A person with an 'overdeveloped flair for the dramatic' is an understated characterization, more suited to describing an author or an actor. A better characterization would be a person with a bizarre outlook on violence. Executing or beheading small children is a bizarre, inappropriate concept.

Holdon, she was already dead...it was an empty threat. It was easy for Patsy...imo...to write those words, because JB was already dead...it didn't matter how horrific it sounded. The more horrific...the better.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

He can't dodge that one forever.

He sure as h*ll is going to try, though....obviously.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Ames

Come on Holdon....Patsy was a JOURNALISM MAJOR, do you expect me to believe that she cannot spell a fourth grade (look it up, its a 4th grade word) spelling word? Give me a break.

The only thing I'll say is, she was the ONE person who changed their writing style after the killing.

One other thing...did you not notice that thumb print bruise on her right arm, in the picture of her that was in one of my above posts. And you tell me that there is no way that Patsy could have snapped??

He can't dodge it forever.