Challenge of the Masters

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by SuperDave, Feb 14, 2010.

  1. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I regard HOTYH and myself as great warriors for our respective causes, like dueling samurai or great masters of kung fu.

    The challenge was made and I accept. Today is a good day to die.

    Right now!

    I had originally meant that I would take my case to the people and let them decide that once my book hit the stands, but this is just as good.

    1) I'll admit I'm iffy as to the RN. Either one of them could have come up with the foreign faction angle. But let's not forget that JR was stationed in the Phillipines during his Navy days. Then as now, the Phillipines were rife with revolutionary activity. Some groups were communist, like the New People's Army. Others were Islamist, like Abu Sayyef. It's not unthinkable that he would have had a passing familiarity with some of them.

    2) I'm not even sure about the actual killing. The cover-up afterwards, that I'm more sure of. His shirt fibers were found in her underwear and he cannot account for them. And since it was an expensive, exclusive make, I doubt very seriously that it was anything except dry-clean-only, which means that it's highly unlikely they just "mixed in the wash."

    3) As for the "imagined" prior abuse, I can honestly say with every damn fiber of my being that it WAS just imagined! No less than seven trailblazing experts--none of them associated with supermarket rags in any fashion--all agreed independently of each other that JB had suffered old and new vaginal injuries. These are the people who know what to look for. They're SUPPOSED to know what to look for. And they weren't "armchair, Monday morning" observers either. Each one of them was right in the trenches. Each of them examined microscopic slides of tissue taken from JB's vagina. That was the clincher in each instance.

    I mention JB's boundary issues, but that doesn't really do it justice.

    I'll let some excerpts from chapter four tell the rest of the story:

    Her toilet training regressed to that of an infant. She was a frequent bed wetter, and would even wet herself during the day, requiring a change of panties. She would often ask any nearby adult to change and wipe her. But even after Patsy recovered, it didn't get much better. JonBenet was reduced to wearing training pants like a toddler. By the time of her death, the regression had taken on a new dimension: soiling.

    SNIP

    Also, in an interview for the "National Enquirer" tabloid in 2000, Patsy confessed that she had considered the possibility of John molesting JonBenet during her cancer treatments, but wrote it off. Her reasoning for doing so was very odd. She didn't consider it, then dismiss it because "oh, he'd never do something like that." She dismissed it because her mother was sleeping inside the room like a guard dog. Why did she have to keep watch in the first place, I ask.

    SNIP

    Boulder Police Detective Linda Arndt, the one who let John and Fleet root around in the basement, was deposed in a civil suit she'd brought against the city. Here's what she had to say:
    Question: Which opinions were these?

    Answer: Incest, naming the Ramseys as suspects.

    Q: This is incest between John Ramsey and JonBenet?

    A: Yes, to the whole incest dynamic in the family.

    Q: But involving John Ramsey and JonBenet, any other members?

    A: Well, specifically because she's the one who's dead.

    Q: But when you refer again to incest, it could involve any number of
    family members. I'm just trying to identify the family members when you
    use that term.

    A: Well, there's a whole dynamic, because everybody's got a role in the
    family.

    Q: The incest has an effect on family members, does it not?

    A: Well, in general terms that covers it when you talk about an act, but
    I'm talking about the dynamic.

    Q: I understand about the dynamic, but I want to get the predicate first.
    The participants in the incest, when you refer to incest, you're
    referring to John Ramsey and JonBenet and no other family members?

    A: I refer to every member of the family. Every member has a role.

    Q: But in terms of the sexual act that's implicit in the term of
    "incest," you're referring to John Ramsey and JonBenet?

    A: Yes

    In an interview for "Good Morning America" on the ABC network in 1999, Arndt, who had been present at JonBenet's autopsy, said that the coroner told her that JonBenet was the victim of sexual molestation, but he wouldn't go on record unless called into court.


    SNIP

    Lastly, John's attitude toward the issue of molestation is troubling, to say the least. When Det. Thomas mentioned the expert panel on Larry King Live, I thought John was going to reach across the table and belt him, walk off the set, or both.

    As the old saying goes, "a hit dog barks."

    I have reasons for thinking what I think. I'm often ashamed of them, but I can't brush them off. May the gods forgive me one day.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is a huge difference between opinions and facts. Cases tend to be solved by the latter during a discovery process. Here are some examples of some real hard facts which led to convictions:

    "Most crucial was the matching of a bite mark on the buttock of victim Lisa Levy to the Bundy's distinctive, crooked and chipped teeth."

