The top ten reasons I believe the IDI theory

[Roy23]

Question to those who believe IDI, Would you have a different view if there was no DNA evidence that was unidentified ? ie take out the DNA evidence , what have you got?

And ref to ST , he really mislead in his book because he did mention a few times about people being cleared due to their DNA not matching , that chap in prison for example, sorry SuperDave I know you have explained this a thousand times , well I feel like I've read your explanation a thousand times now but it keeps cropping up doesnt it , prob no thanks to ST's book!

I would certainly still be interested in the case. I would still lean IDI from the information that I have read on the case but I wouldn't be crowing about it either way. One of the bigger problems of the case was that LE did not contain the crimescene and how much evidence was distroyed is unknown.

You are making my best point for me. The DNA. I believe LE was worried about the collection of the DNA. Look at OJ. i mean they had his blood. LE in California miscalculated some percentages and a couple of small protocols were violated and it helped him walk. But it was still his blood.

In your point above, LE has already let the cat out of the bag. But nobody is listening. They have cleared people on the DNA. Even from the beginning. But they are worried about it and its collection. Most of their time was spent trying to test an innocent transfer when they only had the one sample. Instead of covering their fannies now, and leaking to the press, they are shutting their mouths. But it is a DNA case if you listen and don't rely on books and magazines that are 7 to 15 years old.

 

[madeleine]

I would certainly still be interested in the case. I would still lean IDI from the information that I have read on the case but I wouldn't be crowing about it either way. One of the bigger problems of the case was that LE did not contain the crimescene and how much evidence was distroyed is unknown.

You are making my best point for me. The DNA. I believe LE was worried about the collection of the DNA. Look at OJ. i mean they had his blood. LE in California miscalculated some percentages and a couple of small protocols were violated and it helped him walk. But it was still his blood.

In your point above, LE has already let the cat out of the bag. But nobody is listening. They have cleared people on the DNA. Even from the beginning. But they are worried about it and its collection. Most of their time was spent trying to test an innocent transfer when they only had the one sample. Instead of covering their fannies now, and leaking to the press, they are shutting their mouths. But it is a DNA case if you listen and don't rely on books and magazines that are 7 to 15 years old.

heya Roy,
even if IDI I don't think this is a DNA case and I will give you my :twocents:.

If IDI I am ready to bet on whatever you want that JDouglas was right and this was someone who knew the family very well.Then you have the RN.Why would some stranger who was interested in molesting the beauty queen (cause IMO this was a crime about abuse and sex and cover up) write such a silly RN asking for such a weird number?and be so personal/hateful towards JR?

the RN totally contradicts the stranger intruder theory.
so if IDI it must have been someone KNOWN to the family.
didn't both LE and the Ramsey investigators check these kind of folks?

IMO "DNA will solve this case" would have worked only if the intruder was a total stranger,which IMO isn't the case here,not even if IDI.

 

[Roy23]

heya Roy,
even if IDI I don't think this is a DNA case and I will give you my :twocents:.

If IDI I am ready to bet on whatever you want that JDouglas was right and this was someone who knew the family very well.Then you have the RN.Why would some stranger who was interested in molesting the beauty queen (cause IMO this was a crime about abuse and sex and cover up) write such a silly RN asking for such a weird number?and be so personal/hateful towards JR?

the RN totally contradicts the stranger intruder theory.
so if IDI it must have been someone KNOWN to the family.
didn't both LE and the Ramsey investigators check these kind of folks?

IMO "DNA will solve this case" would have worked only if the intruder was a total stranger,which IMO isn't the case here,not even if IDI.

I just don't agree. I have no idea why the RN was written or what the intended purpose of the killer was. It very well could be someone known to the Ramsey's. The killer could have been paid by someone known by the Ramsey's. I don't claim to know that. The information known by the intruder is very intruiging or quite the coincidence. The intruder could have found this information while inside the house. I admit to not knowing why.

But it is a DNA case. LE has already told you so in the last few years. And you can disregard anything ML did and they are still telling you this. RDI uses information on DNA from way back in the beginning of the case for its argument. Things changed. They are eliminating persons from it. It is clear to me so this will be my opinion.

