If JonBenet's death was an accident...

Well, I guess if you discount unknown male DNA found in two places on the underclothing of the deceased as not being important, then I'm not sure that any further discussion is necessary. Because this IS A FACT, just as it IS A FACT that the three Rs were in the house. Why would you dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of the perceived unusual behaviour of someone?

I discount it because it cannot be linked exclusively to the CRIME. I discount it because it exists only on her clothing and NO where else in the crime scene or home. And because it may have been picked up on he fingers of the parents or even JB herself that day, and not every male at the White's was tested against it. And if you read the excellent post Cynic provided, it may not even rule out one of the Rs. As Cynic explained, of the DNA is a mixed sample (and it very likely is) the "unknown male DNA" may actually belong to one of the Rs.
While "behavior" may be intangible and it the DNA physical, it doesn't always follow that one is more reliable evidence than the other. If it were DNA that was sourced to an actual person, it would be different.
 
"Why would you dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of the perceived unusual behaviour of someone?" Respectfully snipped

Murri, the dna is not the only "physical" evidence found in the house. It is a very small part, as a matter of fact. The rest of the physical evidence belonged to the R's. Of course I'm talking about the fibers and paint brush to name a couple. Together with the fact that we know there were 3 members of the family in the house, how would you come to the conclusion that an intruder ever went into the home? The evidence against the R's is not just about their presence that night or their "behavior". It's both. Now, I ask you, how could you ignore the preponderance of physical evidence in favor of one piece which cannot even be connected to a name?

No Beck the DNA is a VERY LARGE part. The four red fibers found on the tape on the other hand, were amongst a large number of unidentifed fibers, some of which may be also innocently placed, some may belong to an intruder. It is not the 'preponderence of physical evidence' you claim it to be. DD thinks that JAR could have been in the house but dismisses the possibility of an unknown person, because the actual evidence (DNA) is not important, in her assessemnent. Now I ask you, how can you ignore one piece of vitally important evidence in favour of a collection of anecdotes?
 
Heyya MF.

For sure, by now .... quite deep in the JBR case discussion, we all must be quite aware or self aware of what certainties we must attach to each 'fact' we digest and process to arrive at our individual conclusions.



IDI wise, the dna instantly legitimizes an IDI possibility,

or 5th person in the home, perhaps a witness removed.
 
Murri, they are only anecdotes if you refuse to believe any of the very "real" evidence against the Ramseys. How ironic would it be if an intruder came into the home that night dressed in a black Isreali made sweater and a red article of clothing much the same as Patsy's jacket? One incident like this I might could believe, but there are more. If these folks had nothing to do with their daughter's death or cover-up they certainly did their best to cover for someone else. If you truly believe an intruder did this, can you come up with one who the R's would cover for? They certainly lied numerous times in an effort to cover for someone and it obviously was not one of their friends as they were practically all thrown under the bus!
I do not want to believe anyone in this family is guilty but until someone comes up with a logical candidate for an intruder, I will continue to believe that one of them killed Jonbenet and her parents staged it to look like an attempted kidnap/murder.
 
I discount it because it cannot be linked exclusively to the CRIME. I discount it because it exists only on her clothing and NO where else in the crime scene or home. And because it may have been picked up on he fingers of the parents or even JB herself that day, and not every male at the White's was tested against it. And if you read the excellent post Cynic provided, it may not even rule out one of the Rs. As Cynic explained, of the DNA is a mixed sample (and it very likely is) the "unknown male DNA" may actually belong to one of the Rs.
While "behavior" may be intangible and it the DNA physical, it doesn't always follow that one is more reliable evidence than the other. If it were DNA that was sourced to an actual person, it would be different.

