What about all these 3's?

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yes, I got that. You've been claiming that for a while now. But that's all it is: a claim. Still, it would just be nice to hear an actual rationale for it.

Whereas I'm stating there is NO rationale available to write a long long long ransom note by someone who lives there. I'm not wasting your time asking for something that I believe is inherently not valid.

Give me a break. That's hardly worth a response, HOTYH. You're capable of so much better than that.

Just calling 'em like I see 'em. Circular reasoning can get out of hand even by the best of theorists. We are all just theorists, right?

 

[Steely]

I think you forgot one:

IDI wrote it intending to kidnap JBR for ransom but something went wrong..... she ended up dead, he/she/they scarpered forgetting/not bothered with retrieving, the RN

I didn't forget that...I didn't do all the subheadings. That would be a subheading under..."IDI wrote before", "IDI wrote during" (didn't know the other was killing while writing)...but would it be a logical subheading for "IDI wrote after" ?
Why would the IDI Ransom Note writer if it was really for RANSOM stay to write a ransom note after he/she KNEW JB was dead without hiding the body in the crawlspace or taking it with them? I think they'd get the beep out of there.

 

[BBB167893]

Whereas I'm stating there is NO rationale available to write a long long long ransom note by someone who lives there. I'm not wasting your time asking for something that I believe is inherently not valid.

Perhaps you've misunderstood me. I'm not trying to claim that there was ANYTHING rational about the decision to write the RN. I don't know if you read the entirety of my previous post, but if you will take a look at the part you glossed over, you'll see that I basically said that you had it half-right.

You said:

You're using the wildcard that PR irrationally perceived a trigger while us rational folk would not perceive a trigger.

To which I responded:

It's one thing to say that PR irrationally perceived a trigger (and I'm not saying that she wasn't irrational). But the idea that there's this clear definition between rational people and irrational people chafes me. Indeed, that's sort of the point that I'm making: IDI tends to see things in terms of black-and-white, and this is a good example. I'm not necessarily trying to differentiate PR from "us rational folk"; I'm saying that a rational person can easily do irrational things if the right elements come together.

I'm not trying to say that PR's decision was rational. I'm saying it WASN'T. But more importantly, I'm saying that rational and irrational are not as clear-cut and neat as you make it out to be, and that when the right elements come together, rationality goes right out the window. You can call that a "wildcard" if you like; ask me if I care. But you know it's true.

Just calling 'em like I see 'em.

No doubt.

Circular reasoning can get out of hand even by the best of theorists.

Don't I know it!

We are all just theorists, right?

That we are, my friend. People trying to make sense of the senseless.

 

[Steely]

The context of the conversation was whether or not the ransom note was needed to steer police away from the family. The crime scene evidence is/was doing a fine job of that.

A guilty JR and PR would know ahead of time that 1500 handwritten letters claiming to be foreign while using good English composition would be studied by the FBI and would become the biggest threat of linking them to the crime.

RDI needs to justify the ransom note in PR/JR's eyes, but it cant be done.

Would they both know that ahead of time? I think JR would but the RN fits with PR's theatrical nature. I think if it is RDI that PR wrote it without JR's influence or limited influence. IF RDI and the death was accidental/unintentional homicide (child abuse ending in death or child abuse with accidental fall or shove into hard surface covered by pedophile staging which looks so extreme nobody could believe it was done by parents) they would be in a PANIC. Or if this was an intentional killing by a parent then that parent's mental state would be suspect, right? And that RN could be the result of the undiagnosed psychiatric disorder which led the parent to kill their own child.

 

[Toltec]

Instead of taking her kidnap victim out the nearest door, takes a detour to the basement and sexually assault her?

What to do? What to do?

 

[BBB167893]

Would they both know that ahead of time? I think JR would but the RN fits with PR's theatrical nature. I think if it is RDI that PR wrote it without JR's influence or limited influence. IF RDI and the death was accidental/unintentional homicide (child abuse ending in death or child abuse with accidental fall or shove into hard surface covered by pedophile staging which looks so extreme nobody could believe it was done by parents) they would be in a PANIC. Or if this was an intentional killing by a parent then that parent's mental state would be suspect, right? And that RN could be the result of the undiagnosed psychiatric disorder which led the parent to kill their own child.

Steely, I wish you better luck than I've had up to now.

 

[MurriFlower]

I didn't forget that...I didn't do all the subheadings. That would be a subheading under..."IDI wrote before", "IDI wrote during" (didn't know the other was killing while writing)...but would it be a logical subheading for "IDI wrote after" ?
Why would the IDI Ransom Note writer if it was really for RANSOM stay to write a ransom note after he/she KNEW JB was dead without hiding the body in the crawlspace or taking it with them? I think they'd get the beep out of there.

