How Many Steps to Innocence??

[joeskidbeck]

This list came about because I asked what EVIDENCE was there against the Rs.

The 'big kahuna' of RDI himself, SuperDave, SUPER by his own admission, without being asked to and entirely without IDI influence, made a 20 point list of what he believed was the evidence against the Rs.

I decided that trying to refute any of this was futile, as it would merely fall on deaf RDI ears. Instead, I have asked those who believe that this is the evidence they have relied on to form their opinion/theory, which of these would need to be REVERSED before they would be able to believe someone other than the Rs may have murdered JBR.

I've even given you hints: RN, fibers, polygraph. As yet, aside from arguing about if the points are important, if any could be disproven, bringing in other points of 'evidence' not on the list, ridiculing the thread title and asking which ones IDI would need to believe RDI, I've yet to get a straight answer from any RDI.

I'm beginning to believe that EVIDENCE has nothing to do with the issue and that they believe RDI just 'BECAUSE' and for no valid reason.

Maybe what I said wasn't clear. The reasons SD listed are all valid reasons for believing RDI but they are not the only reasons why I believe RDI so I did not see the need to remove any of them in order to change my mind.
To change me from RDI to IDI (if that is what you really had in mind), it would involve the Ramseys taking back every single interview they ever did with anyone as they made themselves look guiltier every time they openend their mouths. As time went by, Patsy got bolder and bolder with her statements to the press as she obviously knew by then that were not going to be charged with anything. So, unless you have the power to change the Ramsey's personalities after JonBenet's death (including Burke's), there is no way I will change my opinion.

 

[BBB167893]

Aw, you're making me blush!

I don't think you quite understand why I receive the respect of my peers, RDI and IDI alike. It's because I've earned it.



I bolded the important parts. Tell me something, Murri: did it ever occur to you that there's a reason why people here are reluctant to engage with you?



Well, speaking for myself, I'm wondering the same about IDI, at least some of them.

Given any thought to what I said, Murri?

 

[MurriFlower]

Given any thought to what I said, Murri?

Just run your question by me again.

 

[BBB167893]

Just run your question by me again.

Okay:

Did it ever occur to you that there's a reason why people here are reluctant to engage with you?

 

[MurriFlower]

Okay:

Did it ever occur to you that there's a reason why people here are reluctant to engage with you?

No, I haven't found that they are reluctant to 'engage' with me. On the contrary, I've always had good feedback from both RDI and IDI.

However, I did notice that when I asked what I think is a fundamental question of those who believe RDI -- what is your evidence? There was a lot of silence, before someone (your very own self -- leader of the RDI gang) eventually posted a 20 point list of your 'evidence' in support of RDI.

So, when arguing each point became quite tedious, I decided to ask RDI as a group, exactly which of these points were the most critical to them, that in absence would cause them to reconsider.

The fact that many have chosen not to answer; have answered with further questions; listed the Rs behaviour after the event; or tried to evade the issue of 'evidence' for heresay/innuendo/firm belief, all leads me to believe that few have actually taken 'evidence' into account. Their 'totallity of evidence' is merely smoke and mirrors based on their opinion.

So, if I had to guess the reason why people are reluctant to engage in this particular question, I'd have to say it may be because they need to examine closely what has caused them to form their opinion. In doing so, they have found what I suggested at the outset. NO EVIDENCE.

 

[BBB167893]

No, I haven't found that they are reluctant to 'engage' with me. On the contrary, I've always had good feedback from both RDI and IDI.

Okay, I just meant here specifically.

However, I did notice that when I asked what I think is a fundamental question of those who believe RDI -- what is your evidence? There was a lot of silence, before someone (your very own self -- leader of the RDI gang) eventually posted a 20 point list of your 'evidence' in support of RDI.

The bolded part is news to me. I never knew I was the "leader" of anything! I don't ask anyone to follow me. But I will always give of myself, as I was happy to do here.

So, when arguing each point became quite tedious,

YOU think it's tedious? I've been doing this for eight years.