    "Tracking the circulation of the bills used in the ransom payment, authorities were led to Bruno Hauptmann, who was found with over $14,000 of the money in his garage."

    "In all, there were nearly 30 types of fiber linked to items from Williams' house, his vehicles and even his dog."

    "Irving was exposed and confessed before the book was published."

    "It had been abandoned, but police found a key piece of evidence inside: a fingerprint. Using new computer system, investigators quickly matched the print to 25-year-old Richard Ramirez and plastered his image in the media"

    "What truly linked Kelly and his gang to the kidnapping, though, was Urschel's fingerprints"

    "Forensic analysts traced the deleted data on the disk to a man named Dennis at the Christ Lutheran Church in Wichita. It didn't take long for the police to arrest Dennis Rader, who confessed"

    "Key evidence was provided by a forensic scientist who testified that the doctor's pajama top, which he claimed to have used to ward off the killers, had 48 smooth, clean holes -- too smooth for such a volatile attack. Furthermore, the scientist noted that if the top was folded, the 48 holes could easily have been created by 21 thrusts -- the exact number of times that MacDonald's wife had been stabbed. The holes even matched the pattern of her wounds"

    "In his belongings, they found a rope matching the unusual one used in the murder (which turned out to be Korean). Although DNA analysis technology was not yet an option, the extreme rarity of the rope was enough to lead to Joubert's confession. Furthermore, hair from one of the victims was found in Joubert's car."

    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    I'm sure that you believe JR abused JBR, PR got mad, JBR hit her head against something, PR wrote the note, JR helped write it, they owned the cord and tape, and the DNA is innocent. Trouble is, there are no facts here, only opinion.

    IMO, you're on a small boat named 'IMO'.

    P.S. Thread title's a little pretentious?
     
  4. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Trust me, HOTYH, no one appreciates that more than I do. But I'm of the mind that cases are not solved through facts alone. Before you say anything, hear me out. When dealing with crime, especially circumstantial cases (which I believe this is), facts have to be combined with a certain amount of psychology. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said in the persona of Sherlock Holmes, "it is in the imagination where crimes are solved, for it is in the imagination where crimes are conceived."

    Does that help?

    Did I dispute any of that? HOTYH, do not misunderstand me. You make an excellent argument. But the examples you list are not ones that I feel comfortable making to this case, for a multitude of reasons. In cases like this one, the hard facts are often only gathered by separating the two parties and interrogating them until one decides to give the other up. Don't take my word for that, either. That's how Joel Steinberg was convicted: his wife turned on him to save herself. We've been over that ground many times. Makes no difference now, no matter who did it.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    HOTYH, I may have been wrong about you, at least in the way that I didn't think you understood my position. That was an admirable summation, and if you don't mind, I'd like to save it.

    I would disagree with the "no facts" assertion. As I said, I have reasons for thinking what I think. You've known me a for a few years now. You know as well as anyone here that I would not take a stand on any issue unless I felt it pretty deeply, and that I don't take stands on issues based on trivial or whimsical perceptions.

    I guess it's symbolic of our divergent philosophies on how cases should be handled. You want the two or three big things; I go for the combinations of little things. Neither one is effective in 100% of cases, but both are absolutely valid approaches. I respect that.

    With a crew of one, and that's just how I like it! And in the end, isn't it the same for all of us?

    LOL! Sorry. It was all I could think of.
     
  5. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    NO fibers found on JB got there because they got "mixed in the wash". In the case of the fibers found in the panties- they were NEW from the package and had not been laundered with anything. JR's shirt was wool, and while some wool can be washed (usually by hand) the panties had not been washed.
    In the case of Patsy's fibers - they were found on the INSIDE of the tape (the part actually against her skin) and wound into the garrote KNOT. The tape and garrote cord had not been laundered. Period.
     
  6. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, I can understand downplaying the importance of facts in your case.

    The "no facts" assertion isn't an assertion. Its an observation. For example, the idea that JR abused JBR is an idea, not a known fact. The idea that PR wrote the note or staged a kidnapping is an opinion, not a known fact. Compare these to Ramirez fingerprint on the inside of a car, which is a fact.


    Again, I understand why RDI would need to emphasize 'little things.' It should be pointed out that much of what you claim are 'little things' are really just opinions or interpretations and not facts.

    We'll all be needing just one big fact ultimately. And it is the only valid approach.
     
  7. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You understand nothing about me. Facts are extremely important to me. I could hardly arrive at my conclusions without them. I'm sick of this playground BS.

    I'll give you that. I have quite a list in my book. Maybe I should have just gone with that from the start.

    Somehow I DOUBT that.

    That's nonsense.