Having DNA is a 6 year old childs underwear that matches DNA on the leggings based on how they would have suspected an assault along with finally advancing the fingernail DNA to a match suggests something really powerful. I understand that RDI is gonna discount it for many reasons. But when they tell me they want to put it in CODIS and they are crossing off persons of interest because DNA doesn't match, I think you guys are missing it. And missing it BIG.

 

[madeleine]

LE never said that the fingernail DNA is a match,only the R investigators did.
IF the cops will come and state it officially then I will consider it.

also,until someone can tell me what kind of dna they found in JB's panties anything is possible.
I always said that if the panties DNA is NOT touch dna (but saliva,etc) then yes it gets interesting cause we have two types of dna coming from an unknown person,which makes transfer impossible,which means that this person was probably there.
BUT we don't know yet what kind of dna they found in the panties,if it's touch dna then it could have been transfer,which means it could have landed there accidentally.

 

[madeleine]

and probably this is the 100th time I am asking this,
but how do you IDI's know for sure that if an unknown male was at the scene he wasn't called there by the R's themselves to help them clean up the scene and cover this up?
until there is a match,until we got a NAME no one can know anything for sure,not you,not me,not ML,not the cops,no one.

 

[Roy23]

and probably this is the 100th time I am asking this,
but how do you IDI's know for sure that if an unknown male was at the scene he wasn't called there by the R's themselves to help them clean up the scene and cover this up?
until there is a match,until we got a NAME no one can know anything for sure,not you,not me,not ML,not the cops,no one.

I don't know that they didn't call. I never said differently. I am just saying the cops are crossing off persons of interest due to the DNA. I am saying someone was in that house and killed that little girl. The DNA doesn't suggest cleaning the scene. It suggests murder. For everything I can give you regarding the fingernail DNA you can find something to refute it. Gotta pick and choose yourself cause IMO there is a big reason LE doesn't want to clarify to the public on fingernail DNA.

 

[madeleine]

Gotta pick and choose yourself cause IMO there is a big reason LE doesn't want to clarify to the public on fingernail DNA.

I just think ML would have mentioned it if so(fingernail dna is a match) but she didn't,she only mentioned the panties DNA.

 

[Roy23]

I just think ML would have mentioned it if so(fingernail dna is a match) but she didn't,she only mentioned the panties DNA.

They don't want to mention it because the Coroner used the same clippers on other dead persons. Mistakes are made and in this case a ton of them were made. Mostly in Law Enforcement. That doesn't mean they didn't match it though.

 

[Junebug99]

Riiight, and this unknown cleanup persons Dna just happened to get under a dead girls fingernails, and commingled with blood in her undewear, not buying it. Whomever left the DNA is the killer IMO.

 

[DeeDee249]

and probably this is the 100th time I am asking this,
but how do you IDI's know for sure that if an unknown male was at the scene he wasn't called there by the R's themselves to help them clean up the scene and cover this up?
until there is a match,until we got a NAME no one can know anything for sure,not you,not me,not ML,not the cops,no one.

That says it all. Until we KNOW- we don't know. It may or may not be the killer's. It may be the stager's (not the killer's). It may be someone at the party that evening (even a male child). It may be the morgue worker who was arrested for trying to sell the morgue log with JB's entry in it. It may belong to the deceased male who was autopsied previously. See now why proper sterile (even if tedious) procedures are important? Autopsy 101.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

and probably this is the 100th time I am asking this,
but how do you IDI's know for sure that if an unknown male was at the scene he wasn't called there by the R's themselves to help them clean up the scene and cover this up?

It's more likely that if someone else was there, they were the killer, by the logic of the situation, and by the places where the DNA was found. They had a friend mess with her panties???? Why would they need help to clean anything? What was cleaned anyway? So much so, that they would admit to someone else this crime? If they did have someone help, they would have at least had him take the body out of there, which would be most important thing to do.

until there is a match,until we got a NAME no one can know anything for sure,not you,not me,not ML,not the cops,no one.