Ok, well for me there seems to be a couple of possibilities, but the simple one is that the person(s) entered the house when the R's were at the Whites. The intention was to get some money from them, so they may have searched the house, perhaps even stole a few small items. Either they had intended all along, or formulated the plan on the spot while they waited, to fake the kidnapping of the daughter. When they came home and were asleep, she was to be taken from her bed, bound and gagged, wrapped in a blanket and stored in the crawl space under the house. They would then phone from nearby, read out the RN they had prepared earlier, collect the ransom money, then phone the Rs and tell them where their daughter was.

What went wrong is yet to be determined. But the death was not planned or intended. They forgot to hide her body and if they had done so they could have still collected the money. Forgot to pick up the RN, which being handwritten, should have been able to be traced back to the writer. They must have been very rattled. They must have made mistakes in their haste to get the hell out of there. How very fortunate for them, when PR was suspected of writing the RN, and therefore of killing her own daughter. How very fortunate also that the cops were so focused on the parents they didn't look properly for evidence of an IDI.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Would they both know that ahead of time? I think JR would but the RN fits with PR's theatrical nature. I think if it is RDI that PR wrote it without JR's influence or limited influence. IF RDI and the death was accidental/unintentional homicide (child abuse ending in death or child abuse with accidental fall or shove into hard surface covered by pedophile staging which looks so extreme nobody could believe it was done by parents) they would be in a PANIC. Or if this was an intentional killing by a parent then that parent's mental state would be suspect, right? And that RN could be the result of the undiagnosed psychiatric disorder which led the parent to kill their own child.

Yeah and then they sprinkled some skin cells from an unknown male inside her underwear on that assault blood, and on the longjohns twice. Helps make it look like an intruder did it, huh! Bang what a stroke of luck!!!!!Sheeeesh.

Hmm wait better check my own underwear and longjohns. Maybe there's DNA there, not from my family or friends but from an unknown male. You know its like dust. Its everywhere!:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

 

[Agatha_C]

Yeah and then they sprinkled some skin cells from an unknown male inside her underwear on that assault blood, and on the longjohns twice. Helps make it look like an intruder did it, huh! Bang what a stroke of luck!!!!!Sheeeesh.

Hmm wait better check my own underwear and longjohns. Maybe there's DNA there, not from my family or friends but from an unknown male. You know its like dust. Its everywhere!:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

http://www.scienceshorts.com/Ssw/051217.htm
One of the frustrating things about house cleaning is that no matter how clean you try to keep things, household dust still accumulates. That grey dust, it turns out, is largely human skin. The tiny flakes of skin that we lose on a daily basis create over seventy percent of the dust in our home.
Dry skin is a translucent grey colour. Of course humans come in different colours, but the pigments which colour our skin are found beneath the layer that we shed. Blood vessels, too, are much deeper down, and are not lost as skin sheds. Therefore, there is neither blood nor pigment to colour the grey skin dust.
The epidermis, or outer layer of skin, sheds skin cells and replaces them with healthy new cells. The epidermis is completely replaced once a month. It’s estimated that everyone sheds about half a kilogram of skin a year, as our skin cells are continually replaced. Unfortunately, we don’t replace the lower layer of skin called the dermis where scars and stretch marks occur. Since this layer doesn’t shed, the scars stay with us.
Beyond the seventy percent of skin dust, the remaining thirty percent of house dust comes in different colours because it’s mostly wind blown soil, varying according to our geographic location.
So next time you dust, remember that grey powder is largely made up of members of your family or friends who’ve left it behind.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

http://www.scienceshorts.com/Ssw/051217.htm
One of the frustrating things about house cleaning is that no matter how clean you try to keep things, household dust still accumulates. That grey dust, it turns out, is largely human skin. The tiny flakes of skin that we lose on a daily basis create over seventy percent of the dust in our home.
Dry skin is a translucent grey colour. Of course humans come in different colours, but the pigments which colour our skin are found beneath the layer that we shed. Blood vessels, too, are much deeper down, and are not lost as skin sheds. Therefore, there is neither blood nor pigment to colour the grey skin dust.
The epidermis, or outer layer of skin, sheds skin cells and replaces them with healthy new cells. The epidermis is completely replaced once a month. It’s estimated that everyone sheds about half a kilogram of skin a year, as our skin cells are continually replaced. Unfortunately, we don’t replace the lower layer of skin called the dermis where scars and stretch marks occur. Since this layer doesn’t shed, the scars stay with us.
Beyond the seventy percent of skin dust, the remaining thirty percent of house dust comes in different colours because it’s mostly wind blown soil, varying according to our geographic location.
So next time you dust, remember that grey powder is largely made up of members of your family or friends who’ve left it behind.

