A DNA poll for IDIs

[aspidistra]

I agree with this and especially that lengthy diatribe known as the "ransom note". Why would a stranger intruder/sexual predator need to sit down and write that note? Why not just get in there and out? Even if they'd spent time in the house waiting for JBR to arrive home, someone like Karr sounds like he'd be up in her room playing with her toys! It would make more sense for someone in the house to write it to try to deflect suspicion onto a stranger. Everything's so !!

He said yesterday to authorities that he was in the house for 5 hours alone. A lot of people have always thought the note was written before the crime. Remember they found he had done a practice note as well (a draft). 5 hours is a long time to be alone exploring an empty house.

One theory was that the note was long, and laid on the stairs, to give him time to escape if someone woke up in the night and came downstairs. We can't know how he was thinking, but it seemed to make sense. The 3 pages were spread on the stairs so they couldn't be missed, and he'd hear a scream if someone was coming down.

 

[Details]

I agree with this and especially that lengthy diatribe known as the "ransom note". Why would a stranger intruder/sexual predator need to sit down and write that note? Why not just get in there and out? Even if they'd spent time in the house waiting for JBR to arrive home, someone like Karr sounds like he'd be up in her room playing with her toys! It would make more sense for someone in the house to write it to try to deflect suspicion onto a stranger. Everything's so !!

Yes - but there's other similar cases, where the intruder just hid out in the house for hours. Hey - they're not normal. I bet they find it thrilling to be in their victims house and no one knows they're there.

 

[librazone]

I agree with this and especially that lengthy diatribe known as the "ransom note". Why would a stranger intruder/sexual predator need to sit down and write that note? Why not just get in there and out? Even if they'd spent time in the house waiting for JBR to arrive home, someone like Karr sounds like he'd be up in her room playing with her toys! It would make more sense for someone in the house to write it to try to deflect suspicion onto a stranger. Everything's so !!

Absolutely and that is exactly the conclusion the Boulder police and the FBI came to based on profiling and crime statistics. This crime was committed by someone who was very comfortable being in that house and that someone was certainly not JMK or any other stranger.
There is no evidence of an intruder and if anyone has links to evidence which was ignored by the Boulder police then please post them.

 

[tumble]

Because how the police act indicates to me that they never seriously considered the evidence. It became personal, they were focused, tunnel vision, could see nothing other than the Ramseys, had no willingness to consider anything else.

I think a lot of the attitude, feel the Ramsey's gave off was planted and distorted - they were portrayed as absolutely the killers, no doubt, by the false 'snow all around the house' bit. That slants how they are percieved, how their every action is percieved, then more info is heard with that slant, and when the misinformation is corrected, the slant remains, and the new info that was heard with that slant is now considered sufficient evidence to replace the evidence that has proven to be misinformation. If the police are not honest, if they show a sincere, emotional, angry belief that the Ramsey's did it, and that they must catch them, with real evidence or fake - how can you trust their investigation to find all the facts? Things are ignored, leads disregarded (I've posted a link a few times about some of the leads that were ignored, some very similar cases out there) - it's not that the facts are wrong, it's that they aren't all there.

So, because there are missing evidence, regardless of what evidence, this increases the chance that the R's are innocent?

And, because some leads were not checked up the probability for the R's innocence goes up?

 

[aspidistra]

Because how the police act indicates to me that they never seriously considered the evidence. It became personal, they were focused, tunnel vision, could see nothing other than the Ramseys, had no willingness to consider anything else.

I think a lot of the attitude, feel the Ramsey's gave off was planted and distorted - they were portrayed as absolutely the killers, no doubt, by the false 'snow all around the house' bit. That slants how they are percieved, how their every action is percieved, then more info is heard with that slant, and when the misinformation is corrected, the slant remains, and the new info that was heard with that slant is now considered sufficient evidence to replace the evidence that has proven to be misinformation. If the police are not honest, if they show a sincere, emotional, angry belief that the Ramsey's did it, and that they must catch them, with real evidence or fake - how can you trust their investigation to find all the facts? Things are ignored, leads disregarded (I've posted a link a few times about some of the leads that were ignored, some very similar cases out there) - it's not that the facts are wrong, it's that they aren't all there.