True, and until then, the DNA provides plenty of reasonable doubt about the Ramseys' guilt.

 

[madeleine]

Riiight, and this unknown cleanup persons Dna just happened to get under a dead girls fingernails, and commingled with blood in her undewear, not buying it. Whomever left the DNA is the killer IMO.

another mistake.even if IDI,how do you know how many there were?how do you know that the dna was left by the one who killed her and not his accomplice?
and you're doing the same mistake RDI's make re the note and the fibers.you are stating as FACT that the fingernail dna is a match.i haven't seen an official source confirming this.don't give me Ramsey "investigators" quotes,it's the same as quoting Steve Thomas.means nothing to me.i want the truth.

 

[UKGuy]

another mistake.even if IDI,how do you know how many there were?how do you know that the dna was left by the one who killed her and not his accomplice?
and you're doing the same mistake RDI's make re the note and the fibers.you are stating as FACT that the fingernail dna is a match.i haven't seen an official source confirming this.don't give me Ramsey "investigators" quotes,it's the same as quoting Steve Thomas.means nothing to me.i want the truth.

madeleine,
If you cannot accept BPD remarks regarding some of the crime-scene evidence and it remains unidentified then you have nothing left to discuss. Since all you have is a corpse and lots of forensic evidence.

Someone else has exactly the same position, you should team up and find the intruder.




.

 

[UKGuy]

It's more likely that if someone else was there, they were the killer, by the logic of the situation, and by the places where the DNA was found. They had a friend mess with her panties???? Why would they need help to clean anything? What was cleaned anyway? So much so, that they would admit to someone else this crime? If they did have someone help, they would have at least had him take the body out of there, which would be most important thing to do.





True, and until then, the DNA provides plenty of reasonable doubt about the Ramseys' guilt.

Smelly Squirrel,

True, and until then, the DNA provides plenty of reasonable doubt about the Ramseys' guilt.

Surely you mean touch-dna, not DNA which includes semen dna?




.

 

[UKGuy]

Riiight, and this unknown cleanup persons Dna just happened to get under a dead girls fingernails, and commingled with blood in her undewear, not buying it. Whomever left the DNA is the killer IMO.

Junebug99,
So why is there just touch-dna, its not DNA, under her fingernails and on her clothing?

Why did the killer not deposit touch-dna anywhere else at the crime-scene?

If the intruder is so careful not to leave forensic traces how does his touch-dna land underneath JonBenet's fingernails?

If it had been saliva DNA or semen DNA you could claim with confidence that this probably belonged to JonBenet's killer.

You have to indentify the owner of the touch-dna then place him at the scene of the crime before you can say the owner of the touch-dna killed JonBenet.

 

[madeleine]

madeleine,
If you cannot accept BPD remarks regarding some of the crime-scene evidence and it remains unidentified then you have nothing left to discuss. Since all you have is a corpse and lots of forensic evidence.

Someone else has exactly the same position, you should team up and find the intruder.

:waitasec:
wth is wrong with you people?
so if I am RDI I have to buy,accept and swallow everything ST has to say?
if I am IDI I have to buy bs like "fingernail dna is a match"?


why can't I take,analyze and believe stuff coming from both camps?
I am not that extreme to believe that one camp is God and 100% right in everything and the other one speaks only pure bs.
why do you all have to be so extreme

whatever.....


ETA:to ME,Steve Thomas is NOT = with BPD,I am not taking what he says as official police source and you know exactly why.As far as I am concerned what he did only managed to damage RDI.

 

[Roy23]

:waitasec:
wth is wrong with you people?
so if I am RDI I have to buy,accept and swallow everything ST has to say?
if I am IDI I have to buy bs like "fingernail dna is a match"?


why can't I take,analyze and believe stuff coming from both camps?
I am not that extreme to believe that one camp is God and 100% right in everything and the other one speaks only pure bs.
why do you all have to be so extreme

whatever.....


ETA:to ME,Steve Thomas is NOT = with BPD,I am not taking what he says as official police source and you know exactly why.As far as I am concerned what he did only managed to damage RDI.