I decided to ask RDI as a group, exactly which of these points were the most critical to them, that in absence would cause them to reconsider.

Got it. It's just that RDI is not really a group, at least in the sense that we don't all think alike.

The fact that many have chosen not to answer; have answered with further questions; listed the Rs behaviour after the event; or tried to evade the issue of 'evidence' for heresay/innuendo/firm belief,

Maybe they're just trying to figure out where you're coming from. It's not easy to get people around here to open up. Very few people were jumping for joy when I came here. You have to prove yourself trustworthy.

all leads me to believe that few have actually taken 'evidence' into account. Their 'totality of evidence' is merely smoke and mirrors based on their opinion.

You're certainly free to believe that, Murri. But for my part, even I was hesitant because you always seem to be looking for a fight.

So, if I had to guess the reason why people are reluctant to engage in this particular question, I'd have to say it may be because they need to examine closely what has caused them to form their opinion. In doing so, they have found what I suggested at the outset. NO EVIDENCE.

Well, if that is the case, they are free to say so at anytime.

 

[MurriFlower]

Okay, I just meant here specifically.

The bolded part is news to me. I never knew I was the "leader" of anything! I don't ask anyone to follow me. But I will always give of myself, as I was happy to do here.

YOU think it's tedious? I've been doing this for eight years.

Got it. It's just that RDI is not really a group, at least in the sense that we don't all think alike.
l
Maybe they're just trying to figure out where you're coming from. It's not easy to get people around here to open up. Very few people were jumping for joy when I came here. You have to prove yourself trustworthy.

You're certainly free to believe that, Murri. But for my part, even I was hesitant because you always seem to be looking for a fight.

Well, if that is the case, they are free to say so at anytime.

Fight?? Lill 'ol me?? Nah!!

Let's just leave the personality contest side out of it for a moment, and get back to the 'evidence'.

You have listed what you believe to be the main points, and I've condensed them by combining the similar ones. We are left with these (in no particular order):

1. The fibers
2. The RN
3. The Method
4. The Pineapple

What I was hoping to do was to go through these points with you and try to look at the various options.

First let's start with the fibers on the tape.

Either they ARE from PR's jacket or they ARE NOT from PR's jacket.

If they ARE NOT from PR's jacket, that is one point against RDI.

If they ARE from PR's jacket, then what are the possibilites?

a) They were deposited there when PR murdered JBR.

That's one point for RDI.

b) They were deposited there when JR or FW touched the tape.

What if the laboratory report on the fibers wasn't revealed because:

b)(i) It could not be stated that without a doubt the fibers were from her jacket, or

b)(ii) The (4) fibers were definitely from PRs jacket, however, there was an additional 400 fibers on the tape, 100 of which were sourced to the house and 300 of which were not able to be identified.

In the scenarios b)(i) or b)(ii) above, how would you now view this RDI evidence?

 

[DeeDee249]

It has been discussed here at length that the identification if the fibers as being "consistent with" Patsy's jacket fibers is the ONLY classification given to fibers in forensic testing. The reason for this is that unless a naked eye could have SEEN the fibers fall (and that obviously never happens) the forensic determination that the fibers MATCH those of a suspects' clothing or car or carpet, etc. or are consistent with those fibers is legally acceptable and admissible in court. Patsy's jacket is not the only one in the world and the fabric that made it is not the only sample in the world. Just as the yarns used to make the fabric is not the only one in the world. But when submitted as evidence, the court allows for consideration the LIKELY proximity of the fibers' source to the victim - i.e. the likelihood that another wearer of the exact same jacket as Patsy owned was in the house at the time JB was killed and was near her body, the cord and tape and pain tote. That possibility is so remote that NO one could rationally consider it and be taken seriously.
Just as when fibers from a victim's body are found to match those of a suspects' carpet fibers from their home or car. Not the ONLY place or car that that carpet was installed. So if a suspect was known to be in the vicinity of the crime and/or had contact with the victim, in THIS country the court allows such description as "consistent with" to be taken as "likely has come from".