Yet another feeble attemt to make two separate collections of fresh skin cells that match more DNA deposit on assault blood on inside crotch of JBR's underwear, that did NOT match the skin cells expected to be in the house, in nonrandom locations relative to events of that night, in nonrandom amounts thus enabling successful DNA test profile development, seem to be nothing more than happenstance. Please spare me the random dust lecture as it doesn't seem applicable, now does it.

Here let me help you: since this DNA is inarguably nonrandom, I suggest RDI focus on innocent nonrandom transfer scenarios, including an encounter with JBR while alive at the Whites who escaped testing, or post-mortem lab worker that escaped testing, or some other dude who escaped testing.

 

[SunnieRN]

Yeah and then they sprinkled some skin cells from an unknown male inside her underwear on that assault blood, and on the longjohns twice. Helps make it look like an intruder did it, huh! Bang what a stroke of luck!!!!!Sheeeesh.

Hmm wait better check my own underwear and longjohns. Maybe there's DNA there, not from my family or friends but from an unknown male. You know its like dust. Its everywhere!:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

You got that one right hotyh!! Good job!

Threes:

1)The number of people left alive in the R's residence when the ransom note was found.

2)Phone calls, Whites, Father Rol, Fernies, but suspiciously absent, the Steins. Of course technically there was the 911 call, as well as the call to Mike, the pilot, or actually the co pilot, but this is in reference to friends called. Which according to the RN assured JB would be killed. Well beheaded, but we all know that didn't happen.

3)The number of searches John made, within the house. One in JonBenets room, one when he 'disappeared' for awhile and discovered and closed the broken window (that FW had moved the suitcase under) and the one where he found Jon Benet. Amazing at how in all three searches he disturbed evidence and contaminated crime scenes.

4)Number of times JonBenet was moved after staging. Up stairs, to under the tree, out of the house.

5)Times the pilot or co pilot were called that day.

6)Number of people in the family that heard John say he found JB at 11:00.

Do I think any of these were intentional? No. Do I think these could all easily be tweaked? Of course, easily as this is surface and doesn't tell us too much of ALL the events. The big picture. DDo I think the number three is significant to the case? Nopey nope nope!

 

[Agatha_C]

Yet another feeble attemt to make two separate collections of fresh skin cells that match more DNA deposit on assault blood, that did NOT match the skin cells expected to be in the house, in nonrandom locations relative to events of that night, in nonrandom amounts thus enabling successful DNA test profile development, seem to be nothing more than happenstance. Please spare me the random dust lecture as it doesn't seem applicable, now does it.

HOTYH,

Ummmm, nowhere did I compare touch DNA with dust (although.....). I was however, refering to your dust being everywhere and some guys cells landing in your drawers/underoo's comments; When in fact, its quite possibly the case. Now you can call it feeble if you like, (I'm used to your rude remarks) I'll call it science, better yet proven science therefore a fact. Oh, and since you mentioned it, it is one heck of a good explanation for touch DNA (also a proven science, whether you say so or not)...

 

[SunnieRN]

It's been HOW many years now that this 9 marker, "DNA", that is possibly only stutter has been around? Amplified DNA that they could not even get to a full set of markers. "DNA" that is degraded and has been theorized to be from multiple contributors. Oh and bye the way, has NOT been matched to ANYONE.

Your explanations bear no merit whatsoever. "Smile and wave boys, just smile and wave". Or, smoke and mirrors if you prefer. You are correct about feeble attempts however, as you tend to forget about experts, links and proof. You also don't account for KNOWN DNA that should be there and is NEVER mentioned or discussed by IDI's. That has never proven to be there, in the same locations, as it should be.

One more thing. Your current argument has been that JB didn't have to be undressed to be molested. So tell me why an IDI, who left NO other dna would have left it on her articles of clothing, especially with the argument that she wasn't redressed or undressed?

Yet another feeble attemt to make two separate collections of fresh skin cells that match more DNA deposit on assault blood on inside crotch of JBR's underwear, that did NOT match the skin cells expected to be in the house, in nonrandom locations relative to events of that night, in nonrandom amounts thus enabling successful DNA test profile development, seem to be nothing more than happenstance. Please spare me the random dust lecture as it doesn't seem applicable, now does it.

Here let me help you: since this DNA is inarguably nonrandom, I suggest RDI focus on innocent nonrandom transfer scenarios, including an encounter with JBR while alive at the Whites who escaped testing, or post-mortem lab worker that escaped testing, or some other dude who escaped testing.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It's been HOW many years now that this 9 marker, "DNA", that is possibly only stutter has been around? Amplified DNA that they could not even get to a full set of markers. "DNA" that is degraded and has been theorized to be from multiple contributors. Oh and bye the way, has NOT been matched to ANYONE.