I'm sure a lot of people were influenced by Linda Arndt's strong feeling that John Ramsey killed his daughter, based on her intuition at the way he looked and acted. She felt it was inappropriate that he answered the door cordially, read his mail, etc.

I agree that even if he and Patsy were even partly exonerated (by passing the lie detector tests; by the handwriting not being a match, etc.), we all kept our original ideas (he must have molested her, or Patsy must have got in a rage from bedwetting). We came up with scenarios, and didn't see anything else that fit the evidence as well, that's all. Just as Linda Arndt did.

The murder scene was a puzzle and it was overlooked because of the constant scrutiny of every blink of the Ramseys. I think when this investigation is complete, every detail will be explained.

I can't help remember certain other cases, where people were actually convicted and imprisoned for years for a crime they did not commit, because of circumstantial evidence or prejudice, or no other suspect seemed as perfect. David Milgard comes to mind (a Canadian case). He was later cleared after many years in prison, cleared by testing the dna which they had saved, and the true murderer, a known criminal, was matched to the dna. But when the crime was committed they did not have the sophistication to test the dna.

Now we await Karr's dna match. This is what has us on the edge of our seats. If it matches, the ransom note and all the details of the killing are just extraneous.

 

[Details]

So, because there are missing evidence, regardless of what evidence, this increases the chance that the R's are innocent?

And, because some leads were not checked up the probability for the R's innocence goes up?

It's an answer to your question - how the police's behavior and attitude changes the belief in guilt.

Not regardless of what evidence is missing; not because some leads were not checked - because lots of good leads were not checked. What evidence is missing is unknown - but what I don't see is enough evidence there to say that they did it. There's not enough positive evidence, and not enough investigation of the negative evidence (positive - evidence they did it; negative - evidence that no one else might have been able to do it).

There needs to be something solid there, beyond the Ramsey's behavior after their daughter was dead, beyond 'not excluded' handwriting evidence (I don't put a lot of creedence in handwriting analysis as a positive tool - I think it can exclude, but it's not much good to say that someone absolutely wrote the note), and beyond fibers that naturally do live in that house where she was killed.

 

[tumble]

There's not enough positive evidence, and not enough investigation of the negative evidence (positive - evidence they did it; negative - evidence that no one else might have been able to do it).

There needs to be something solid there, beyond the Ramsey's behavior after their daughter was dead, beyond 'not excluded' handwriting evidence (I don't put a lot of creedence in handwriting analysis as a positive tool - I think it can exclude, but it's not much good to say that someone absolutely wrote the note), and beyond fibers that naturally do live in that house where she was killed.

This I understand can be the foundation of an opinion.

 

[rashomon]

No one has ever said that the note was conclusively written after the kidnapping/murder. That cannot be proven.

That was not my point. My point was that a 'random intruder' could not have written the note beforehand in a planned and premeditated way, since it was written with pen and paper from the Ramsey home.
But suppose the note was written beforehand, how on earth did the person who later intruded in the Ramsey home have access to pen and paper from that household? That's what I'd like IDIs to explain.

 

[Details]

That was not my point. My point was that a 'random intruder' could not have written the note beforehand in a planned and premeditated way, since it was written with pen and paper from the Ramsey home.
But suppose the note was written beforehand, how on earth did the person who later intruded in the Ramsey home have access to pen and paper from that household? That's what I'd like IDIs to explain.

He had the entire night to write the note, or before they got home, if he was indeed hiding in there as he says. And it's a nice scare tactic - "I got in your house, stayed here long enough to write this, and you'll never know if I'm here or not". Sure the note could have been written before hand, before he went upstairs and grabbed JonBenet.

Best of all - how many cases have you heard of where some odd bit of uniqueness about the paper, pen, or whatever a note was written on ends up revealling the killer? Maybe some indentations from other things written on the same pad, or whatever - I've seen that used plenty of times. By using the victim's pen and paper, he leaves behind no IDing info.

 

[aussiesheila]

I think I am starting to see how the IDIs here think

No single piece of evidence is strong enough to pin a R down on its's own.