 

[MurriFlower]

It has been discussed here at length that the identification if the fibers as being "consistent with" Patsy's jacket fibers is the ONLY classification given to fibers in forensic testing. The reason for this is that unless a naked eye could have SEEN the fibers fall (and that obviously never happens) the forensic determination that the fibers MATCH those of a suspects' clothing or car or carpet, etc. or are consistent with those fibers is legally acceptable and admissible in court. Patsy's jacket is not the only one in the world and the fabric that made it is not the only sample in the world. Just as the yarns used to make the fabric is not the only one in the world. But when submitted as evidence, the court allows for consideration the LIKELY proximity of the fibers' source to the victim - i.e. the likelihood that another wearer of the exact same jacket as Patsy owned was in the house at the time JB was killed and was near her body, the cord and tape and pain tote. That possibility is so remote that NO one could rationally consider it and be taken seriously.
Just as when fibers from a victim's body are found to match those of a suspects' carpet fibers from their home or car. Not the ONLY place or car that that carpet was installed. So if a suspect was known to be in the vicinity of the crime and/or had contact with the victim, in THIS country the court allows such description as "consistent with" to be taken as "likely has come from".

Hi DD

I'm trying to come up with something that ties in with what LE said to the Rs during the interview AND a reason why they would not want to make it public or show the report.

I'm thinking about what was said in Court with Wolf -v- Ramsey that there were four red fibers that were consistent/identical with PR's jacket, but that there were other fibers that were unidentified.

What if the report DID say there were 400 fibers, four of which were identical with PRs jacket, 100 sourced to other items in the house and another 300 unsourced?? How would you view that in relation to the Rs guilt/innocence?

 

[Peepers]

I think all of these threads are engaging. Its good debate; a fascinating but frustrating case. I see good points on both sides, thats why I cant make up my mind which side of the fence Im on, but I think its possible that this is just a weirdo freak intruder that did it. I also think its possible that Im naive and the Ramseys did it. All of it is opinion. No one here knows for sure what happened. No ones opinion or theory of what happened is more credible than the others. We dont KNOW FOR A FACT what happened.

 

[SunnieRN]

Assuming of course that there were any fibers to account for.

Assuming that BR did not make a mistake.
Agreed.
Doesn't the absence of the tape, rope, practice RN, end of stick etc, mean anything to you?
From the refrigerator. Maybe she woke up after they went to bed and ate some.
Well, either the person or the person's accomplice.

I'm guessing here, but I think she means that the sexual assault wasn't significant, when compared to the violence of her death (bash/strangle). One might expect a pedophile killer to give more attention to the sexual side/as opposed to the killing.

There were fibers to account for and the R's didn't turn in their clothes for testing for how long? And they supposedly looked brand new, in a never laundered state. That speaks for it's self.

Absence of the items you listed, tells me they were somehow smuggled out, by the R's or Patsy's sister. That is my belief, but if someone besides a family member had those items and turned themselves in, I would concede that point.

As for the DNA evidence, I am glad we agree.

I respect your idea about Nedra's statement, but find that a highly offensive statement from a Grandmother.

As for no one speaking up until after SD did, I am on vacation, have been for a few days prior to this thread getting started. I am sure when I get home I will have a lot more to say, whether or not any of the 'RDI posse' has more input or not.

Your arguments against what gets said are your opinions, just as mine are also. The challenges of fitting the known facts, together with evidence is what leads to each individuals opinion. Maybe spending additional time finding information to back up your beliefs, vs arguing over known facts and individuals opinions, will lead you to an ability to present your material in a less confrontational manner. Just because you don't like what a piece of evidence states, does not mean that it is incorrect.

 

[MurriFlower]

There were fibers to account for and the R's didn't turn in their clothes for testing for how long? And they supposedly looked brand new, in a never laundered state. That speaks for it's self.

They were not ASKED for their clothes for 12 months. They turned them in around 1 month after being asked. Why the BPD, if they were so sure they were the murderers, did not ask before, goodness knows. That also speaks for itself.