You see DD, I have so much trouble with this take of RDI's on the evidence. Unknown DNA has no value, but if there was a person identified who was the owner of this DNA it would be different. An unknown person in the home is dismissed, but the possibility of a known person having been there is embraced. On the other hand, we have evidence of only four red fibers consistent with PR's jacket having been on the tape from JBR's mouth amongst 4,000 other pieces of lint/fibers (most unsourced to the house), but this is taken by RDI as evidence. The other fiber evidence said to implicate the Rs is unproven as the reports have never been seen let alone produced. I think the fiber has been covered, but just let me say that a few fibers which can only be said to be similar to ones from the family's clothes, found together with a large number of unidentified fibers, is never going to stand up in Court. The DNA is another matter. You state there was no other unidentified DNA in the house as if it were a fact, when it is only a fact that no other unidentified DNA was found (or even looked for). As far as we know, not even the pineapple bowl/spoon or teacup were tested for DNA, so it isn't accurate to say it does not exist anywhere else in the crime scene or house. Let's say it was also found on another item secreted away in the mountain of evidence that has never been properly examined. What would you say then?
 
Can you guys get your quoting sorted, this is doing my head in ;)
 
You see DD, I have so much trouble with this take of RDI's on the evidence. Unknown DNA has no value, but if there was a person identified who was the owner of this DNA it would be different. An unknown person in the home is dismissed, but the possibility of a known person having been there is embraced. On the other hand, we have evidence of only four red fibers consistent with PR's jacket having been on the tape from JBR's mouth amongst 4,000 other pieces of lint/fibers (most unsourced to the house), but this is taken by RDI as evidence. The other fiber evidence said to implicate the Rs is unproven as the reports have never been seen let alone produced. I think the fiber has been covered, but just let me say that a few fibers which can only be said to be similar to ones from the family's clothes, found together with a large number of unidentified fibers, is never going to stand up in Court. The DNA is another matter. You state there was no other unidentified DNA in the house as if it were a fact, when it is only a fact that no other unidentified DNA was found (or even looked for). As far as we know, not even the pineapple bowl/spoon or teacup were tested for DNA, so it isn't accurate to say it does not exist anywhere else in the crime scene or house. Let's say it was also found on another item secreted away in the mountain of evidence that has never been properly examined. What would you say then?

Well then it would give me pause, depending on what it was found on. However, until and unless the donor of the DNA is identified, I will continue to base my theories on the people I KNOW were in the house.
 
Well then it would give me pause, depending on what it was found on. However, until and unless the donor of the DNA is identified, I will continue to base my theories on the people I KNOW were in the house.

Just off the topic of JBR a little, but on the issue of unknown DNA. I was looking into some unsolved child murders here in Oz and came across a website dedicated to three siblings, the Beaumont Children, who went missing in 1966. Aside from some sightings of the children with a man, there has been absolutely no trace of the children ever found and no forensic evidence. The murders brought to an end to the innocence of children in Australia, when mum would send you off to play, with only the proviso of getting home before dark!! Suddenly parents wanted to keep children within sight.

There are four main suspects, none of these can be proven to have been in the city where the children disappeared, but neither can any of them be ruled out. At least two of these boasted that they had murdered the Beaumont children. One of these four suspects was declared criminally insane, and he is suspected to have committed several other child murders, (which could be proved/disproved with DNA) but because he has never been convicted, he cannot be compelled by law to provide a DNA sample.

I think of each of these suspects, who could have all committed the murder of the three children, in relation to the murderer of JBR.

Did he die before he could commit other murders.
Had he committed other murders that were not linked to JBR but none since.
Has he committed murders before and since but has never been caught.
Was he never convicted due to insanity or is he in a mental institution for other reasons.
Is he in jail for some offence that doesn't require his DNA to be taken.
Was her murder a one off and the perp has never committed another.
 
The Beaumonts are a very different case Murri.
They were away from their home and their parents.
Derek Percy (the insane one) is probably the best bet, but the Beaumont case isn't a DNA case like some of the others.

As with real estate, murder is all about location, location, location.
 
The Beaumonts are a very different case Murri.
They were away from their home and their parents.
Derek Percy (the insane one) is probably the best bet, but the Beaumont case isn't a DNA case like some of the others.