Its a splinter cell that departs from the mainstream media characterization (intruder DNA exhonerates the R's) and comes up with the fringe idea (multiple contributors).

I admire your position, but I just wanted to remind you what your position is.

Multiple contributors??? Are you serious? Let me guess, PR skin cells + JR skin cells = unknown male skin cells, right? Bode would be in hysterics on your post, as I've noted you are frequently hysterical on IDI posts.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

RDI loses credibility by not ever acknowledging that the DNA could belong to JBR's killer. Justice and truth is obfuscated by presenting other scenarios as more likely or implying there could have been no direct transfer scenario of skin cells by an unknown male donor. This is because RDI comes up with innocent secondary transfer scenarios but doesn't place direct transfer by criminal scenario alongside. It has been omitted.

Not only did the DNA evidence cause RDI to lose credibility, but most RDI's unwavering reaction to it, omitting the criminal possibility when listing scenarios, only made it lose even more credibility. This is what I believe, and I dont need to be IDI to believe this.

To clear up some RDI misinformation, there's nothing degraded about the skin cell DNA. Touch DNA is processed the same as semen or blood, and produces a complete profile that then matched the original 9 1/2 marker CODIS DNA, thus qualifying the original DNA profile.

Its not my fault if you're in denial of the important, significant new DNA information provided in part by Mary Lacy's efforts.

Its a sad state for RDI but I still appreciate all the effort.

 

[SunnieRN]

Its a splinter cell that departs from the mainstream media characterization (intruder DNA exhonerates the R's) and comes up with the fringe idea (multiple contributors).

I admire your position, but I just wanted to remind you what your position is.

Multiple contributors??? Are you serious? Let me guess, PR skin cells + JR skin cells = unknown male skin cells, right? Bode would be in hysterics on your post, as I've noted you are frequently hysterical on IDI posts.

hotyh, you are quite correct! I am often hysterically laughing at your convoluted and unsubstantiated claims. They are often unfortunately bizarre with no links or expert testimony to back it up. As for Bode, read what forensic experts say about touch DNA. Or don't, as you never substantiate any claims you make. Bye the way, did you decide if in your theory it was one MAAM and two other MAAM's or just one MAAM? I asked you in another spot, but maybe you;ll expand your theory here, since it is a definite DNA issue.

 

[SunnieRN]

Edited due to double post, but wanted to add that just because a piece of evidence exists, it doesn't necessarily mean it should be used. The implications of establishing guilt based upon touch DNA, are far reaching and scary. You can not control your skin cells, where they shed or the circumstances upon which your touch dna is spread. Sometimes it can be spread to a place you have not even been, due to a handshake or a hug, picking up something for someone when they have dropped it, touching a cart in the market that someone else than touches. Be prepared to have a much harder time defending your civil liberties.

Touch dna as evidence has the power to make 'big brother' able to incriminate anyone at any time for any crime.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Edited due to double post, but wanted to add that just because a piece of evidence exists, it doesn't necessarily mean it should be used. The implications of establishing guilt based upon touch DNA, are far reaching and scary. You can not control your skin cells, where they shed or the circumstances upon which your touch dna is spread. Sometimes it can be spread to a place you have not even been, due to a handshake or a hug, picking up something for someone when they have dropped it, touching a cart in the market that someone else than touches. Be prepared to have a much harder time defending your civil liberties.

Touch dna as evidence has the power to make 'big brother' able to incriminate anyone at any time for any crime.

Having said that, whoever matches this DNA can grab their ankles....

It is humorous to see all the panicking around this DNA. Why not just admit its damn fine evidence that an intruder did it and not PR or JR? News flash: thats EXACTLY what it IS.

 

[BOESP]

Having said that, whoever matches this DNA can grab their ankles....

It is humorous to see all the panicking around this DNA. Why not just admit its damn fine evidence that an intruder did it and not PR or JR? News flash: thats EXACTLY what it IS.

For starters, because it is touch DNA and because it can't be linked to an identifiable person thus generating an investigation of that person before assuming their guilt. I believe you once mentioned the term "Lynch mob mentality" or words to that effect so that works for both sides.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

For starters, because it is touch DNA and because it can't be linked to an identifiable person thus generating an investigation of that person before assuming their guilt. I believe you once mentioned the term "Lynch mob mentality" or words to that effect so that works for both sides.

If the DNA owner worked for the forensic lab or the Whites party, I would ask them: why did you kill JBR?

The DNA is still damn fine evidence of intruder. RDI embarrasses itself by arguing.