There is always the possibility that either there were so many fibers on the tape that the four red fibers consistent (identical?) with those of her mother's jacket were not considered significant, or they weren't confident that the report would hold up in court.

Something else just struck me also, perhaps the fiber evidence had been 'lost', so the defence team would not have been able to do their own testing. If so, this might also mean it could not be presented in court?

Absence of the items you listed, tells me they were somehow smuggled out, by the R's or Patsy's sister.

Ah yes, the convenient smuggling out by someone. There were so many people involved in this crime and it's cover-up, according to RDI, I'm surprised someone hasn't spilled the beans.

That is my belief, but if someone besides a family member had those items and turned themselves in, I would concede that point.

Ok, this is good.

As for the DNA evidence, I am glad we agree.

Yes, there might be more evidence when techniques improve, provided anyone in LE is still interested.

I respect your idea about Nedra's statement, but find that a highly offensive statement from a Grandmother.

I doubt she meant it in an offensive way. I think people are loth to think of their child being sexually tortured, so she may have attempted to diminish it to comfort PR (and herself). The murder itself was horrific enough without trying to imagine what may have preceeded it.

 

[BBB167893]

Fight?? Lill 'ol me?? Nah!!

Yeah, I don't know what I could have been thinking! LOL Anyone with a boxing kangaroo as their avatar is probably a real pacifist.

Let's just leave the personality contest side out of it for a moment, and get back to the 'evidence'.

That's what I've been TRYING to do.

You have listed what you believe to be the main points, and I've condensed them by combining the similar ones. We are left with these (in no particular order):

1. The fibers
2. The RN
3. The Method
4. The Pineapple

What I was hoping to do was to go through these points with you and try to look at the various options.

Then let's get started.

First let's start with the fibers on the tape.

Either they ARE from PR's jacket or they ARE NOT from PR's jacket.

Those would be the choices.

If they ARE NOT from PR's jacket, that is one point against RDI.

True.

If they ARE from PR's jacket, then what are the possibilites?

a) They were deposited there when PR murdered JBR.

That's one point for RDI.

Yep.

b) They were deposited there when JR or FW touched the tape.

I have to ask: does anyone know if the tape had fingerprints on it?

What if the laboratory report on the fibers wasn't revealed because:

b)(i) It could not be stated that without a doubt the fibers were from her jacket, or

b)(ii) The (4) fibers were definitely from PRs jacket, however, there was an additional 400 fibers on the tape, 100 of which were sourced to the house and 300 of which were not able to be identified.

I propose another:

b)(iii) The lab report was not revealed because the prosecutors knew it would be bad if the Rs lawyers got their hot little hands on it before a trial.

In the scenarios b)(i) or b)(ii) above, how would you now view this RDI evidence?

Well, in the case of the first, we have PR saying that they very well could be hers (OOPS!)

As for the second one, that's tough. It would help if it could somehow be proven to be a fresh piece and not a used one, as Henry Lee seemed to hint at.

I'm trying to come up with something that ties in with what LE said to the Rs during the interview AND a reason why they would not want to make it public or show the report.

From what I understand, not making evidence public is standard proceedure in crime cases. Indeed, one of the major problems in this case was that nobody could keep his mouth shut.

I'm thinking about what was said in Court with Wolf -v- Ramsey that there were four red fibers that were consistent/identical with PR's jacket, but that there were other fibers that were unidentified.

You have to be careful with that one, Murri.

Why the BPD, if they were so sure they were the murderers, did not ask before, goodness knows

Actually, we DO know why. They were waiting for the DA to issue the warrants. And he WOULDN'T. The FBI specifically told the police NOT to ask, but to force them to give up the clothing.

Something else just struck me also, perhaps the fiber evidence had been 'lost', so the defence team would not have been able to do their own testing. If so, this might also mean it could not be presented in court?

Yes, if the fiber evidence were lost (which I doubt), and the defense couldn't examine it, that WOULD make it inadmissable in court. I happen to think that the fiber evidence isn't so much "lost" as "buried" in the police file (like some other things I could mention).