But then why don't you guys end up in the 'i don't know' group?

No single piece of evidence is strong enough to pin an intruder down on it's own.

Or is the DNA it?
If there was no foreign DNA would you have changed your mind on the case?

I don't expect Karr's DNA will be a match for what was found on the panties because I don't think he was there at the murder. I think he is a pedophile who has heard through the pedophile network what a group of pedophiles who were there (one of whose DNA WILL be a match), did to JonBenet before they accidentally killed her. I did have a theory posted on this forum but it's gone missing.

 

[aussiesheila]

Because how the police act indicates to me that they never seriously considered the evidence. It became personal, they were focused, tunnel vision, could see nothing other than the Ramseys, had no willingness to consider anything else.

I think a lot of the attitude, feel the Ramsey's gave off was planted and distorted - they were portrayed as absolutely the killers, no doubt, by the false 'snow all around the house' bit. That slants how they are percieved, how their every action is percieved, then more info is heard with that slant, and when the misinformation is corrected, the slant remains, and the new info that was heard with that slant is now considered sufficient evidence to replace the evidence that has proven to be misinformation. If the police are not honest, if they show a sincere, emotional, angry belief that the Ramsey's did it, and that they must catch them, with real evidence or fake - how can you trust their investigation to find all the facts? Things are ignored, leads disregarded (I've posted a link a few times about some of the leads that were ignored, some very similar cases out there) - it's not that the facts are wrong, it's that they aren't all there.

Details, I agree completely with what you have said, and what's more I think the police DELIBERATELY did not seriously consider the evidence.

I think the police, or rather the head of the investigation JE, was under the control of the mastermind of the coverup FW, a pedophile who was protecting others of his ilk who had gotten themselves into this situation by organising what was supposed to be another regular session of abuse with JonBenet but one that was recklessly conceived and went horribly wrong, ending up with her death.

 

[aussiesheila]

I agree with this and especially that lengthy diatribe known as the "ransom note". Why would a stranger intruder/sexual predator need to sit down and write that note? Why not just get in there and out? Even if they'd spent time in the house waiting for JBR to arrive home, someone like Karr sounds like he'd be up in her room playing with her toys! It would make more sense for someone in the house to write it to try to deflect suspicion onto a stranger. Everything's so !!

But the ransom note and the garrote scenario CAN fit together with an intruder theory. Please see my post 31. In this scenario the garotte was used by a group of pedophiles during their abuse session and the lengthy ransom note was written by Patsy under the direction of the coverup mastermind in the hour(s) after JonBenet's death.

 

[Peter Hamilton]

"group of pedophiles"--"mastermind"--lol--you remind me of the great Red Scare of the 1950's--everone was so paranoid they thought a red(communist) was under their bed--In your case,you're seeing pedos under your bed...or at least you're seeing them in the Ramsey's mysterious basement

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist (and fellow Pittsburgher) has said all along that more than one person was involved and it was a sex game gone bad.

 

[bulletgirl2002]

Interesting to hear that some of you partly base your opinion on how the police handled the case after the fact.

How can this influence the guilt factor?

Do you feel some of the info we today take as facts regarding the case are planted or distorted?

Distorted

 

[rashomon]

He had the entire night to write the note, or before they got home, if he was indeed hiding in there as he says. And it's a nice scare tactic - "I got in your house, stayed here long enough to write this, and you'll never know if I'm here or not". Sure the note could have been written before hand, before he went upstairs and grabbed JonBenet.

How would he know when they'd be back home?
So the sexual predator said to himself: "I'm going to write a really idiotic ransom note before molesting that child?" This doesn't make sense from the point of a sexual predator, does it.
And suppose the intruder was someone who wanted to kidnap for ransom, then it doesnt make sense to stay in the house for hours and then agrrote the child. These two scenarios don't fit together. One can't explain away that fundamental contradiction.

Best of all - how many cases have you heard of where some odd bit of uniqueness about the paper, pen, or whatever a note was written on ends up revealling the killer? Maybe some indentations from other things written on the same pad, or whatever - I've seen that used plenty of times.