As with real estate, murder is all about location, location, location.


Location eh? So we start at the centre (in the house) and work our way out? Is the next door neighbour any more likely (statistically) to be the murderer than someone living in the next block or across town? Or is location more in the nearness of their association to the Rs than physical location. Beginning with the R's and radiating out to their closest associates -- friends, relatives and workers in their house, to extended family and friends of friends.

Problem with RDI, is they started at the centre and stayed there.
 
The Beaumonts are a very different case Murri.
They were away from their home and their parents.
Derek Percy (the insane one) is probably the best bet, but the Beaumont case isn't a DNA case like some of the others.

As with real estate, murder is all about location, location, location.

Percy doesn't strike me as someone who would have played with the children before abducting them, as was described by people who saw the man with the kids. He seemed a very incompetent abductor really being caught within 3 hours of the murder of the other girl, while washing blood from his clothes.

Of the suspects named, I rather like Arthur Brown, as he was charged for a similar crime that he was never convicted of. He resembles descriptions of the man seen with the Beaumont children as well as the abductor of the Adelaide oval children. Still, it could be someone else entirely.
 
Location eh? So we start at the centre (in the house) and work our way out? Is the next door neighbour any more likely (statistically) to be the murderer than someone living in the next block or across town? Or is location more in the nearness of their association to the Rs than physical location. Beginning with the R's and radiating out to their closest associates -- friends, relatives and workers in their house, to extended family and friends of friends.

Problem with RDI, is they started at the centre and stayed there.
BBM

Murri, this is not correct and how could you possibly know that "RDI" started at the center and stayed there? I can't speak for every RDI on this board but I do know several of these folks personally and, like me, they started out believing there was an intruder and he killed JB. Then, when the R's went on tv and the interviews and evidence were released, it slowly dawned on us what this actually was. A family with too much pride and money to admit that they were human and a very bad accident had happened. This is where my problem with the "Intruder" began. The Ramseys believed then and continue today to believe that who they are make them above the law. When I encounter an IDI (such as yourself) who believes so vehemently in the Ramsey's innocence, I have to ask why. Please, I'm asking you to tell me why you believe the way you do. I'm not talking about dna, or any of the physical evidence (which we all know can be interperted any way one chooses), what is it that so convinces you of the R's innocence? I hope you know that I am not attacking you, I sincerely would like to know why your "gut feeling" is their innocence. This just might help me to take a new look at the Intruder.
TIA
Becky
 
BBM

Murri, this is not correct and how could you possibly know that "RDI" started at the center and stayed there? I can't speak for every RDI on this board but I do know several of these folks personally and, like me, they started out believing there was an intruder and he killed JB. Then, when the R's went on tv and the interviews and evidence were released, it slowly dawned on us what this actually was. A family with too much pride and money to admit that they were human and a very bad accident had happened. This is where my problem with the "Intruder" began. The Ramseys believed then and continue today to believe that who they are make them above the law. When I encounter an IDI (such as yourself) who believes so vehemently in the Ramsey's innocence, I have to ask why. Please, I'm asking you to tell me why you believe the way you do. I'm not talking about dna, or any of the physical evidence (which we all know can be interperted any way one chooses), what is it that so convinces you of the R's innocence? I hope you know that I am not attacking you, I sincerely would like to know why your "gut feeling" is their innocence. This just might help me to take a new look at the Intruder.
TIA
Becky

Beck

Because I am a long way away and haven't been exposed to the same level of media interest that you have in the US, I haven't formed an opinion based on these reports or TV appearances.

I think this has allowed me to look at the evidence without prejudice and evaluate what we have before us in an objective way.
 
The quotes just act up from time to time Wonder. It is bizarre as they will just as rapidly go back to quoting correctly.

Looks like it started with a half quote in post #66 and that's messed up all subsequent quotes in that line. Sorry guys, didn't notice that was happening. Always a good idea to use the preview post option before hitting reply and correcting that stuff. Perhaps one of the mods can correct??
 