Ah yes, the convenient smuggling out by someone.

Which I agree with.

There were so many people involved in this crime and it's cover-up, according to RDI, I'm surprised someone hasn't spilled the beans.

You're only off by one letter. It's IDI that claims there were up to three people involved, or more. (Assuming I agreed with you, there's still the issue of blood vs. water.)

 

[BBB167893]

As for no one speaking up until after SD did, I am on vacation, have been for a few days prior to this thread getting started. I am sure when I get home I will have a lot more to say, whether or not any of the 'RDI posse' has more input or not.

It strikes me as a bit hypocritical, Sunnie. I've lost count of how many times I've challenged IDI and been ignored for my trouble! And I don't make a big deal out of it.

 

[DeeDee249]

Hi DD

I'm trying to come up with something that ties in with what LE said to the Rs during the interview AND a reason why they would not want to make it public or show the report.

I'm thinking about what was said in Court with Wolf -v- Ramsey that there were four red fibers that were consistent/identical with PR's jacket, but that there were other fibers that were unidentified.

What if the report DID say there were 400 fibers, four of which were identical with PRs jacket, 100 sourced to other items in the house and another 300 unsourced?? How would you view that in relation to the Rs guilt/innocence?

I haven't seen that there were 400 fibers, so I am assuming that this is just a rhetorical statement, but if there were, I would still be just as focused on the fibers belonging to Patsy. Here's why- the fibers are from a garment she was KNOWN to be wearing on the night JB died, and that Patsy told LE she had never worn in the basement. The tape was left behind in the basement when JR brought JB upstairs and Patsy claimed to have NOT gone into the basement that night or anytime on the 26th. JB's face, head and torso were covered with an afghan by the time Patsy came into the living room and threw herself on the body, in addition, the knot (where the fibers were found) was on the back of JB's neck and she was face UP when she was lying on the rug in the living room. Patsy claimed it was LHP who carried the tote to the basement and that Patsy never painted wearing that garment. So it is because Patsy's fibers were found on items particular to the crime itself (the garrote KNOT, the tape, and the paint tote) combined with it being from a garment she owned and wore THAT night that would still make me look at those fibers above the others, no matter how numerous.
Was that too confusing?

 

[SunnieRN]

They were not ASKED for their clothes for 12 months. They turned them in around 1 month after being asked. Why the BPD, if they were so sure they were the murderers, did not ask before, goodness knows. That also speaks for itself.

There is always the possibility that either there were so many fibers on the tape that the four red fibers consistent (identical?) with those of her mother's jacket were not considered significant, or they weren't confident that the report would hold up in court.

Something else just struck me also, perhaps the fiber evidence had been 'lost', so the defence team would not have been able to do their own testing. If so, this might also mean it could not be presented in court?



Ah yes, the convenient smuggling out by someone. There were so many people involved in this crime and it's cover-up, according to RDI, I'm surprised someone hasn't spilled the beans.



Ok, this is good.



Yes, there might be more evidence when techniques improve, provided anyone in LE is still interested.



I doubt she meant it in an offensive way. I think people are loth to think of their child being sexually tortured, so she may have attempted to diminish it to comfort PR (and herself). The murder itself was horrific enough without trying to imagine what may have preceeded it.

How could 4 fibers from Patsys clothing, that IDI's claim came from outside the Ramsey house, pulled off of Jon Benets mouth by John, prior to Jon Benet being brought upstairs, removed prior to PR lying on Jon Benet, have gotten on the tape if it came from outside the home?

It strikes me as a bit hypocritical, Sunnie. I've lost count of how many times I've challenged IDI and been ignored for my trouble! And I don't make a big deal out of it.

Not sure why you say I am being hypocritical? My post was in response to MurriFlowers post.. She made the statement that none of the RDI's would respond to her questions until after you posted. Not quite sure why my response to MF makes you feel like I made a big deal out of it?