Indeed, there does exist some odd bit of uniquness in that note which reveals the ransom note writer. Many odd bits of uniqueness in fact: Letters and words which Patsy Ramsey wote so similarly that I almost fell out of my chair when reading this link: http://www.acandyrose.com/02182003dh911motion.pdf

I have always thought, from the phrasing and word choice alone, that Patsy must have written the note, and this handwriting comparison in the link has only confirmed my belief.

 

[rashomon]

But the ransom note and the garrote scenario CAN fit together with an intruder theory. Please see my post 31. In this scenario the garotte was used by a group of pedophiles during their abuse session and the lengthy ransom note was written by Patsy under the direction of the coverup mastermind in the hour(s) after JonBenet's death.

Aussiesheila: I dont agree with your theory, but indeed, for the sake of the discussion, this would be a 'logical' explanation for why that ransom note was written.
Someone posted:

Now we await Karr's dna match. This is what has us on the edge of our seats. If it matches, the ransom note and all the details of the killing are just extraneous.

Not true. For then one could argue that the Ramseys were in this together with Karr.
It is obvious that Patsy wrote the note:

http://www.acandyrose.com/02182003dh911motion.pdf

So she could theoretically have covered up for Karr.
And don't forget that fibers from Patsy's jacket were found on the duct tape and in the paint tray, and that fibers from John's shirt were found in JB's crotch area. But I don't believe in any pedophile ring scenario where the Ramseys were active or passive participants, and I don't believe for a second that this wacko Karr was ever in the Ramsey home.

 

[hollyjokers]

It would be a blow if Karr's DNA does not match, but I still think an IDI. As much as you say IDI argue their position based on police botching the case, many RDI's seem to base their argument on A) Patsy sexualizing her daughter by putting her in beauty pageants - have you been to children's dance recitals or even cheerleading competitions for that matter? JonBenet's costumes were extremely beautiful & tasteful IMO, made by a seamstress whose own daughter was very successful in pageants. The black & white stripe/polka dot is my favorite. The Ziegfried Follies one had a mock turtleneck or high neck, showing almost no skin other than arms & legs. Your typical preteen/teen dance recital costume is typically very cheaply made with flimsy material that leaves little to the imagination & usually has flesh-colored material to make it appear more revealing than it really is. Under bright stage lights these costumes on young girl's in various stages of development, are a sexual predator's dream. That is not intended to put down parents who put their children in dance classes, just from reading Websleuths & other sites opens your eyes to what goes on. In regards to the big hair & make-up, the impression I get of these girls in their frou-frou dresses is they are meant to look like little mini-debutantes, not as sexual objects. Again it could just be in the eyes of the beholder, just as parents watching their daughters do their dance routines in spandex only think they look "darling." I seem to remember reading that in the 30's mothers bleached & permed their daughter's hair to look like Shirley Temple. Sorry to ramble on so.
B) The pineapple conspiracy. Why would you lie about whether you fed your kid pineapple? It should not implicate guilt or innocence either way and I see no reason she would lie. I did read she was so out of it in the hours & days immediately following the murder that she needed to be helped to the toilet & shower. I assume she was being propped up by some serious pharmaceuticals. Is it unreasonable to believe her memories of that time period are somewhat hazy or faulty? Like I've said before I couldn't tell you every item my kids ate yesterday & I'm drug & trauma free. I also believe if she was really as out of it as described, on Valium or whatever, she would have blurted out something incriminating & she didn't, as far as I know. The Ramsey's actions have made them appear guilty at times, and when they have tried to correct their mistakes, tried to cooperate, it backfired & made them appear even guiltier. At least they never said they were golfishing.

 

[InnocentBystander]

Patsy lied about the pineapple because the story was JB was put to bed right when they got home. No time to eat anything.

She was never put to bed. Nobody went to bed. She was killed shortly after arriving home and they spent the rest of the time before the 911 call coming up with a plan.

 

[hollyjokers]

Patsy lied about the pineapple because the story was JB was put to bed right when they got home. No time to eat anything.

She was never put to bed. Nobody went to bed. She was killed shortly after arriving home and they spent the rest of the time before the 911 call coming up with a plan.

which they executed flawlessly & able to avoid indictment by grand jury after 13 months.