Mad,

You don't have to. You can believe whatever you want to. And I support you on that. Regarding the fingernail DNA, it is up in the air. LE is not going to give us the answer. I will say it ain't touch DNA like they got off the leggings. I imagine it contains skin and not just skin cells. But yeah, the collection of it has problems in court.

 

[UKGuy]

:waitasec:
wth is wrong with you people?
so if I am RDI I have to buy,accept and swallow everything ST has to say?
if I am IDI I have to buy bs like "fingernail dna is a match"?


why can't I take,analyze and believe stuff coming from both camps?
I am not that extreme to believe that one camp is God and 100% right in everything and the other one speaks only pure bs.
why do you all have to be so extreme

whatever.....


ETA:to ME,Steve Thomas is NOT = with BPD,I am not taking what he says as official police source and you know exactly why.As far as I am concerned what he did only managed to damage RDI.

madeleine,

why can't I take,analyze and believe stuff coming from both camps?

Analyze away, but belief does not equal knowledge and you have to first identify the owner of the touch-dna and place that person at the crime-scene, before you can state the owner of the touch-dna killed JonBenet!

You can belief whatever you like about the touch-dna recovered at the crime-scene, but it has never been identified as either semen or saliva DNA.

If it had been LW and Boulder DA would make sure we all knew about it, and of course would represent prima facie evidence of an intruder.



.

 

[vulture]

"Question to those who believe IDI, Would you have a different view if there was no DNA evidence that was unidentified ? ie take out the DNA evidence , what have you got?"

In my opinion here is what I've got (although none of it is proof which is why no one has solved this case yet!):

1. I can't see a motive for either of the parents to kill the child. I know there are theories about motives, but none of them seem to be any more than that, to me.

2. The type of head injury does not suggest an accident to me. If there wasn't an accident, there is no need to cover it up by staging.

3. It's a leap to assume that if there was an accident there would be staging. Why wouldn't the parents call 911? I know people have theories about that, but there isn't enough evidence to convince me that they again are any more than theories.

4. If there was staging, I can't get my imagination, which is very vivid, to accept parents staging it the way they did, unless there is evidence that they were very sick people who were into very sick things of a sexual and sadistic nature and I'm not aware of anything that suggests that's the case. What I'm trying to say is, to even think of staging that way you have to be pretty bent to start with. Otherwise how would you think of it?

5. They were pretty lax about security in the house and were somewhat high-profile in the community - an easy target.

6. A lot of things I assumed to be true from earlier media reports (such as no footprints outside in snow: turns out there was not snow in the critical spots to leave footprints in - another example - audio on 911 tape of Ramseys saying incriminating things turned out to be noise of the tape machine starting up and not human words at all) turned out to be false, so that made me rethink everything I thought I knew.

7. A lot of people think the Ramsey's behavior shows guilt, I see much of their behavior as consciousness of innocence, not guilt. I think they behaved like people who had a rude shock and reached out for help and after they found out that LE was after them instead of helping them and someone who knew them might have done it, they got suspicious and withdrew, which is what I would have done in their situation.

8. Ramseys' memory lapses are no worse than mine even in non-traumatic situations, and I know what my Mom was like after chemo - she was never really the same again. So I don't see memory lapses as consciousness of guilt necessarily.

9. When given the opportunity to make up a lie to make them sound better, like explaining the pineapple, they did not - making me think they are trying to be truthful.

10. A lot of the people who want to promote the Ramsey's having done it DO have a motive that I can understand.

Putting little kids in beauty pageants with lots of makeup and fancy costumes is very weird to me, that's something I would want no part of, but I don't think it rises to the level of weirdness and sickness that the killer(s) had. I'm not sticking up for the Ramsey's because I think they're great and I've thought then innocent from the start - I thought they did it at first. Then I got some more information and realized that reality was NOT very much like what was presented in the media.

 

[vulture]

Oh yes to add to the above, #11 - A lot of what some people assume is true about the case comes from investigators questions, not the Ramsey's answers or actual proven facts. That shows in my opinion only what was in the investigator's minds or what they hoped would get them to confess. It's not real evidence.