The quotes just act up from time to time Wonder. It is bizarre as they will just as rapidly go back to quoting correctly.

When you quote someone, try to make sure what you are writing starts after the last bracket ] that has the word "QUOTE" in it. If you delete part of someone's post when you quote them, just be sure both sets of quote brackets appear in the quote.
That will usually work. Some people know how to post their comments in-between someone else's post when they quote, but I always write my comment after the end of the quote.
 
I want to believe IDI. I sincerely believed IDI. I just cant anymore. My reasons are not because i was over exposed by a biased media! My opinion comes from alot of reading! There are very good books out there about this crime Murri..they are not all one sided. Have you read some of them?
 
I want to believe IDI. I sincerely believed IDI. I just cant anymore. My reasons are not because i was over exposed by a biased media! My opinion comes from alot of reading! There are very good books out there about this crime Murri..they are not all one sided. Have you read some of them?

But you see when you read a book, someone else's opinion comes through.

That bias happens here all the time. We see a small piece of 'evidence' and then it has a RDI spin put on it, and it turns into something that backs their theory. The size 12 underwear is an example. On the other hand, DNA found in places that indicate an unknown person handled the childs clothing in areas that relate to the crime is dismissed as having come from an innocent source. So now do you see my point of view?

Is there one single book that you can say looks at evidence fairly, examining both from an RDI and IDI point of view? This is what I try to do. I find much of the RDI evidence is anecdotal and unsubstantiated. You have to use your own resources and intelligence and work it out for yourself. A book on such a case merely seeks to convince the reader of what the writer believes to be true. The fact that you are convinced means the writer has done a good job, not that he/she is correct.

Now if someone wants to write a book, presenting both sides with the factual evidence available, and where they are using anecdotal evidence this is clearly shown and not presented as fact, then I will be the first one to the book shop.
 
But you see when you read a book, someone else's opinion comes through.

That bias happens here all the time. We see a small piece of 'evidence' and then it has a RDI spin put on it, and it turns into something that backs their theory. The size 12 underwear is an example. On the other hand, DNA found in places that indicate an unknown person handled the childs clothing in areas that relate to the crime is dismissed as having come from an innocent source. So now do you see my point of view?

Is there one single book that you can say looks at evidence fairly, examining both from an RDI and IDI point of view? This is what I try to do. I find much of the RDI evidence is anecdotal and unsubstantiated. You have to use your own resources and intelligence and work it out for yourself. A book on such a case merely seeks to convince the reader of what the writer believes to be true. The fact that you are convinced means the writer has done a good job, not that he/she is correct.

Now if someone wants to write a book, presenting both sides with the factual evidence available, and where they are using anecdotal evidence this is clearly shown and not presented as fact, then I will be the first one to the book shop.


Death of Innocence brings to mind the Ramseys trying to convince people of their innocence.
 
So, Ok, Ames. Let's just say there WAS another person in the house that night. In your opinion, would that make this person more likely, less likely, or equally likely to be the murderer?

But, you CAN'T say that there WAS another person, because there is no proof of another person. The only KNOWN people to have been in the Ramsey house that night, are the Ramseys. That and the lies that they told, and saying one thing in one interview and a totally different thing in another, there is NO evidence of an intruder (and don't give me that touch dna "evidence"....nobody knows WHO left it, or WHEN it was left...so it doesn't count. If the other things such as the cord was tested, and the SAME touch DNA was found, THEN IMO...we would have some hard evidence). It's not like you said...that RDI's believe that since the Ramsey's were in the house...that makes them automatically quilty...it's THAT and the combination of the other things that equal guilty. IOW...house + lies + inconsistancies + zero evidence of an intruder + distancing themselves from things that they OWNED (pineapple bowl) + a whole lot of other things, like their actions right after JB's body was found = GUILTY. IMO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
145
Guests online
2,558
Total visitors
2,703

Forum statistics

Threads
590,028
Messages
17,929,184
Members
228,043
Latest member
Biff
Back
Top