 

[MurriFlower]

How could 4 fibers from Patsys clothing, that IDI's claim came from outside the Ramsey house, pulled off of Jon Benets mouth by John, prior to Jon Benet being brought upstairs, removed prior to PR lying on Jon Benet, have gotten on the tape if it came from outside the home?

Ok, well, I was suggesting that there MAY have been numerous fibers on the tape (as far as we know) that were NOT sourced to anything in the house. Fibers float and fly and can be transferred by hand or on other clothing, so four red fibers from PR's jacket (if in fact they can be proven to have been so) could have arrived there by JR's hand (when he removed the tape) or FW (when he picked up the tape and dropped it on the blanket). I assume there is no problem with her jacket fibers being on the blanket as she put JBR to bed the previous evening? For all we know these fibers could have been attached originally to the blanket and transferred. I assume you have seen the photo with the tape attached to the blanket? Sticky things pick up lots of stuff.

Not sure why you say I am being hypocritical? My post was in response to MurriFlowers post.. She made the statement that none of the RDI's would respond to her questions until after you posted. Not quite sure why my response to MF makes you feel like I made a big deal out of it?

You get used to this kind of stuff if you aren't a dyed in the wool RDI. You are meant to pay homage to the 'senior' RDIs with praise and thanks for their every word, (whether you agree or not).

 

[SunnieRN]

Ok, well, I was suggesting that there MAY have been numerous fibers on the tape (as far as we know) that were NOT sourced to anything in the house. Fibers float and fly and can be transferred by hand or on other clothing, so four red fibers from PR's jacket (if in fact they can be proven to have been so) could have arrived there by JR's hand (when he removed the tape) or FW (when he picked up the tape and dropped it on the blanket). I assume there is no problem with her jacket fibers being on the blanket as she put JBR to bed the previous evening? For all we know these fibers could have been attached originally to the blanket and transferred. I assume you have seen the photo with the tape attached to the blanket? Sticky things pick up lots of stuff.




You get used to this kind of stuff if you aren't a dyed in the wool RDI. You are meant to pay homage to the 'senior' RDIs with praise and thanks for their every word, (whether you agree or not).

Can't even tell you how much I believe a RDI. I just don't follow the popular belief that it was Patsy. I honestly believe the fibers are not only suspicious but go far beyond that. Yes, fibers float, but IMHO that may account for a single fiber on a blanket or a piece of tape. Not multiple fibers.

There are TOO many unanswered, avoided, untruthful statements that were made by the R's and even their hand picked legal team. Evidence is evidence is evidence. No matter how you slice or dice it, there are too many coincidences and no clear answers for them. Circumstantial evidence has gotten many convictions, for a reason!

As for getting 'used to 'this kind of stuff', there is also the ability to stand up for your beliefs and opinions. After all, opinions are like part of our anatomy, we've all got one! No one will agree all the time or on all subjects or parts of a case. That is why jurors have 12 members.

 

[BBB167893]

How could 4 fibers from Patsys clothing, that IDI's claim came from outside the Ramsey house, pulled off of Jon Benets mouth by John, prior to Jon Benet being brought upstairs, removed prior to PR lying on Jon Benet, have gotten on the tape if it came from outside the home?

Good question!

Not sure why you say I am being hypocritical?

I'm NOT, Sunnie. And I'm sorry if you thought I was. I have to admit, that was not worded well. I meant that it strikes me as hypocritical for an IDI to complain about being ignored in light of the numerous times I've been ignored by them.

My post was in response to MurriFlowers post.. She made the statement that none of the RDI's would respond to her questions until after you posted.

I know. Frankly, she thinks too much of me!

Not quite sure why my response to MF makes you feel like I made a big deal out of it?

I'm not saying you did, Sunnie. I was saying that I don't make a big deal out of it.

Friends?

 

[BBB167893]

You get used to this kind of stuff if you aren't a dyed in the wool RDI. You are meant to pay homage to the 'senior' RDIs with praise and thanks for their every word, (whether you agree or not).

You think too much of me, Murri. That's not it at all.