    I've learned not to tempt fate.
     
  8. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If that's the way you want it...

    I reckon that will do for now!
     
  9. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Many cases have been broken by DNA, fibers, and fingerprints being discovered in a neutral location, e.g. victim's car or house. If the suspect lives in the same house as the victim, and especially if the suspect has close contact e.g. a parent, then DNA, fibers, and fingerprints are expected to be prevalent. Its absurd, ridiculous, and tiresome for RDI to repeatedly claim they could only be criminally significant when its obvious a boatload of this material would be scattered all over eveb without any murder ever having happened.

    Its too bad for RDI that criminally significant traces of JBR were NOT found on JR or PR or their clothing. Its too bad for RDI that traces of PR or JR were NOT found underneath JBR's fingernails. Instead DNA from an unknown donor WERE found.

    I think it might help show the contrast between opinion and fact.

    RDI deals largely in opinion:

    JBR was previously abused.
    PR wrote the note.
    JR helped PR think it up.
    PR and/or JR staged a crime scene.
    The DNA is a mix of two or more DNA's.

    While IDI is clearly settled in the facts:

    Unidentified male DNA was found mixed with blood in JBR's underwear
    Unidentified male DNA was found in two places on long johns.
    These DNA samples taken from these three locations match each other.
    The DNA does not belong to anyone tested so far.
    The DNA is submitted to CODIS.
    Cord has not been sourced to the house. We don't know how the cord came to the house.
    Tape has not been sourced to the house. We don't know how the tape came to the house.



    Downplaying these facts doesn't make them go away. These facts are significant, indisputable, and they obviously indicate an intruder did it. It is only when we introduce opinion that we override what the facts have been trying to tell us over and over again.

    Fortunately for JBR now there have been more action based on the facts of the case, and less based on the opinion.
     
  10. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fact- the clothing the Rs wore that day was never turned over to the police before they left the house that night, in an absolutely astounding breach of protocol in a murder case. For this I blame the DA, who refused to allow the police to treat them like the suspects they HAD to be considered at that time. Anyone in a house at the time one of the others also there has been murdered MUST be considered a suspect, unless they are of such a young age as to make it impossible (as in an infant or toddler). It took over a year to get the clothing they wore- and even LE said there was no way to know if it was the same clothing- some of looked new, and some had been laundered obviously, as would be expected with items that had continued to be worn.
    That pretty much eliminates any chance of trying to find trace blood on the clothing.
    BOTH sides (IDI and RDI) are adversely affected by the sloppy police procedure in this case, and also by the obstruction that occurred on the part of the DA's office. The defense team was just the icing on a very vile cake.
     
  11. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Maybe you missed the point.

    Your fact doesn't make the fact of the unknown male DNA or the unsourced cord AND tape go away. These are actually real facts that exist.

    You're fact is merely suggesting that other facts may exist. How abstract is that? Please let me know when you have a real fact.

    IMO if you had JR's shirt with JBR's underwear fibers all over it, you would hold it high while ignoring the DNA and the unsourced cord and tape.
     
  12. BOESP

    BOESP Active Member

    Messages:
    2,745
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    My understanding is the DNA recovered from the blood spot in the panties was degraded. That lowers its evidentiary value.

    Touch DNA, as already discussed here, is questionable to begin with. Mary Lacy has demonstrated that her opinions are not always correct (as in the John Mark Karr fiasco) and a quick review in the archives here casts doubt on this DNA evidence being truly related to the crime. Repeating this stuff over and over doesn't make it so or more convincing.

    What evidence do you have that connects this DNA to the killer?

    Finding shirt fibers in her panties means as much to me, as a potential juror, as the degraded DNA in minute, barely detectable quantities.

    Finding fibers intertwined in the ligature and underneath the duct tape used on her mouth mean as much to me as degraded DNA and touch DNA.

    The totality of the evidence can not be ignored just to make the DNA seem more significant than it actually is.
     
  13. Ravyn

    Ravyn New Member

    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hotyh,you said you consider JR an expert here....Now since JR was there,explain why,he would say in the interview with his buddy,LS that he believed JonBonet died at 11:30 pm that night....Now this is putting it pretty close to the pineapple that she may have or may not ate...It takes 2 hours to digest..And they return home at 9:15pm...He is a true expert,to make people wonder about his innocence....
     
  14. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Absolutely.
     
  15. Ravyn

    Ravyn New Member

    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now here is something else JR said....In the interview once again with LS...Discussing the binnoculars...

    June 1998 And is she in the closet or in the refrigerator or behind the curtain.


