Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by eileenhawkeye, Jan 29, 2011.
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?
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.
Can you guys get your quoting sorted, this is doing my head in
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.
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.
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.
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??
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?
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.
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