    Strange,with a RN this is running though his mind....Now we have FW thinking she might be hinding...What? Now excuse me,I might be seeing a SFF going on here....This very well can show the RN for what it is,,,FAKE..Now didn't JR say the morning of the 26th that he checked the refrigerator...
     
  16. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ITA.
    If we can't trust the sources in this case in the first place why would we take as facts what they are stating and I mean the whole gang here Hunter,Lacy and the REST.

    Reminds me of a movie I saw recently ,can't forget one quote in it(Edge of Darkness) : "It's not what it is,it's what they make it look like!"
     
  17. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I will repeat this until I drop dead

    If the Ramsey's are innocent....the handwriting is the ONLY piece of evidence that could help find the killer.Why did they NEVER make it public on their websites or during their tv appeals?????????????????????They wanna catch "him",right???????????There are pretty good chances that someone might recognize it,even after so many years,RIGHT?????

    So tell me HOTYH,why do you think they NEVER used THE piece of evidence that would help them find the killer?So maybe LE didn't "help" them,maybe the public would have.
     
  18. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll just hope you're not a potential juror, because you would obviously assume that the fibers got there criminally when JBR could've sat on JR's shoulders, as most fathers do with their sons and daughters. This assumption would obviously lead to the false conviction of an innocent person.

    You are deciding yourself that the DNA is this-or-that when really its just a stand alone thing. It seems to me your characterization is not accurate. Your characterization oversimplifies and IMO even alters the basic facts:

    DNA was found mixed with blood in her underwear, and the markers were sufficient to submit to CODIS. Some time later, DNA was found in two locations on her longjohns. This DNA matched the DNA already submitted to CODIS years prior.

    Degraded and barely detectable are invalid characterizations of what has happened in this case. They are of adequate quality to be in CODIS and adequate quantity to be found in three (3) different places on her.

    I really, honestly don't know what you're talking about. Do you just say stuff?

    Further, a 'totality of evidence' is an abstract concept that doesn't really exist. You've either got evidence against the R's or you don't. I'm sorry but it really seems like you don't right now, doesn't it? I mean, I already know you've got no GJ indictment, no smoking gun evidence, and no BPD handwriting experts ready to testify. Is that why we need these abstract terms? To compensate for ALL THESE FAILURES?
     
  19. Ravyn

    Ravyn New Member

    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    The fibers ok, so the fibers not sourced could had come from JR or anyone near her body that morning after she was found...Cause I'm pretty sure they could had come from that...Someone wearing a blue shirt and tan pants or vise versa...But the fibers inside the 12 size panties,still have to wonder that one.....So they might not be sourced cause they walked out the front door that morning....And really the fibers couldn't come from the livingroom floor.. This is just my assumption on how I would look at the fibers,all different ways of getting there other from a phatom intruder(s)...Cause it might be the flash of the camera but the rug looks sort of tan...About the rug,I'm sure the LE checked that...Just saying other than fibers must be from the intruder, that is your assumption...
     
  20. Sophie

    Sophie New Member

    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    God, another incredible post! Honestly, after a couple of days off and starting to read with a slightly fresher eye, I am amazed all over again at the debate on here! BOESP_ that was literally World Class.

    ETA: BOESP, that last point is so true and it goes to the very heart of the role of DNA in 'beyond reasonable doubt.' I know I'm dull on the subject, but I really think massive changes have to be afoot in our mutual legal systems as the current way they operate coupled with the recent advances in science mean that getting a conviction will become nigh-on impossible. I am working on not going off onto one of my mad tangents so I'll keep this brief. Just this morning, I read about a couple of brothers who were challenging their conviction since triny traces of unknown DNA were found on the victim. They had beaten the man seven times before, their DNA was all over him and they had threatened to kill him times without number - but they have every chance of having their conviction over-turned.
     
  21. BOESP

    BOESP Active Member

    Messages:
    2,745
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Actually, what I said was, that as a potential juror, I would believe the fiber evidence would "mean as much to me as degraded DNA and touch DNA."

    You twisting my words doesn't help convince me of anything pro-Intruder.

    The panty DNA was degraded and it had to be replicated in order to even get a minimum sample quality that CODIS would accept. No match was found.

    Touch DNA could have been transferred from the panty and vice versa by JonBenet herself. You just never want to mention the problems with the weak DNA samples. You've yet to show evidence the DNA is connected to the killer.

    In addition, finding DNA (whether connected to the killer or not) does not preclude Ramsey involvement.

    "Do you just say stuff?" -- There you go attacking the messenger and not the message. That's called an illogical fallacy and your messages are full of them.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice